OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 12:36:20 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: OCA, ROCOR AND GOA  (Read 9085 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« on: November 12, 2003, 07:48:59 PM »

Hey I didn't really know where this would go so I thought I'd just put it in the Free-for-all forum....

I was wondering what are the differences between OCA, GOA, and ROCOR. I understand that all three cannonical Orthodox Churches or Jurisdictions are united in the same faith and all but I was wondering what exactly divides them? Different ethnic backgrounds? Diffrent litrugical practices?

Just wondering....

thanks!

In Christ,
           Ben
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2003, 08:18:22 PM »

GOA- Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. This is a new calendar Church under the Ecumenical Patriarch. Tends to do some or all of its services in Greek and is very modernist.

OCA- Orthodox Church in America. This grew out of the old Russian archdiocese of America. After the revolution it claimed self governing but finally got it from the Moscow Patriarch in 1970. New calendar church that is somewhat modernist and does most of its services in english

ROCOR- Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. These are the decedents (office wise not birth) of the Bishops that fled Russia after the Revolution in 1917. St. Tikhon told them to form a Synod that was free until the MP was free. They tend to most of their services (not the missions) in Church Slavonic and are not modernist at all.

ROCOR does not commune with either the GOA or the OCA because of the later two involvement in the WCC. Also the ROCOR does not like it that the OCA betrayed them and went to the MP in 1970 to become a self governing Church. ROCOR felt that the OCA should have waited till the MP was free from communist influence.

I converted to Orthodoxy in the OCA 5-years ago but have left for the ROCOR recently. I found that the OCA was going over the edge with its modernist and ecumenical agendas. That's just a personnel decision I had to make. All three are canonical though and will sooner or later be back together.

There could be a book written on this topic but this is the basics.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2003, 08:38:12 PM »

Thanks I was just wondering because those are the three in my area. I am currently learning about Orthodoxy at a GOA Cathedral and under the guidance of a GOA priest and I was just wondering about ROCOR and OCA.....thanks!

In Christ,
           Ben

ps. In what way is the GOA modernist?
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2003, 08:47:23 PM »

It is modernsit in that:

1) Clergy have shave beards and cut hair.
2) Many Churches have pews.
3) Priests do  not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night.
4) Priests dress like RC Priests.
5) New Calender is used.
6) Involvment in ecumenical activities.

There is more but these are the hot issues.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2003, 08:51:11 PM »

It is modernsit in that:

1) Clergy have shave beards and cut hair.
2) Many Churches have pews.
3) Priests do  not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night.
4) Priests dress like RC Priests.
5) New Calender is used.
6) Involvment in ecumenical activities.

There is more but these are the hot issues.

OK...this is interesting because I know many Orthodox priests, from many jurisdictions that shave their bears. And the same with the pews the only Orthodox church in my area that doesn't have pews is the ROCOR church...sorry but what is exactly wrong with pews? And sorry once again but why is the calendar such a big debate in Orthodoxy? I'm not trying to be rude I really want to know! Thanks!
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2003, 08:59:22 PM »

My comments do not mean you should not go to modernist Churches. Go to them get your feet wet and then decide where is best for you. I spent 5 years in the OCA  before I knew I needed to go. There are some that go to these fringe (ROAC is a big one) then become "board warriors and theologians" before becoming Orthodox. Become Orthodox then take your time and learn. God will guild you.

The Calendar is a big deal because it was not decided upon with an Ecumenical council. It also came into being because of a Pope. Most Orthodox believe that the RCC is outside of the Church so to use their calendar is wrong.

The pew thing is because the Orthodox believe sitting is disrespectful to the Lord. When the president comes into a room people stand so why not stand for the Lord. This is how it was always done in the East. If I'm not mistaken even the Pope's Church (St. Peters) has no pews.

