OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 01:10:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What makes a group canonical?  (Read 5631 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 18, 2008, 03:45:17 PM »

I've been looking for them for more than two months and You gave me an answer in half an hour. Incredible.

BTW http://www.ortodoxia-brasil.blogspot.com/2007/10/viagem-pastoral.html - this is a site of Polish Archdiocese in Brazil which remains canonical
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 03:47:02 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2008, 03:53:01 PM »

So are the Old Calendarists, etc., Orthodox or not? All I hear are conflicting answers. Isn't it time for a council to decide this? Aren't souls at stake in this question?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,631



« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2008, 04:00:46 PM »

So are the Old Calendarists, etc., Orthodox or not? All I hear are conflicting answers. Isn't it time for a council to decide this? Aren't souls at stake in this question?
There has been plenty of councils: that's how they started.  Yes.  They are Orthodox, and only a percentage are schismatic.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #48 on: November 18, 2008, 06:43:43 PM »

So are the Old Calendarists, etc., Orthodox or not? All I hear are conflicting answers. Isn't it time for a council to decide this? Aren't souls at stake in this question?
There has been plenty of councils: that's how they started.  Yes.  They are Orthodox, and only a percentage are schismatic.

But how does a group strike its bishops from the diptych and put up its own rival hierarchy in the same territory and not be schismatic? Isn't this un-Orthodox?
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #49 on: November 18, 2008, 10:25:14 PM »

Hi Mike

You're probably right about the non-existence of parishes in Spain. However the full title was "orthodox Church of Spain, Portugal and Brazil". The problems started around the 2000 when Metropolitan Joao of Lisbon made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land without having authorization from Metropolitan Sava of Poland. Soon after that, Metropolitan Joao excommunicated some nuns in Portugal. Metropolitan Sava interfered in favour of the nuns and allowed them to enter a Serbian monastery in France. This angered Metropolitan Joao, who thought his authority was not being respected. The Portuguese clergy and the Polish Church could not get along again and the Polish Church withdrew its support to the Portuguese clergy.

After the Polish Church removed its protection from Joao, only the Brazilian Bishops Chrysostomos and Amvrosios continued to be part of the Church of Poland. The majority of the clergy in Brazil decided to leave Poland's jurisdiction and enter the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA and the Diaspora. However, Metropolitan Sava of Poland refused to approve their request because he did not recognize the canonicity of the UOC-USA as long as it remained under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It's for this reason that they were received by the Serbian Patriarchate.

From what I know, the Portuguese clergy are not part of any official Church, but I might be wrong. The logical thing for them would be to request union with the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the pro-Moscow Churches will most likely not receive them.
Logged
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2008, 10:54:51 PM »

Is the Church in F.Y.R.O.M canonical? Huh
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2008, 03:27:57 AM »

Is the Church in F.Y.R.O.M canonical? Huh

No it isn't
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
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,245


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2008, 03:35:16 AM »

After the Polish Church removed its protection from Joao, only the Brazilian Bishops Chrysostomos and Amvrosios continued to be part of the Church of Poland. The majority of the clergy in Brazil decided to leave Poland's jurisdiction and enter the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA and the Diaspora. However, Metropolitan Sava of Poland refused to approve their request because he did not recognize the canonicity of the UOC-USA as long as it remained under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It's for this reason that they were received by the Serbian Patriarchate.

An autocephalous Orthodox Church (e.g. Poland) does not recognize the canonicity of a Jurisdiction (e.g. UOC-USA) under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?  That's either astounding or an error must exist somewhere....   Huh
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2008, 09:03:46 AM »

For me it's also unbelievable. Polish Church recognises both Estonia jurisdictions as canonical, so why not UOC-USA?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2008, 09:17:20 AM »

I think it is hard for outsiders to understand that canonicity, and communion (which seem to get confused with "canonical"), are inherently complicated issues which at times are very simply defined, and yet at other times are quite complicated.  We could indeed somehow adopt a more simple system, but that would involve not only adopting limitations on the freedom of the local churches, but also essentially changing the ecclesiastical structure from the Church, which from its earliest days has been focused on the diocese, and focus it more on the super-national Churches or the monolithic structure (i.e. RCC-ish structure).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2008, 09:27:21 AM »

What's the difference between churches which are "canonical" and this which are "in communion". I thought that these two statements mean exactly the same. One particular Church recognises the other one as canonical and automatically they're in communion with each other.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 09:31:07 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,844


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2008, 09:31:41 AM »

What's the difference between churches which are "canonical" and this which are "in communion". I thought that these two statements mean exactly the same. One particular Church recognises the other one as canonical and automatically they're in communion.

While most of the time they are one and the same ideas, at other times Churches have been separated from "communion" but have not ceased to be Orthodox, and have been restored to Communion with little if any change; this suggests that "canonicity" is an idea independent of "communion" (a concept that our Old Calendarist / Traditionalist brethren would definitely ascribe to).  A Church might indeed remain "canonical" (i.e. maintaining the fullness of the faith), even if the other Churches don't see it that way.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2008, 09:38:47 AM »

Understood, thanks Smiley
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2008, 01:57:13 PM »

What's the difference between churches which are "canonical" and this which are "in communion". I thought that these two statements mean exactly the same. One particular Church recognises the other one as canonical and automatically they're in communion.

While most of the time they are one and the same ideas, at other times Churches have been separated from "communion" but have not ceased to be Orthodox, and have been restored to Communion with little if any change; this suggests that "canonicity" is an idea independent of "communion" (a concept that our Old Calendarist / Traditionalist brethren would definitely ascribe to).  A Church might indeed remain "canonical" (i.e. maintaining the fullness of the faith), even if the other Churches don't see it that way.

So do many Orthodox in full communion with Constantinople see the Old Calendarists as in a sort of irregular state but not schismatic (as Rome considers the SSPX in the Catholic Church)---the irregular clearly meaning that something is amiss and the integrity of dioceses should be restored at some future point?

So I would guess that many "mainstream" Orthodox recognize that the Old Calendarists maintain the Orthodox faith in full but are just disobedient (justified or unjustified, depending on your perspective)?

Thanks for trying to explain all this, because I've always been confused by it.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2008, 01:57:14 PM »

Bless, Fr. Anastasios.

Great photo! Did you wear the beard while still a layman?
Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,320


Happy 450th birthday, Mr. Shakespeare!


« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2008, 01:50:39 AM »

Quote
So I would guess that many "mainstream" Orthodox recognize that the Old Calendarists maintain the Orthodox faith in full but are just disobedient (justified or unjustified, depending on your perspective)?

That may be, though I don't personally consider them disobedient, but rather rebelling for what they consider to be a valid reason.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2008, 11:18:31 AM »

An autocephalous Orthodox Church (e.g. Poland) does not recognize the canonicity of a Jurisdiction (e.g. UOC-USA) under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?  That's either astounding or an error must exist somewhere....   Huh

Somenone must have made a mistake. On Church of Poland's official website, although it's poor there is a link to UOC USA's site so it must be recognised.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 11:19:29 AM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Tags: Apostolic succession bishops 
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 0.069 seconds with 44 queries.