OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 05:43:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What warrants believers creating there own Jurisdiction?  (Read 6867 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« on: June 11, 2008, 01:42:40 AM »

Here is a thread to discuss what would warrants someone creating there own jurisdiction in the church to fight a perceived heresy. I would like to see the what could be warranted from "schismatic" churches like Greek Old Calanderist, Milan Synod etc. It would be great if believers from each respective jurisdiction could help me in understanding, I would be very grateful. 
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2008, 01:45:45 AM »

Here is a thread to discuss what would warrants someone creating there own jurisdiction in the church to fight a perceived heresy. I would like to see the what could be warranted from "schismatic" churches like Greek Old Calanderist, Milan Synod etc. It would be great if believers from each respective jurisdiction could help me in understanding, I would be very grateful. 

First-Second Synod. You are welcome.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2008, 01:54:18 AM »

First-Second Synod. You are welcome.

What do you mean?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2008, 02:07:21 AM »

He means Canon 15 from that Council:

Quote
"The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2008, 02:15:08 AM »

He means Canon 15 from that Council


Thanks Asteriktos. Now Suaiden what I would like to know is what the EP or any of the other churches in communion with the EP have done to warrant a schism?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 02:15:20 AM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2008, 09:18:58 AM »

Quote: I would like to know is what the EP or any of the other churches in communion with the EP have done to warrant a schism?

Many people feel that the EP is indeed "teaching heresy barehaded in the Church" by its continual ecumenist pronouncements, activities, etc. When the EP states that the Roman Catholic church is the "other lung" of Christianity, or that Orthodoxy and Rome are "sister churches," it denigrates the uniqueness of Orthodoxyas THE Church of Christ, implying (or stating outright...) that the Roman Catholic church is equal to the Orthodox Church as an effective means of salvation, as a True Church of Christ...In fact, I do not understand myself how people can claim NOT to see these problems in the ecumenist pronouncemenyts of the EP.
And dont even start with the "dont you want unity?" thing! Unity, yes-when Rome becomes Orthodox! Not when Orthodoxy beocmes something acceptable to Rome! Not when Orthodoxy rejects its status as THE True Church of Christ for a political unity with Rome in order to (hopefully) protect the EP from the Turkish government...
Also, many people feel the same about the activities of the Patirarchate of Antioch with the Oriental Orthodox Syrian church...the Oriental Orthodox flatly reject all but the first three Ecumenical Councils, yet, they cannot be called "heretics" because it isnt polite...what else would one call those who reject all but the first three Ecuemnical Councils?
Other Churches of "World Orthodoxy" have thier own shorcomings in the ecumenical arena-a Patriarch of Alexandria has called Mohammed a "prophet of
God," ... Met Vesvolod of the Ukrianian Orthodox Church under the EP called the Greek catholic Ukrainian Church "the heirs of Saints Vladimir and Olga,"... irt goes on and on, there isnt enough room here to catalog it all-but it all amounts to the same thing-denying the unique position of the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ, which is heresy by anyone's measure-except of course those politically correct persons who recognize NOTHING as heresy-they bleieve in a free for all anythign goes type of environment, obviously....
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2008, 07:22:57 PM »

^ OK, what do you do in your Jurisdictions differently to counteract these "alleged" heresies by the EP and other Patriarchs?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2008, 08:22:38 PM »

^ OK, what do you do in your Jurisdictions differently to counteract these "alleged" heresies by the EP and other Patriarchs?

Hmm. Well, for one thing, from layperson to Metropolitan or Archbishop, NO one does joint prayer services or photo-ops with heretics.... I mean, that's the most obvious thing. We also universally agree that you're really not supposed to do that.  I mean, that's a pretty major thing. Like, when you're free of ecumenism, you don't have to make excuse for it.

So concelebrating and receiving communion from say a Greek Catholic monastery is a no-no for laypeople and Bishops alike.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 08:38:19 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2008, 08:33:01 PM »

So concelebrating and receiving communion from say a Uniate monastery is a no-no for laypeople and Bishops alike.

What Greek Catholic Monastery are you referring to?
You do realize that using the "U" word is a big no-no in this forum.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2008, 08:39:12 PM »

What Greek Catholic Monastery are you referring to?
You do realize that using the "U" word is a big no-no in this forum.

Thank you for allowing me to correct that. My mistake.  In any case, I am referring to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneau and the Greek-Catholic monastery in Romania last week.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2008, 08:46:11 PM »

And dont even start with the "dont you want unity?" thing! Unity, yes-when Rome becomes Orthodox! Not when Orthodoxy beocmes something acceptable to Rome! Not when Orthodoxy rejects its status as THE True Church of Christ for a political unity with Rome in order to (hopefully) protect the EP from the Turkish government...

Leave that to the Archons of the EP who like to write letters to Condoleeza Rice every time they are subjected to Turkish security checks before entering the Phanar.  That issue is political and is being dealt with under existing Treaties and International Law.  If and when Turkey joins the EU, maybe some of these problems are resolved and others will pop up in their place.

Also, many people feel the same about the activities of the Patirarchate of Antioch with the Oriental Orthodox Syrian church...the Oriental Orthodox flatly reject all but the first three Ecumenical Councils, yet, they cannot be called "heretics" because it isnt polite...what else would one call those who reject all but the first three Ecuemnical Councils?

They are not heretics because they use different language to imply the same thing.  Significant time is required if and when OO's return to the EO fold.  The OO's did not establish a secular state like the Vatican nor have they bothered anyone of significance.

Other Churches of "World Orthodoxy" have thier own shorcomings in the ecumenical arena-a Patriarch of Alexandria has called Mohammed a "prophet of  God," ... Met Vesvolod of the Ukrianian Orthodox Church under the EP called the Greek catholic Ukrainian Church "the heirs of Saints Vladimir and Olga,"... irt goes on and on, there isnt enough room here to catalog it all-but it all amounts to the same thing-denying the unique position of the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ, which is heresy by anyone's measure-except of course those politically correct persons who recognize NOTHING as heresy-they bleieve in a free for all anythign goes type of environment, obviously....

OK, I'll repeat my question (to the same probable non-answers) in that how do your Jurisdictions maintain the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ when the other 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches have apostasized from your respective points of view?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2008, 08:51:00 PM »

Thank you for allowing me to correct that. My mistake.  In any case, I am referring to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneau and the Greek-Catholic monastery in Romania last week.