Also the underlying theme in these innovations to the Orthodox Church is to become more like the heterodox for ecumenical reasons. This does not sit well with most Orthodox.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 09:03:01 PM by Innocent » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2003, 09:01:34 PM »

ok thanks...just wondering
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2003, 09:04:47 PM »

No problem. I'm happy to answer anything that I can.

ok thanks...just wondering
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2003, 09:08:02 PM »

well...heres another question then...

umm ok this is kinda off the subject and probably something I should ask my priest, but my local GOA Cathedral has vespers every saturday afternoon, but often I am the only one there, besides the priest, and I always get nervous and end up leaving, would you mind explaining the meaning/impotance of vespers and what the faithful are susposed to do?

maybe we could talk over IM? just an idea
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 09:09:13 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2003, 09:13:34 PM »

Innocent,
I think the animosity between the OCA and ROCOR is lessening, thanks be to God.  I really think ROCOR is such a treasure of Orthodoxy and the rest of the Orthodox world can learn much from her.  In my area, there is a ROCOR monastery, and the priest from my church (OCA) will allow people, on a case-by-case basis, to commune at both.  The abbot of the monastery is also OK with this.

I grew up Orthodox, and over the years, my opinions have changed.  Pews are a complete nuisance -- making prostrations, the worshipping of Christ - all of this is impeded by pews.  Orthodox churches have chairs for the elderly and infirm, we don't need pews at all, and there's no historical basis for having them in Orthodoxy aside from wanting to be "more like the Christian west," which is a very weak reason.  

Though my parish follows the new calendar, I also don't understand much of its utility.  The vast majority of the Orthodox world follows the Julian calendar -- why are we in the West different?  I think adopting the new calendar in the west was in big part to make Orthodox life in the west easier, i.e., to not make us so different.  Plus, I've read that adopting the new calendar in the west was a means to help Anglicans and other Western christians become Orthodox.  With respect to this, the calendar change wasn't too effective, now was it!  Also, as Innocent pointed out above, the calendar change was not adopted by an Orthodox ecumenical council -- thusly not all the Orthodox churches should be expected to abide by it.

To a large degree, ROCOR and the OCA (as I see it) are like old sisters who hold deep grudges against one another for some bizarre reason.  The GOA is a bit different (it has no Russian roots whatsoever, and much of the OCA/ROCOR issues emanate from problems related to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917), but of the three churches I'd have to say that the GOA is the most "modernist" of them all.

Ben, all the best on your spiritual journey.  Please forgive us for the discombobulated appearance of our church!
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2003, 09:16:13 PM »

It is modernsit in that:

1) Clergy have shave beards and cut hair.
2) Many Churches have pews.
3) Priests do  not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night.
4) Priests dress like RC Priests.
5) New Calender is used.
6) Involvment in ecumenical activities.

There is more but these are the hot issues.

Here's my take on Innocent's issues.

1) I think clergy should have beards but that is not in and of itself Orthodoxy; cutting hair is not a big deal as it only began during the Turkish occupation as a sign of penance but since the Turkocratia is over it's not a big deal;

2) There are ROCOR Churches with pews, there are even Greek Old Calendar Churches with pews (St Irene's Monastery in NY).  I do not like pews and wish they were gone but pews doth not Heterodoxy make.

3) This is certainly a problem in the GOA, although notsomuch in the OCA.  Priests should be serving Vespers every Saturday.  Again, I know ROCOR parishes that do not do Vespers every Saturday though.

4) While I don't think this is a make or break issue I certainly prefer priests in riassas.

5) New Calendar: I don't care either way; it should not have been implemented the way it was though.

6) Involvement in ecumenical activities: I think involvement is good as a witness against sycretism but occasionally Orthodox hierarchs say weird things due to its influence so I think it's time to quit the WCC: the Orthodox have said what needs to be said.