Thank You. 

OK, if I were a member of the Church of Romania, I would be justified in creating my own "Orthodox" jurisdiction because an 85 year old Metropolitan erred?  The lapsed Hierarch will be dealt with in His own Church by his own Synod?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2008, 11:14:49 PM »

Thank You. 

OK, if I were a member of the Church of Romania, I would be justified in creating my own "Orthodox" jurisdiction because an 85 year old Metropolitan erred?  The lapsed Hierarch will be dealt with in His own Church by his own Synod?

If I was a Bishop, and my brother Bishops said "we are breaking communion with this heresiarch"? Yes, if I would say that's justifiable after calling a person to trial.

He didn't "err". He knew exactly what he was doing and where he was.  More importantly, this "error" would not have occurred were it not for the atmosphere created by ecumenism, pan-religious meetings, et cetera.  Now you are dealing with an incontrovertible violation of the faith.  That means you *have* to do something.  The fact that our complaints *force* the Synod to do something is where it makes one question where the true Synod is.  Because a hierarchy officially committed to selling out Orthodoxy piecemeal gives one little trust that their hierarchs can keep the vows they made when they were elevated.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2008, 11:47:54 PM »

Examining Canon 15 of the 1st & 2nd Synod:

On the one hand, we see in this canon a continuation of the discipline that a bishop must be in communion with his Patriarch and his brother hierarchs in the Church universal to be considered a true bishop.  A bishop cannot separate himself from this communion before a verdict is rendered against his Patriarch, lest he be deemed a schismatic.

The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgement against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church.



On the other hand, I do see in this canon a precedent for the actions of those who in total sincerity of faith break themselves off from their Patriarch to resist the spread of heresy and preserve the ancient Traditions of the Church.  Sure, they're visibly separated from the Church, but I don't think they have really set themselves outside of the Church's boundaries.

But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.


So now the question:  Where is the balance to be found between these two apparently contradictory precedents?  This canon does mention that the alleged heresy must be defined by holy Synods or Fathers for it to be a genuine heresy warranting one's separation from the heretic Patriarch.  But, with the myriad of differing interpretations of the Synods and Fathers regarding their definition of ecumenical heresy, together with the divergent understandings of what constitutes modern day "ecumenism" and the aims and goals of today's "ecumenists", whom are we to believe as representing the True Faith?

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.  Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22)
Logged
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #14 on: June 12, 2008, 12:45:17 AM »

QUOTE: Leave that to the Archons of the EP who like to write letters to Condoleeza Rice every time they are subjected to Turkish security checks before entering the Phanar.  That issue is political and is being dealt with under existing Treaties and International Law.  If and when Turkey joins the EU, maybe some of these problems are resolved and others will pop up in their place.

    It would be swell to leave it to the Archons of the EP; unfortunately, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has seen fit to do otherwise-that is, put the Orthodox Faith on the "line" as a means of hoping to gain allies against the Turkish government. If you are in the news as the "leader of the world's xxx-million Orthodox Christians,"and courtin' the Pope a couple times a year...how can they (the world) ignore you? And you want to trust in international treaties? International Treaties like the one dealing with Mount Athos? That treaty doesn't mention the Patriarchate of Constantinople ordering in the troops on Mount Athos block mail deliveries and food deliveries and eventually to throw out a few monks who they don't like....

QUOTE: They are not heretics because they use different language to imply the same thing.  Significant time is required if and when OO's return to the EO fold.  The OO's did not establish a secular state like the Vatican nor have they bothered anyone of significance.

Ok, let me ask the question yet again-this is one of those questions that somehow are always conveniently totally ignored when asked-exactly what, then  do you call someone or some institution that completely rejects all but the first three ecumenical councils? Orthodox? I don't think so! And they do not use "different language" for this rejection-it has been stated plainly...and you said it yourself- "if and when the OO's return to the EO fold." They are out of "the fold?" That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

QUOTE: OK, I'll repeat my question (to the same probable non-answers) in that how do your Jurisdictions maintain the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ when the other 15 autocephalous Orthodox Churches have apostasized from your respective points of view?

"To the same non-answers"? That's odd-it seems I posted something that asked question, and you are the one with the "non-answers"! And, I dont think you read what I wrote-did I say anything at all about having more than one jursidiction ("your jurisdictions")? No. Did I say all 15, or actually, ANY of the Autocphalous Churches have apostasized? No. And here we go again with the "your"-"your respective points of view"? Sir, you have no idea what MY point of view is, for one thing; for another, what is with the plural? What "respective points of view" are you talking about? You lost me, I must confess. 

The question here was "What warrants believers creating there own Jurisdiction?" If you want to look back on my original post, or possibly you can trust me to copy it accurately-I wrote:
"Many people feel that the EP is indeed "teaching heresy barehaded in the Church" by its continual ecumenist pronouncements, activities, etc."
So, what does that say? Does that say "I feel...." or does that say "Many people feel..."? Perhpas you can explain to me the difference between the meaning of "I feel . . . ," and "Many people feel . . . ," and then explain how the differences in meaning pertain to my post and your reply.

I also wrote: "Also, many people feel the same about the activities of the Patriarchate of Antioch with the Oriental Orthodox Syrian church..."
Do I need to repeat the above, or do you catch my drift?

I also wrote: ". . . it all amounts to the same thing-denying the unique position of the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ."
Now-this is something else you conveniently did not address. When the Ecumenical Patriarch states that Rome is "the other lung of the Church of Christ," or that Rome is "our sister Church" (especially when the words "sister Church" in the Orthodox context have clearly ALWAYS meant nothing more or less than ANOTHER Orthodox Church...), do you feel that these words uphold or deny the unique position of the Orthodox Church as the Church of Christ? Or do you possibly feel they are neutral?