Just my opinions; I respect yours as well Innocent.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2003, 09:17:12 PM »

Ben,
Concerning your question about vespers.... vespers is an evening service prior to the next day's liturgy.  The Orthodox day begins at sundown... thus the saints commemorated on Sat. night vespers are the same as those commemorated on Sun. morning liturgy.  A vespers service is one of the most spiritually beneficial services Orthodoxy offers.

The fact that you are the only one present at Sat. night vespers in your Greek Orthodox cathedral reflects the state of spirituality in America today.  God bless you for going!  It's one of the reasons that I don't worship in GOA parishes any longer.
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2003, 09:17:32 PM »

Ahh no poblem...I'm coming from Catholicism and man are we divided! Novus Ordo, SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, Indult parishes...the list goes on and on....as a Traidtional RC I am used to problems/disgareements within the Church.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2003, 09:23:24 PM »

Ben,
Concerning your question about vespers.... vespers is an evening service prior to the next day's liturgy.  The Orthodox day begins at sundown... thus the saints commemorated on Sat. night vespers are the same as those commemorated on Sun. morning liturgy.  A vespers service is one of the most spiritually beneficial services Orthodoxy offers.

The fact that you are the only one present at Sat. night vespers in your Greek Orthodox cathedral reflects the state of spirituality in America today.  God bless you for going!  It's one of the reasons that I don't worship in GOA parishes any longer.

I love Vespers! They are just amazing, I just felt odd being the only one and left early. I don't like being the only one doing something I have no idea what I'm doing, if that makes since...lol.

I pefer GOA, at least in my area. My GOA parish is a great Cathedral with huge golden dome decorated with the most awsome Icons I have ever seen on the inside! And I seem to get a long with the GOA priest very well, however I am  confussed at some of his opinions, but this is probably because Orthodoxy is all new to me.

In Christ,
        Ben
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 09:24:40 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2003, 09:31:48 PM »

Anastasios I held the same beliefs as you have. It was only over time that I changed. I did not know the Turkish connection with the beard.  My opposition to shaved beards is not for dogmatic reasons. We should look different then other groups that like to call themselves Christians. We are not just another "jurisdiction"! We are the Church and therefore should stand out. This is my problem with the calendar also. Why change? What good did it bring?

Believe me I pray that all Orthodox come together.



It is modernsit in that:

1) Clergy have shave beards and cut hair.
2) Many Churches have pews.
3) Priests do  not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night.
4) Priests dress like RC Priests.
5) New Calender is used.
6) Involvment in ecumenical activities.

There is more but these are the hot issues.

Here's my take on Innocent's issues.

1) I think clergy should have beards but that is not in and of itself Orthodoxy; cutting hair is not a big deal as it only began during the Turkish occupation as a sign of penance but since the Turkocratia is over it's not a big deal;

2) There are ROCOR Churches with pews, there are even Greek Old Calendar Churches with pews (St Irene's Monastery in NY).  I do not like pews and wish they were gone but pews doth not Heterodoxy make.

3) This is certainly a problem in the GOA, although notsomuch in the OCA.  Priests should be serving Vespers every Saturday.  Again, I know ROCOR parishes that do not do Vespers every Saturday though.

4) While I don't think this is a make or break issue I certainly prefer priests in riassas.

5) New Calendar: I don't care either way; it should not have been implemented the way it was though.

6) Involvement in ecumenical activities: I think involvement is good as a witness against sycretism but occasionally Orthodox hierarchs say weird things due to its influence so I think it's time to quit the WCC: the Orthodox have said what needs to be said.

Just my opinions; I respect yours as well Innocent.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2003, 09:44:27 PM by Innocent » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2003, 09:44:15 PM »

Anastasios

[If I'm not mistaken even the Pope's Church (St. Peters) has no pews.]  

They bring them in for liturgy.

Ben,
I started going to vespers at an Antiochan parish as my intro to Orthodoxyand really loved the service.  But then I went to Resurrection Matins and I think it "blows vespers away".  I often regret we do not have a similar service in RCC.  If you have an Antiochan parish in your area you should try them as well.

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2003, 09:47:52 PM »

The irony of the entire modernism issue is that my little section of the GOA is the most un-modernist....Geronda Ephraim's monasteries.  Even my parish is not too bad compared to other places in the GOA.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2003, 09:50:56 PM »

Anastasios I held the same beliefs as you have. It was only over time that I changed. I did not know the Turkish connection with the beard.  My opposition to shaved beards is not for dogmatic reasons.

Sorry, I was not clear.  Long hair was a Turkish period development.  I believe that beards could be trimmed though before the Turkish period but I would need to consult the sources.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2003, 09:52:11 PM »

I visited one of his monasteries in Roscoe NY. Very spiritual place. Glad to see he has been bringing these kind of monasteries to America.

The irony of the entire modernism issue is that my little section of the GOA is the most un-modernist....Geronda Ephraim's monasteries.  Even my parish is not too bad compared to other places in the GOA.  
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2003, 09:52:27 PM »

I am really just being curious and I don't quite know how to phrase this but....  What do you all think is the source or cause of the modernism in the EO churches.  In RCC we had PiusX defeating modernism in the early 20th cent.  Now many point to Vatican 2 as the cause of, or source of the modernism some alledge has crept into the RCC.  So what has happened in EO and is it just in this country or across the board.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2003, 09:57:02 PM »

My personnel opinion is that allowing the EP to have any power in the Church while under occupation is a bad thing. The Turks have to approve of the EP. They are not going to approve of a good one that will help the Church. I believe if a Patriarch is under captivity he needs to move or be isolated.


I am really just being curious and I don't quite know how to phrase this but....  What do you all think is the source or cause of the modernism in the EO churches.  In RCC we had PiusX defeating modernism in the early 20th cent.  Now many point to Vatican 2 as the cause of, or source of the modernism some alledge has crept into the RCC.  So what has happened in EO and is it just in this country or across the board.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2003, 10:33:50 PM »

Quote
If you have an Antiochan parish in your area you should try them as well.

If I remeber correctly Ben lives in Colorado and one note about many of the Antiochian parishes in that area (I hesitate to even bring this up because it might open up a can of worms) is they tend to follow the Western Rite. I am not sure if you know about about Western Rite Orthodoxy but it has been covered many times on this board and if you just look around you will find entire threads on this subject.

You should find Vespers and Matins to be similar in style at the both the Cathedral you are attending and at the majority of Antiochian parishes since they both use the byzantine style of music.

And don't think you are the only one there, the angels are there with you.
Logged

Joseph
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2003, 11:12:27 PM »

Arimethea

[ I am not sure if you know about about Western Rite Orthodoxy]   Yes I'm familiar and yes they might want to be avoided if a person is interested in Orthodoxy.

[the angels are there with you]  I agree and you know people always seem to forget this.

Innocent

[They are not going to approve of a good one that will help the Church. I believe if a Patriarch is under captivity he needs to move or be isolated]  Do you think it's likely the EP will move and if so where?  Also I had heard something about the Turkish govt being petitioned to let the EP be a non-Turk citizen?  What is the status of this if true.

But do you think the leadership of the EP is the cause of the modernist trend.  I mean EO has a less centralized leadership than Rome and the modernist trends seem to be across jurisdictions.  Also from your posts you mentioned you left OCA due to modernist trends and are now ROCOR.  Were these modernist trends present in OCA when you joined?  If they are spreading gradually in OCA what's to stop them infecting ROCOR eventually.  If they do then where to go.  (Believe me I'm not making a subtle plug for Rome here we have troubles of the same sort.) I am curious because eventually we'll all have to face this issue.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2003, 11:18:07 PM »

Yes here in Colorado we have quite a few active Antiochian pairshes, both eastern and western rites.

I personally love the western rite parishes in this area and I do not see why they would want to be avoided, however I am interested in EASTERN Orthodoxy.