A bit more about the OO's-first, let me introduce Nikos Nissiotis: "To my knowledge, Athenagoras Kokkinakis and Nissiotis were the masterminds of the Orthodox Churchs new type of involvement in the Ecumenical Movement that was inaugurated in 1963 by Patriarch Athenagoras." (words of Constantine Cavarnos, in "Orthodox Ecumenism as a Divisive Force," http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/divisiveforce.aspx) Now to proceed with some info about the OO's: "The six Oriental Orthodox churches -- Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean and the (Indian) Malankara -- are in communion with each other and are also called ancient Oriental, lesser Eastern, and pre- or ante-Chalcedonian churches. They are the churches of the first three ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus) and do not accept Chalcedon (451). At the New Delhi WCC meeting, Mr. Nissiotis, speaking on the situation of the OO's, stated that: "once there is a schism, both parties are in schism."  The article about the OO's that these quotes come from goes on to explain the manner in which the "misunderstanding" between the EO's and OO's came about: "Whenever the paradoxical mystery of Christology and Trinity could not be fully appreciated, rationalism erected narrow domestic walls."  If Mr. Nissotis (in his lifetime a highly placed Theologian of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and director of the WCC's Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland) is correct, this seemingly would also pertain to the situation concerning the EP and the Old Calendarists, corerect? Just asking . . . also, the following statement (beginning "Whenever the paradoxical mystery...") basically tells us that the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon were not Holy Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit, but affected by worldly rationalism and "narrow" thought. And, apparently, the participants in the WCC meeting in New Delhi, in the midst of the 20th century, were apparently wiser, more thoughtful, and better equipped than the Holy Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon to bring about a to bring about  a solution to the EO - OO "differences." So-do you subscribe to such "solutions" as propagated by the leading lights of the Patriarchate of Constantinople? That the Holy Fathers of the Council of Chlcedon were in error? And only "we," in the 20th century, in the WCC, can now "fix it?" And, perhpas you can tell me how these statements about the situation reflect the unique position of the Orthodox Church as THE Church of Christ-; the statements, made and endorsed by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, are quote old, but, I am sure they are still adhered to, as since then, "Greek Orthodox Ecumenists, most notably the Patriarchs of Constantinople Demetrios and Bartholomew, have been following the directives conceived by Kokkinakis and Nissiotis, and executed by Patriarch Athenagoras." (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/divisiveforce.aspx) Other than the above quote attributed to orthodoxinfo.com., the rest of the quotes in the above paragraph are from: "Oriental Orthodox Churches," an "entry on Oriental Orthodox Churches from the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement published jointly by the World Council of Churches and the Wm. Eerdmans in 1991."  The article is further explained thus: "This entry on Oriental Orthodox Churches was written by Geevarghese Mar Osthathios and appears in the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement edited by Nicholas Lossky, José Míguez Bonino, John Pobee, Tom Stransky, Geoffrey Wainwright and Pauline Webb. The volume was published by WCC Publications (Geneva) and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand Rapids, MI) in 1991. The Dictionary is presently being revised and a second edition is forthcoming."
 
Or, perhaps I am simply wasting my time attempting to explain anything to you, because you perhaps do not agree that the Orthodox Church is Unique as THE Church of Christ, and you go along with all this sort of thing as quoted above.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2008, 01:11:42 AM »

Quote
put the Orthodox Faith on the "line" as a means of hoping to gain allies against the Turkish government.

So, if St. Constantine never saw the Cross over the Milvian River, we would all speak Latin and Greek and not have to worry about all these Jurisdictions?  St. Constantine put his pagan faith on the "line", discarded his old pagan faith and his Empire was extended for another 11 Centuries thanks to faith.

Quote
That treaty doesn't mention the Patriarchate of Constantinople ordering in the troops on Mount Athos block mail deliveries and food deliveries and eventually to throw out a few monks who they don't like....

So, the EP is now a 5 star general in the Greek Government?   Roll Eyes

Quote
you said it yourself- "if and when the OO's return to the EO fold." They are out of "the fold?" That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

We both seem to agree; what is there to disagree regarding the OO's.  You say tomato and I say tomahto; There is the difference in language between EOs and OOs.  Restoration of Communion would have to be accomplished by an Ecumenical Council - not by EP, not by the heads of 15 Autocephalous Churches, nobody else.

Quote
Did I say all 15, or actually, ANY of the Autocphalous Churches have apostasized? No. And here we go again with the "your"-"your respective points of view"?

Each Jurisdiction who has broken Communion with a Canonical Orthodox Church has done so for a reason - mostly due to the view that ecumenism is a heresy.  There may be other reasons.  I may have asked a very broad question which deserves a non-answer.  The question also deals with why Jurisdictions have broken away from any of the 15 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches except most of these Jurisdictions break Communion with the EP and Church of Greece based on my limited understanding.

Quote
When the Ecumenical Patriarch states that Rome is "the other lung of the Church of Christ," or that Rome is "our sister Church" (especially when the words "sister Church" in the Orthodox context have clearly ALWAYS meant nothing more or less than ANOTHER Orthodox Church...), do you feel that these words uphold or deny the unique position of the Orthodox Church as the Church of Christ? Or do you possibly feel they are neutral?

Who has been the "other lung" for both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy since the Great Schism?  Both have adapted with one lung for quite a long time....

Quote
Or, perhaps I am simply wasting my time attempting to explain anything to you, because you perhaps do not agree that the Orthodox Church is Unique as THE Church of Christ, and you go along with all this sort of thing as quoted above.

I would like to see more Orthodox Jurisdictions leave the WCC.  Only 10% of the Roman Empire was Orthodox Christian at the time of Constantine's Conversion and that percentage has dropped to about 4-5% of the world's population of around 7 Billion give or take (not including Roman Catholicism and Protestantism).  I believe that the Orthodox Church is truly the Church established on Pentecost which was just as true at St. Constantine's Conversion and just as true today.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 01:15:06 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2008, 01:15:55 AM »

Peter the Aleut: So now the question:  Where is the balance to be found between these two apparently contradictory precedents?  This canon does mention that the alleged heresy must be defined by holy Synods or Fathers for it to be a genuine heresy warranting one's separation from the heretic Patriarch.  But, with the myriad of differing interpretations of the Synods and Fathers regarding their definition of ecumenical heresy, together with the divergent understandings of what constitutes modern day "ecumenism" and the aims and goals of today's "ecumenists", whom are we to believe as representing the True Faith?


Obviously the Holy Fathers, and not those who have introduced novelties-as stated, the concept of the Romans as a "Sister Church" is completely a new concept; the "two lungs theory" is a completely novel concept; how can you POSSIBLY accept either if you believe in the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church as the True Church of Christ? If you believe the Romans are a "Sister Church" to the Orthodox Church, please explain how allows Orthodoxy to be Christ's True Church. These types of things are the whole basis for complaints-both small and large with the ecumenical movement, especially as practiced by Constantinople. Or dont you think such pronouncements mean anything at all?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2008, 01:19:44 AM »

Obviously the Holy Fathers, ...
But then you miss one of the points I had hoped to make.  Sure we have the Holy Fathers, but whose interpretation of the Holy Fathers is correct?  That's not very clear, not as clear as you would like to think in your black and white world.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2008, 01:48:50 AM »

So now the question:  Where is the balance to be found between these two apparently contradictory precedents?  This canon does mention that the alleged heresy must be defined by holy Synods or Fathers for it to be a genuine heresy warranting one's separation from the heretic Patriarch.  But, with the myriad of differing interpretations of the Synods and Fathers regarding their definition of ecumenical heresy, together with the divergent understandings of what constitutes modern day "ecumenism" and the aims and goals of today's "ecumenists", whom are we to believe as representing the True Faith?

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.  Against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22)

Peter,
Isn't it of necessity a matter of accepting the "where we are" of each person? By that, I mean that each poster on this thread has probably done their homework and followed a programme of reading and investigation that is, to a large extent, tailored (often inadvertantly) to suit the individual's own personality and areas of interest or quest to be sure that they are correct. All have come to conclusions (albeit conclusions that could be partially correct/completely wrong/whatever) and made the best decisions that are humanly possible. All this is based on limited knowledge; no matter how knowledgeable a person considers ourselves to be. The possibility of error is something that each of us faces. We aren't infallible, and so in recognising the possibility that we could be wrong, we throw ourselves upon the mercy of God; and extend the same mercy to those who disagree with us. Surely, it should never come to a parting of the ways?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 01:50:22 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2008, 01:53:03 AM »

But then you miss one of the points I had hoped to make.  Sure we have the Holy Fathers, but whose interpretation of the Holy Fathers is correct?  That's not very clear, not as clear as you would like to think in your black and white world.

Well, since I say there is one genuine Patristic interpretation when it comes to heresy, but you say there are a number, perhaps you could tell us of the different interpretations so we can go through them.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2008, 02:01:20 AM »

So, if St. Constantine never saw the Cross over the Milvian River, we would all speak Latin and Greek and not have to worry about all these Jurisdictions?  St. Constantine put his pagan faith on the "line", discarded his old pagan faith and his Empire was extended for another 11 Centuries thanks to faith.

You really don't want to carry that analogy further....

So, the EP is now a 5 star general in the Greek Government?   Roll Eyes

No, he controls the blockade.  That's actually well-known. Call the Government yourself and ask why.

We both seem to agree; what is there to disagree regarding the OO's.  You say tomato and I say tomahto; There is the difference in language between EOs and OOs.  Restoration of Communion would have to be accomplished by an Ecumenical Council - not by EP, not by the heads of 15 Autocephalous Churches, nobody else.

The Antiochians and the non-Chalcedonians already have common communion.

Each Jurisdiction who has broken Communion with a Canonical Orthodox Church has done so for a reason - mostly due to the view that ecumenism is a heresy.  There may be other reasons.  I may have asked a very broad question which deserves a non-answer.  The question also deals with why Jurisdictions have broken away from any of the 15 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches except most of these Jurisdictions break Communion with the EP and Church of Greece based on my limited understanding.
That is a flawed understanding. Of course communion is broken within the local Church that is dealt with. That affects other relationships.  The Catacomb Church broke communion with the MP.  They did not attempt (nor could they) communion with the EP, and now they won't bother. The EP of the 'modern world' is abhorrent to them.

Who has been the "other lung" for both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy since the Great Schism?  Both have adapted with one lung for quite a long time....

who cares?

I would like to see more Orthodox Jurisdictions leave the WCC.  Only 10% of the Roman Empire was Orthodox Christian at the time of Constantine's Conversion and that percentage has dropped to about 4-5% of the world's population of around 7 Billion give or take (not including Roman Catholicism and Protestantism).  I believe that the Orthodox Church is truly the Church established on Pentecost which was just as true at St. Constantine's Conversion and just as true today.

The Roman Empire was not the world's population. That said, they will not leave the WCC.  They have no interest in doing so.  At this point, with so many concelebrations it doesn't matter.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2008, 02:12:24 AM »

You really don't want to carry that analogy further....

Wait a minute - I was addressing A Sombra and now I'm addressing you who quoted from A Sombra   Huh

Your Jurisdiction doesn't honor Sts. Constantine and Helen?  What was wrong with stating that St. Constantine put his pagan faith on the "line?"
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2008, 02:18:25 AM »

No, he controls the blockade.  That's actually well-known. Call the Government yourself and ask why.

Please do not refer to Hierarchs as mere pronouns and names without titles.  His All Holiness is not a "he."
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2008, 02:30:53 AM »

The Roman Empire was not the world's population. That said, they will not leave the WCC.  They have no interest in doing so.  At this point, with so many concelebrations it doesn't matter.

I must say, it's pretty amazing to me to see someone who is a member of a jurisdiction considered vagante (not only by "world" Orthodoxy, but by Old Calendarist jurisdictions as well) have the audacity to come onto a public forum and judge the soundness of most of the Orthodox Church.   Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 01:08:53 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2008, 06:38:07 AM »

Peter the Aleut: But then you miss one of the points I had hoped to make.  Sure we have the Holy Fathers, but whose interpretation of the Holy Fathers is correct?  That's not very clear, not as clear as you would like to think in your black and white world.


My world is not as black and white as you may suppose . . . what interpretations? Read the Fathers for yourself! Now-let me ask a simple question-Do you believe that the Orthodox Church is unique as  THE Church of Christ, and the only Church that we know was began by Christ and the Apostles, and is efficacious for salvation? Would you not say all this is an essential dogma of the Orthodox Church?

If so-is it really all that difficult to come to the conclusion that the "Sister Church" nonsense lately adopted by Orthodox ecumenists to make the Roman Catholics feel nice is basically heresy-a denying of the qualities of the Church?
Logged
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2008, 06:38:08 AM »

Quote from SolEX01: Please do not refer to Hierarchs as mere pronouns and names without titles.  His All Holiness is not a "he."