I have emailed the Eastern rite Antiochian priest in my area, however, due to personal issues that I will not get into here, it didn't really work out.

I think I am going to stick with the GOA parish for now, however I love my local ROCOR parish! Who knows...may God's will be done.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2003, 12:10:48 AM »

My personnel opinion is that allowing the EP to have any power in the Church while under occupation is a bad thing. The Turks have to approve of the EP. They are not going to approve of a good one that will help the Church. I believe if a Patriarch is under captivity he needs to move or be isolated.
What an astoundingly audacious set of statements! It has not yet been 15 years since nearly ALL of our patriarchs were 'captive'. And today, ALL of the ancient ones still are. Applying your last statement would be a nightmare, indeed.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2003, 12:29:50 AM »

The other Patriarchs where under captivity for less than a centry where as the EP has been under captivity for around 500 years. Big difference! Turkey does need to approve the EP. Syria does need to approve the AP. Do you believe that this EP and the last fews actions have been good for Orthodoxy? I do not! I do not think my statments where "astoundingly audacious' at all. They were tempered compared to some when talking about this subject. If you like the decisions (such as interfering with the MP) of the EP thats great I will respect your opinion.



My personnel opinion is that allowing the EP to have any power in the Church while under occupation is a bad thing. The Turks have to approve of the EP. They are not going to approve of a good one that will help the Church. I believe if a Patriarch is under captivity he needs to move or be isolated.
What an astoundingly audacious set of statements! It has not yet been 15 years since nearly ALL of our patriarchs were 'captive'. And today, ALL of the ancient ones still are. Applying your last statement would be a nightmare, indeed.

Demetri



Carpo-Rusyn yes the modernist tendencies were there when I first entered the OCA. It was I and my changing views that caused me to leave. Yes we will have to face it in all jurisdictions but I believe that ROCOR is doing a better job than the OCA.  

Also like I said I do not believe people must go to an "old calander" Church to be in the "real" Church. I do not believe that the "new calander" Churches are without grace either. For me it was where I needed to be and thats all.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2003, 12:45:18 AM »

The other Patriarchs where under captivity for less than a centry where as the EP has been under captivity for around 500 years. Big difference! Turkey does need to approve the EP. Syria does need to approve the AP. Do you believe that this EP and the last fews actions have been good for Orthodoxy? I do not! I do not think my statments where "astoundingly audacious' at all. They were tempered compared to some when talking about this subject. If you like the decisions (such as interfering with the MP) of the EP thats great I will respect your opinion.

The EP this and the EP that...500 years? I guess that means that Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, all captive yet longer, should also have been "isolated". Orthodoxy got TO the Slavs in 988; but was not well developed for several hundred years. Applying your definition, the Church would have disappeared in 'isolation'.
No I don't like everything the EP's done, nor everything the MP's done either for that matter.
Demetri


Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Innocent
No longer posting on this site
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 440

St. Innocent of Alaska


« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2003, 12:55:50 AM »

When I say isolated I do not mean ignore them and let them die. I mean you do not follow their proclamations such as implementing the new calendar. I have no problem without the new calendar as far as theology goes. I do have a problem the way it was implemented and the reasons it was implemented. Has it caused any good?

Anyway I'm done on this topic.  

The other Patriarchs where under captivity for less than a centry where as the EP has been under captivity for around 500 years. Big difference! Turkey does need to approve the EP. Syria does need to approve the AP. Do you believe that this EP and the last fews actions have been good for Orthodoxy? I do not! I do not think my statments where "astoundingly audacious' at all. They were tempered compared to some when talking about this subject. If you like the decisions (such as interfering with the MP) of the EP thats great I will respect your opinion.