His AllHoliness is not a "he?" Then-what is -well, you know waht I mean! In all seriousness, dude, YOU ARE WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY too uptight-I mean-my goodness! I didn't think youwould answer any of my questions to you, and I was correct-you didn't! Good work-only waht I expected!

Also-please read the following, quoted from the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate:

    "His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome  and Ecumenical Patriarch is the 270th successor of the 2,000 year-old local Christian Church founded by St. Andrew. As a citizen of Turkey, Patriarch Bartholomew’s personal experience provides him a unique perspective on the continuing dialogue among the Christian, Islamic and Jewish worlds. He..."

                                                                   See the word above^?

Now, I hope you can understand that the people who prepared the above were not bad people, they actually WORK for the EP-just want you to see that you dont have to go off the deep end and do the entire title thing everytime you mentiono HIS name, OK? Aint no thang! And, see, I guess you are mistaken-HE is a HE!
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2008, 01:57:41 PM »

Please do not refer to Hierarchs as mere pronouns and names without titles.  His All Holiness is not a "he."

That just set up "His All-Holiness" for more jokes than I could ever have possibly tossed at "His All-Holiness".
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2008, 02:02:46 PM »

Wait a minute - I was addressing A Sombra and now I'm addressing you who quoted from A Sombra   Huh

Your Jurisdiction doesn't honor Sts. Constantine and Helen?  What was wrong with stating that St. Constantine put his pagan faith on the "line?"

You drew an analogy that what the EP--Ahem, "His All-Holiness" is doing with Ecumenism is the same thing St Constantine did to "put his faith on the line". St Constantine converted from his former ways.  Following your analogy, "His All-Holiness" will likely convert to Romanism or something to "save the empire".  Which appears to be what he-- ahem, "His All-Holiness" is doing.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2008, 02:07:14 PM »

I must say, it's pretty amazing to me to see someone who is a member of a jurisdiction considered vagante (not only by "world" Orthodoxy, but by Old Calendarist jurisdictions as well) have the audacity to come onto a public forum and judge the soundness of most of the Orthodox Church.   Roll Eyes

I don't think most Old Calendarists consider the Milan Synod "vagante" at all, except those who don't know us or heard the dozens of rumors that have perpetuated about us. Everyone knows who we are and where we came from.   Some Old Calendarists have a low opinion of us but I have never heard anyone call the Milan Synod a "vagante" group.

That said (and I apologize in advance if you are part of a True Orthodox jurisdiction and have not updated your profile which says "OCA") if you are part of official Orthodoxy, I am not terribly concerned what you say Old Calendarists think of us, because if we communicate on our own with people, and we are not concerned with what official Orthodoxy thinks of us, why should we be concerned with what official Orthodox say True Orthodox think of us when we can just ask them ourselves?  I would be more concerned with your rapidly shrinking jurisdiction which appears to be losing the Albanians, the Romanians, and are now face to face with ROCOR-- your dear brothers in Christ who, like a much larger version of the MP satellites, can absorb Russian parishes....
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 02:10:02 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2008, 02:48:59 PM »

You drew an analogy that what the EP--Ahem, "His All-Holiness" is doing with Ecumenism is the same thing St Constantine did to "put his faith on the line". St Constantine converted from his former ways.  Following your analogy, "His All-Holiness" will likely convert to Romanism or something to "save the empire".  Which appears to be what he-- ahem, "His All-Holiness" is doing.

As an Emperor, St. Constantine could have been deposed and executed if he had converted to Christianity sooner - waiting until his deathbed to publicly convert to Christianity.

The point of my analogy is to say that Patriarch Bartholomew (and his immediate 2 predecessors) are taking huge risks reaching out to Roman Catholicism for reasons that nobody knows besides themselves.  Just as Christ told his followers that no one, even the angels, knows when the Son of Man is returning, no one knows what outcome these discussions will have between the Pope and the EP.  One can speculate in either direction; meanwhile, such speculation is a distraction that Satan's using to keep people confused, divided and afraid and Hierarchs are not immune to being confused, divided and afraid like the Metropolitan from Romania.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2008, 02:53:50 PM »

That just set up "His All-Holiness" for more jokes than I could ever have possibly tossed at "His All-Holiness".

I don't recall anyone in this forum tossing jokes at the Hierarchs in your Synod or any other Synod as such.  The mods here do an excellent job in cracking down on insults and ad hominems.  Tossing jokes is not consistent with the Lord's Commandment to "love your enemy as you love yourself."
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2008, 03:00:21 PM »

I didn't think youwould answer any of my questions to you, and I was correct-you didn't! Good work-only waht I expected!

I answered the most relevant questions based on what I know.

Also-please read the following, quoted from the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate:

    "He..."
                                                                   See the word above^?

The EP staff capitalize He as the first word of a sentence.  On this forum, posters are told to use titles rather than mere names or pronouns when describing Hierarchs.

Aint no thang! And, see, I guess you are mistaken-HE is a HE!

Ah, the vernacular of the inner city.  Have you (or Suaiden) heard of St. Moses the Ethiopian (aka St. Moses the Black or St. Moses the Egyptian)?

« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 03:02:46 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2008, 03:01:20 PM »

He means Canon 15 from that Council:


Which council is "that" council?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2008, 03:43:22 PM »

I don't recall anyone in this forum tossing jokes at the Hierarchs in your Synod or any other Synod as such.  The mods here do an excellent job in cracking down on insults and ad hominems.  Tossing jokes is not consistent with the Lord's Commandment to "love your enemy as you love yourself."

I didn't throw a single joke, however. I said I *could* have, but you did, by denying the Patriarch his rightful male article, thereby throwing his gender into question.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2008, 03:46:05 PM »

Ah, the vernacular of the inner city.  Have you (or Suaiden) heard of St. Moses the Ethiopian (aka St. Moses the Black or St. Moses the Egyptian)?

Of course I've heard of him. Why would it matter if I heard of St Moses? 

I doubt this is a contravention of forum rules, but it's dangerously close....
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2008, 03:46:29 PM »

Which council is "that" council?