The EP this and the EP that...500 years? I guess that means that Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, all captive yet longer, should also have been "isolated". Orthodoxy got TO the Slavs in 988; but was not well developed for several hundred years. Applying your definition, the Church would have disappeared in 'isolation'.
No I don't like everything the EP's done, nor everything the MP's done either for that matter.
Demetri



« Last Edit: November 13, 2003, 12:56:59 AM by Innocent » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2003, 12:57:51 AM »

You know, Innocent, I think all of us  should spend more time in Church and less time in Jurisdictions. Let the bishops sort it out. We're losing our perspective.
Good evening,
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2003, 01:46:54 AM »

Quote
I am really just being curious and I don't quite know how to phrase this but....  What do you all think is the source or cause of the modernism in the EO churches.  In RCC we had PiusX defeating modernism in the early 20th cent.  Now many point to Vatican 2 as the cause of, or source of the modernism some alledge has crept into the RCC.  So what has happened in EO and is it just in this country or across the board.

Great question! I agree that there is a Modernist problem among the Eastern Orthodox but 1) it's much smaller and more contained than in the West and 2) it's nowhere near as big a problem as the Old Calendarist sectarians make it out to be.

IMO the late Frs John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann were not Modernists.

The other matters listed earlier, including the Old Calendar, while important to the Byzantine Rite, are ultimately matters of culture, not dogma. They don't touch on beliefs in divine revelation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, Mariology, the apostolic ministry or the Eucharist.

Also, I agree that because Eastern Orthodoxy is decentralized, one can't blame the patriarch of Constantinople.

So what is Modernist among some Eastern Orthodox? I'd say things like not pressing the Sacrament of Confession (though cultural/historical factors among the Greeks caused that among them - it was hard to get to Confession at times during Turkish rule), accepting artificial birth control (trashing Orthodoxy's claim to scrupulously follow the Fathers and shun 'doctrinal development') and, related to that, the deafening indifference to abortion one finds among them. And I would add something else I've heard (from born Orthodox!), dismissing prayer for the dead - reinforced by the desire to epatez les catholiques ('see, we're different' when in fact they're not), which also is encouraged among them by Protestant influence. And one might add to that modern scepticism about the historicity of the Gospels, thanks to Protestant biblical criticism.

I think at the end of the day the Modernism has similar causes as in Western Catholicism - corruption from outside, namely from the sequential problems of Protestantism and secular culture.

Rank-and-file Eastern Orthodox, IMO, are especially vulnerable to these as they are a tiny minority in the US.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2003, 12:56:08 PM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2003, 10:45:55 AM »

It is modernsit in that:

1) Clergy have shave beards and cut hair.
2) Many Churches have pews.
3) Priests do  not serve an All-Night Vigil or Vespers every Saturday night.
4) Priests dress like RC Priests.
5) New Calender is used.
6) Involvment in ecumenical activities.

There is more but these are the hot issues.

I am hereby announcing my

Six Point Plan for Orthodox Converts

1) Converts must attend a parish where the priest has short hair and shaves at least part of his beard. (Goatees are acceptable.)

2) Converts must attend a parish with pews and must sit down when everyone else does.

3) Converts must not go to Saturday night vespers more than one a month. If they want to do it more often, they have to do it at home. At least one night a month they have to see a movie instead, except during great lent, when they may go to vespers at church two nights a month but have to see movies the other two nights. (DVD of Ben-Hur may be substituted for a movie.)

4) Converts may not go to a parish where the priest wears a cassock during the week.

5) Converts must celebrate Christmas on December 25th, preferably by visiting their Protestant/Catholic parents/relatives during that day.

6) Converts must go to a parish where the priest has a beer with the local Episcopal/Lutheran rector at least once a month. (Sherry or scotch may be substituted for the beer, or iced tea during Great Lent.)


I have a lot more of these. . . . . . . . . . . .