THE FIRST-SECOND SYNOD!
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2008, 04:08:48 PM »

^^^

There was no question of anyone's gender - mere grammar.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2008, 04:15:04 PM »

Of course I've heard of him. Why would it matter if I heard of St Moses? 
I doubt this is a contravention of forum rules, but it's dangerously close....

There was no proselytizing; hence, no contravention of the forum's rules - merely I was making a point as to how someone embraced the Orthodox faith when he was known for using violence his entire life until repenting and accepting Christ.

Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2008, 04:20:55 PM »

There was no proselytizing; hence, no contravention of the forum's rules - merely I was making a point as to how someone embraced the Orthodox faith when he was known for using violence his entire life until repenting and accepting Christ.

In reference to "the inner city"....
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2008, 05:37:05 PM »

The greek old calendarists are a completely different animal from russian synods which are recent offshoots of ROCOR. The Old Calenarists of Greece were originally a Lay movement or more specifically laity and a few priests that retained the old calendar. For over 10 years there were no bishops leading them, but recieved some moral support from monastics. Aside from the monasteries, parishes were not allowed to retain the old calendar.

This lay movement was a sizeable minority and also garnered sympathy from the rest of the church. In 1935, Two bishops from the Church of Greece finally returned their diocese back to the old calendar. Another retired bishop joined the 2 bishops and formed the Old Calendar Synod. This seperation is allowed by Canon 15 of the first-second, since a few Pan-Orthodox councils condemned and anathemized the papal calendar in 1583, 1587 and in 1593.
 
The aspect of ecumenism was a later addition (1960's) to the arsenal of old calendarist accusations againt newcalendar churches. The question of 'grace' within new calendar churches was an internal dispute amongst the old calendars themselves in 1937. Not being able to agree nor understand the role of grace some adopted an extreme ecclesiology and in 1937 ensued the first schism amongst them.
Unfortunately many of the modern extremists- especially amongst the russians (as seen by the 'true russian church' who have holed themselves up in a cave in russia awaiting the end) adopted the heretical ecclesiology of the matthewites in this regard, (and not the original ecclesiology of the old calendarists of 1935) which puts a "cap" on grace, and attempts to limit and even eliminate God's uncreated energy from having the ability to work outside their circles.

 It is this heretical ecclesiology which has splintered the old calendarists, first in 1937 and then again in the 1970's and 80's. They do not  even realize that this is the fruit of this heretical ecclesiology, (one exception being the late OC Bishop Petros of Astoria who condemned this ecclesiology, going against his synod and yet never lead to schism in his churches of america),The extremists who have hijacked and try to eliminate the moderate elements within these churches dont realize St Paul was condemning them in (1Cor 1.10-13, 11.17-19).
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2008, 05:50:09 PM »

There are a few issues I'd like to correct here.

The greek old calendarists are a completely different animal from russian synods which are recent offshoots of ROCOR. The Old Calenarists of Greece were originally a Lay movement or more specifically laity and a few priests that retained the old calendar. For over 10 years there were no bishops leading them, but recieved some moral support from monastics. Aside from the monasteries, parishes were not allowed to retain the old calendar.

I would suggest reading this history. Although it is biased in favor of the RTOC (it strangely doesn't mention ROAC exists, although their Bishops were also part of the Free Russian Church of 1990-94), it contains the history of the Catacomb Russian Church between the 20's and today.
http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=1314

This lay movement was a sizeable minority and also garnered sympathy from the rest of the church. In 1935, Two bishops from the Church of Greece finally returned their diocese back to the old calendar. Another retired bishop joined the 2 bishops and formed the Old Calendar Synod. This seperation is allowed by Canon 15 of the first-second, since a few Pan-Orthodox councils condemned and anathemized the papal calendar in 1583, 1587 and in 1593.


It is important to note that the reason for so many disputes is that in 1935, the Bishops of the TOC of Greece declared the New Calendarists to be outside the Church.
 
The aspect of ecumenism was a later addition (1960's) to the arsenal of old calendarist accusations againt newcalendar churches. The question of 'grace' within new calendar churches was an internal dispute amongst the old calendars themselves in 1937. Not being able to agree nor understand the role of grace some adopted an extreme ecclesiology and in 1937 ensued the first schism amongst them.

You actually have it backwards. They first said in 1935 there was no grace, Metr Chrysostom said that there might be, the Matthewites broke off, then the Florinites returned to their original position in 1972.

Unfortunately many of the modern extremists- especially amongst the russians (as seen by the 'true russian church' who have holed themselves up in a cave in russia awaiting the end)

That's offensive. That was a bunch of loonies who moved to a cave. That is NOT the Russian True Orthodox Church, NOT the catacomb Churcha at all.

adopted the heretical ecclesiology of the matthewites in this regard, (and not the original ecclesiology of the old calendarists of 1935) which puts a "cap" on grace, and attempts to limit and even eliminate God's uncreated energy from having the ability to work outside their circles.

Again, this is why we have the Cyprianites; they decided that the 1935 , 1950 and other decisions were wrong.  Not the reverse.

It is this heretical ecclesiology which has splintered the old calendarists, first in 1937 and then again in the 1970's and 80's. They do not  even realize that this is the fruit of this heretical ecclesiology, (one exception being the late OC Bishop Petros of Astoria who condemned this ecclesiology, going against his synod and yet never lead to schism in his churches of america),The extremists who have hijacked and try to eliminate the moderate elements within these churches dont realize St Paul was condemning them in (1Cor 1.10-13, 11.17-19).

Actually, it's really quite valid theology. That's why many of the people on this forum call Old Calendarists extremists, schismatics, and even vagantes.  Since their criterion of who is Orthodox is different, then they believe themselves to be the Orthodox, and the others to be schismatics. Simple, really.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 05:50:50 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2008, 06:33:26 PM »

Dear Suaiden,

Im sure you realize, that many of the extremists (including entire old calendar synods) condemn your synod for being too soft on your eccelsiology and even graceless heretics and vagantes. Im sure you had run-ins with them.  I maybe wrong, but isnt the retired archbishop Lazar of the OCA, originally an archbishop in your synod or possibly one in communion with yours who was allowed to retain his title? (something most of the OC synods would never allow from someone coming over from your Synod) 

The 1935 declaration calls the new calendar state church schismatic (nothing about grace), but also says they will rejoin the state church if they go back to the old calendar (obviously they did not believe they were graceless). The controversy over grace was a dispute between bishops Chrysostomos and Matthew, the Archbishop Germanos, President of the Synod accepted the ecclesiology that new calendarists have grace, so Matthew left and schismed. This whole old calendar controversy on grace is simply a novelty which never should of taken place especially amongst the peasant minded bishops of those greek times (could of been avoided if they simple read canon 15!).