(and you thought monastic disciplines were severe!!!  Grin Shocked )
Logged
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2003, 01:12:19 PM »

I don't see a problem at all in the EP leaving Constantinople for New York, where a beautiful Greek Cathedral waits for him.  I've also heard Geneva touted as a possible EP home.  The Patriarch of Antioch is no longer in Antioch.... so the Patr of Constantinople could no longer be in Constantinople (or is it Istanbul?  That dang ol' "They Might Be Giants" song...)  He could even retain his title, but live in NYC.

Alas, no one's listening to me.   Roll Eyes
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2003, 01:25:34 PM »

I don't see a problem at all in the EP leaving Constantinople for New York, where a beautiful Greek Cathedral waits for him.  I've also heard Geneva touted as a possible EP home.  The Patriarch of Antioch is no longer in Antioch.... so the Patr of Constantinople could no longer be in Constantinople (or is it Istanbul?  That dang ol' "They Might Be Giants" song...)  He could even retain his title, but live in NYC.

Alas, no one's listening to me.   Roll Eyes

Interesting proposal. What do the Canons say on such a situation?  Retaining the title, but located in another location?  Or, could New York be New Constantinople in Orthodox circles
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,365


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2003, 02:19:28 PM »

No, it would be New York, but the Patriarch would retain the title of Constantinople.  The various Patriarchs of Antioch (Syrian Orthodox, Greek, Eastern Catholic) retain the title of Antioch, but they all live in Damascus, if I'm not mistaken.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2003, 02:31:41 PM »

I used to think the EP moving here was a pipe-dream. but now that I re-read the new charter, perhaps he's setting up to do exactly that (if necessary). The new structure of his archdiocese here would fit that model. Just musing...

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2003, 02:36:13 PM »

How about the EP moving to Athens when the current Archbishop dies? Reuniting the EP and the Church of Greece. Makes sense to me.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2003, 02:49:16 PM »


I am hereby announcing my

Six Point Plan for Orthodox Convert

1) Converts must attend a parish where the priest has short hair and shaves at least part of his beard. (Goatees are acceptable.)

2) Converts must attend a parish with pews and must sit down when everyone else does.

3) Converts must not go to Saturday night vespers more than one a month. If they want to do it more often, they have to do it at home. At least one night a month they have to see a movie instead, except during great lent, when they may go to vespers at church two nights a month but have to see movies the other two nights. (DVD of Ben-Hur may be substituted for a movie.)

4) Converts may not go to a parish where the priest wears a cassock during the week.

5) Converts must celebrate Christmas on December 25th, preferably by visiting their Protestant/Catholic parents/relatives during that day.

6) Converts must go to a parish where the priest has a beer with the local Episcopal/Lutheran rector at least once a month. (Sherry or scotch may be substituted for the beer, or iced tea during Great Lent.)


Plan Modified:
1) Converts not to care about priest's facial hair, but be thankful convert has a priest.

2) Convert to ask priest's preference for personal devotions while at services. Most will allow traditional Orthodox free form. If convert wishes to stand in a parish with pews (or not kneel on Sunday in a [shudder] kneeling parish), please do so in rear of nave.

3) Convert to attend as many services as convert's piety dictates proscribed by reasoneable demands of convert's daily life- both work and family. Beware the false pride trap.

4) Convert to worry more about her/his own garb than that of the priest.

5) Convert to remember that Nativity of the Lord is December 25th on both church calendars.

6) Don't forget the fine non-contraband cigars...


Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2003, 03:09:07 PM »

How about the EP moving to Athens when the current Archbishop dies? Reuniting the EP and the Church of Greece. Makes sense to me.

anastasios

Makes sense to me, too. But then I'm just a third generation Greek-American; but who knows what (how) they think over there? I don't.
Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Byzantine Christian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2003, 03:28:22 PM »

Is the EP of Constantinople really leaving, Instanbul to come live here or some where eles? I would want my patriarch to live in his titled city. Pope in Rome, Patriarch of Antioch in Antioch not the Patrarch of Antioch in NYC.