In 1950 Bishop Chrysostom 'hesitantly' accepted the heretical ecclesiology, even though he denounced it and even gave an interview in the cvil papers denouncing the matthewite ecclesiology many times before), thus you are correct that they adopted the matthewite position in 72), this was simply politics to unify the OC with the greek civil war having ended and new rise of persecution , he even asked his parishes to join under the matthewites upon his death. His parishes though, knowing this was a false ecclesiology -unknown to them, never did join, nor ever adopted this ecclesiology in practise ever, and remained with the same ecclesiology of thw original 1924 movement.

They prefered to remain without a bishop until they found a NEW CALENDAR ROCOR Bishop(as you know the rocor bishop had parishes using the new calendar under his supervision) to consecrate new bishops for them. When the incompetent bishop Auxentios (of sorry memory) came to power he forced everyone to sign a declaration (in one of the most poorly worded declarations ive ever read which even condemns certain old calendarists) declaring the new calendarists without grace. With the  enforcement of this declaration,  the Cyprianites came about , citing this rigid  act as not the original ecclesiology of the florinites.  Bishop Petros of Astoria also rejected this ecclesiology, basically telling bishop Auxentios to take his declaration and stick it where the sun dont shine, Bishop Petros continued recieving newcalendarists by a confession of faith and Communion without the need for (re)-chrismation (let alone baptism).

« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 06:59:28 PM by buzuxi » Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2008, 09:34:42 PM »

Dear Suaiden,

Im sure you realize, that many of the extremists (including entire old calendar synods) condemn your synod for being too soft on your eccelsiology and even graceless heretics and vagantes. Im sure you had run-ins with them.  I maybe wrong, but isnt the retired archbishop Lazar of the OCA, originally an archbishop in your synod or possibly one in communion with yours who was allowed to retain his title? (something most of the OC synods would never allow from someone coming over from your Synod) 

To be quite frank, Lazar of Ottawa and his companion being elevated to Bishops of the Synod, is-- in my opinion-- one big mistake made by our Synod.

But that's ok. It does prove that "vagantes" is not a title that you can apply to our Synod, at least not consistently.  Lazar jumped from the ROCOR to the GOC - Milan Synod to Filaret Denisenko and was finally received as a Bishop in the OCA in exchange for his parishes.  Which is proof they'll take anyone if they get something out of it.

The 1935 declaration calls the new calendar state church schismatic (nothing about grace), but also says they will rejoin the state church if they go back to the old calendar (obviously they did not believe they were graceless). The controversy over grace was a dispute between bishops Chrysostomos and Matthew, the Archbishop Germanos, President of the Synod accepted the ecclesiology that new calendarists have grace, so Matthew left and schismed.

Actually neither of them officially taught what you are saying; they weren't sure if the New Calendarists had grace.

This whole old calendar controversy on grace is simply a novelty which never should of taken place especially amongst the peasant minded bishops of those greek times (could of been avoided if they simple read canon 15!).

Our "peasant-minded" bishops were better than the masonic-minded ones who created a schism in the Orthodox Church in 1923!

In 1950 Bishop Chrysostom 'hesitantly' accepted the heretical ecclesiology, even though he denounced it and even gave an interview in the cvil papers denouncing the matthewite ecclesiology many times before), thus you are correct that they adopted the matthewite position in 72), this was simply politics to unify the OC with the greek civil war having ended and new rise of persecution , he even asked his parishes to join under the matthewites upon his death.

I am always amazed at how often the people who say that Metr Chrysostom did this for "political" reasons.  If he did not believe the "Matthewite" position, why would he tell his parishes to join under the Matthewites?

His parishes though, knowing this was a false ecclesiology -unknown to them, never did join, nor ever adopted this ecclesiology in practise ever, and remained with the same ecclesiology of thw original 1924 movement.

In fact, all the history I read says only that the parishes did not trust the influence of certain monastics and clergy, like Fr Eugene Tombros, in the matter of the consecrations, and did not like the fact that the consecrations originated from one Bishop. By contrast, your story has an obvious contradiction in it. See below.

They prefered to remain without a bishop until they found a NEW CALENDAR ROCOR Bishop(as you know the rocor bishop had parishes using the new calendar under his supervision) to consecrate new bishops for them. When the incompetent bishop Auxentios (of sorry memory) came to power he forced everyone to sign a declaration (in one of the most poorly worded declarations ive ever read which even condemns certain old calendarists) declaring the new calendarists without grace.

Why would they make him sign such a document if they didn't believe that the New Calendarists lacked grace? You said "His parishes though, knowing this was a false ecclesiology -unknown to them, never did join, nor ever adopted this ecclesiology in practise ever"... then why would they make Abp Auxentios, the head of their Synod, sign such a declaration, thus at least officially making him adopt the same ecclesiology?

With the  enforcement of this declaration,  the Cyprianites came about , citing this rigid  act as not the original ecclesiology of the florinites.  Bishop Petros of Astoria also rejected this ecclesiology, basically telling bishop Auxentios to take his declaration and stick it where the sun dont shine, Bishop Petros continued recieving newcalendarists by a confession of faith and Communion without the need for (re)-chrismation (let alone baptism).

A policy his Synod has since reversed after his death, INCLUDING within his own diocese, under the headship of Metr Pavlos.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 09:35:00 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2008, 10:20:50 PM »

quote from SolEX01: The EP staff capitalize He as the first word of a sentence.  On this forum, posters are told to use titles rather than mere names or pronouns when describing Hierarchs.

For EVERY mention? Sorry, I didn't realize you policed the illegal use of mere names and pronouns on the forum. Let's see now-I guess that would be something like OberbloßeNamenPronominaSturmFuhrer. I just love those extremelylongGermanwords, dont you? Achtung! Seien Sie beim Anblick Übertreter, das Schwein! Seien Sie wachsam, um sie herauszufinden, sie finden, und sie zerstören! Für den Nutzen des Forums!
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2008, 10:47:59 PM »

In reference to "the inner city"....

The word "thang" as used by A Sombra has a number of definitions at UrbanDictionary.com.  I merely commented on the use of the word "thang" as inner city vernacular - nothing more.

Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2008, 10:51:43 PM »

I just love those extremelylongGermanwords, dont you? Achtung! Seien Sie beim Anblick Übertreter, das Schwein! Seien Sie wachsam, um sie herauszufinden, sie finden, und sie zerstören! Für den Nutzen des Forums!

Friend, why have you called me a pig unless the translation below is wrong?  Here's the Babelfish translation below.
Note! They are at the sight trespasser, the pig! You are watchful, in order to find it out, it find, and them destroy! For the use of the forum
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2008, 11:11:39 PM »

The word "thang" as used by A Sombra has a number of definitions at UrbanDictionary.com.  I merely commented on the use of the word "thang" as inner city vernacular - nothing more.

You commented on St Moses the Black, who is commonly referred to when evangelizing "the black community". (In case you forget what you said, it was "Ah, the vernacular of the inner city.  Have you (or Suaiden) heard of St. Moses the Ethiopian (aka St. Moses the Black or St. Moses the Egyptian)?" I think that such has proven to be only marginally successful in practice. St Moses is one of many black saints, but I have my own theories as to why some Orthodox like to promote his veneration as opposed to the many dozens of others. You might want to consider promoting St Augustine, who is better known, just as black, and a teacher, but not as liked because he is, even in Orthodoxy, a "troublemaker" throughout his life.

That said, the entire "inner city" is not ethnically black (My neighborhood is mostly Puerto Rican), and there are many trying to save our souls, not out killing and robbing "decent" people. I am not black, nor heterodox, nor on "the gangsta tip" so I don't see the relevance, and the fact that you have to strain so hard to connect St Moses the Black with "inner city vernacular" says volumes.

Enough said, I am dropping it.  This conversation is starting to piss me off.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2008, 11:15:27 PM »

Enough said, I am dropping it.  This conversation is starting to piss me off.

So i don't know maybe ...... stop having it?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2008, 11:17:36 PM »

So i don't know maybe ...... stop having it?

So maybe... don't say things that sound just a wee bit, erm, racist when you don't know anything about who you're posting to?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2008, 11:22:23 PM »

So maybe... don't say things that sound just a wee bit, erm, racist when you don't know anything about who you're posting to?


I know who I am posting to. I am posting to Joseph Mahomond a reader in the Milan synod.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 11:22:35 PM by prodromas » Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2008, 11:25:49 PM »

I know who I am posting to. I am posting to Joseph Mahomond a reader in the Milan synod.

My actual family name is Suaiden, "Mahomond" being a legal error because it was my grandfather's patronymic.

But I don't know your family name.  I know little about you. I know you have king Leonidas for your userpic but you can't commit enough sins because your limbs are too weak, according to what your signature says: "the evil I don't commit is due to the weakness of my limbs", et cetera.  Sin doesn't require strong limbs. Consider putting the hunchback traitor as your userpic instead.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 11:28:42 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2008, 11:27:42 PM »

For EVERY mention? Sorry, I didn't realize you policed the illegal use of mere names and pronouns on the forum. Let's see now-I guess that would be something like OberbloßeNamenPronominaSturmFuhrer. I just love those extremelylongGermanwords, dont you? Achtung! Seien Sie beim Anblick Übertreter, das Schwein! Seien Sie wachsam, um sie herauszufinden, sie finden, und sie zerstören! Für den Nutzen des Forums!


Please provide a translation of these terms into English.  Veniamin, FFA Moderator
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,829


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2008, 11:32:44 PM »

Your associate A Sombra started down this road by using the word, "thang" and insulting me in German Huh

Wow, the anger in the post below is seething.  To return to the thread, new Jurisdictions are created because of Anger which is one of the 7 deadly sins last time I checked.  Someone gets angry at the EP for switching calendars, create another jurisdiction not caring that in God's Kingdom there's no such thing as time or space.  Someone gets angry because he won't be consecrated by one Hierarch, find another Jurisdiction which will consecrate that Hierarch.

Friend, Cain was angry with his brother Abel and killed him.
Friend, Moses was angry with the children of Israel for building and worshipping the Golden Calf and shattered the 10 Commandments written by God.
Friend, Jesus Christ wasn't angry that he was mocked and crucified and He gave eternal life to all of us.

Why are you and A Sombra angry?

You commented on St Moses the Black, who is commonly referred to when evangelizing "the black community". (In case you forget what you said, it was "Ah, the vernacular of the inner city.  Have you (or Suaiden) heard of St. Moses the Ethiopian (aka St. Moses the Black or St. Moses the Egyptian)?" I think that such has proven to be only marginally successful in practice. St Moses is one of many black saints, but I have my own theories as to why some Orthodox like to promote his veneration as opposed to the many dozens of others. You might want to consider promoting St Augustine, who is better known, just as black, and a teacher, but not as liked because he is, even in Orthodoxy, a "troublemaker" throughout his life.

That said, the entire "inner city" is not ethnically black (My neighborhood is mostly Puerto Rican), and there are many trying to save our souls, not out killing and robbing "decent" people. I am not black, nor heterodox, nor on "the gangsta tip" so I don't see the relevance, and the fact that you have to strain so hard to connect St Moses the Black with "inner city vernacular" says volumes.

Enough said, I am dropping it.  This conversation is starting to upset me.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2008, 11:36:37 PM »

Your associate A Sombra started down this road by using the word, "thang" and insulting me in German Huh

My associate? Don't know the man.  I realize that there can't be more than one person who disagree with you people in this world(a mod asked my wife if she was me) but our views are more common than you think. My issue is that your comment sounded sketchy, kind of race-baiting.  That's what annoyed me. I'm not angry. I just think what you are saying is ridiculous, dare I say-- ignorant.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 11:38:14 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,194


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #54 on: June 14, 2008, 09:32:58 PM »

But that's ok. It does prove that "vagantes" is not a title that you can apply to our Synod, at least not consistently. 

lol.  laugh  Say whatever you want, including nasty things about the OCA.  It doesn't change the fact that the Milan synod is vagante.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Tags: schism traditionalist Milan Synod 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 82 queries.