In Christ
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2003, 04:45:33 PM »

[Is this the ordinary way for an Orthodox priest to function? No, probably not...]

Got news for you.  The Patriarch of Antioch resides in Damacus, Syria!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Boswell
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Bi, poly, trans and ex-Orthodox


« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2003, 04:57:16 PM »

Assuming that the ROCOR/MP/OCA situation is figured out by then, if I were the OCA's Metropolitan, I'd excommunicate the EP, Antioch, and all other foreign jurisdictions that exist in America, flagrantly violating the
original rights of the Church of Russia, since it was that jurisidction and its legitimate offspring that are the canoncial Orthodox in America.

Unrealistic, sure, but I can dream.

Boswell
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2003, 04:57:57 PM »

The Catholic Melkite patriarch of Antioch lives in Damascus, too. In fact, he shares the office building with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,758



« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2003, 05:30:09 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think I like the second set on rules for the convert better, it focuses on the inner versus the external signs of faith.

A point of fact, the Patriarch of Antioch settled in Damascus after the Roman Catholic Crusaders so kindly sacked and destroyed Antioch leaving a population currently that is only Moslem with the Christian center of the Antiochian  Patriarchate and country of Syria located in Damascus, the Capital City, thus his residency on "The way called straight" noted in the New Testament.

As for the EP, at the current exodus of youthful Greeks from Turkey, the real question is now ---where will they find a Turkish citizen who meets the criteria to become the EP? Without a massive conversion of Turks or Expatriate Greeks being allowed to return, there is little likelihood of having any viable Orthodox presence in Turkey in the next 25 -50 years.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2003, 06:46:00 PM »

Serge

Thanks for the reply on modernism.

The idea of the EP removing to Athens or NYC sounds interesting but I think he could retain the title of New Rome.  In RCC the Holy See appoints bishops to sees "in partibus infidelum"  that is that the city or town the see is named for is in the hands of the infidel.  Surely the EP could retain the title of New Rome.

The whole idea of "captivity" came up in some posts.  I realize that the ancient patriarchs of the East are in Moslem dominated nations but are they really in captivity?  The Turks dictate that the EP needs to be a Turkish citizen and I think one of the seminaries is closed.  The Turks don't dictate theological opinion and don't rule on appointment to bishoprics.  In the past they did.  So is it still captivity.  I don't see the govt's of Egypt (yes I know they persecute the Copts but refer here to the Chalcedonians), Syria or Israel creating any problems.  The churches in these countries seem to function ok.  SO is it still captivity?

Carpo-Rusyn

Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2003, 06:50:56 PM »

Thomas

[A point of fact, the Patriarch of Antioch settled in Damascus after the Roman Catholic Crusaders so kindly sacked and destroyed Antioch leaving a ]

Those nasty RCs took Antioch from the Moslems and established it as a principality with the EO and non-Calcedonian prelates still in residence.  I think it was when the Moslems retook the city or at a later date that the Patriarch was removed to Damascus.  I know those nasty crusaders were not very nice but let's not blame everything on them.  I really think that Antioch survived the crusader period and gradually died out as the Orontes changed it's course.

CR
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2003, 07:13:58 PM »

A point of fact, the Patriarch of Antioch settled in Damascus after the Roman Catholic Crusaders so kindly sacked and destroyed Antioch leaving a population currently that is only Moslem with the Christian center of the Antiochian  Patriarchate and country of Syria located in Damascus, the Capital City, thus his residency on "The way called straight" noted in the New Testament.

The picture is skewed here.

Antioch was decimated by the Mamelukes, Baybars in particular, in whose hands Antioch long was when the Patriarchate was moved to Damascus.  That, and the city's long history of earthquakes did the job.

The Mamelukes did such a job that the Ottomans found it an insignificant ruin once they consolidated power in the territory.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: November 13, 2003, 07:18:40 PM by SamB » Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2003, 07:29:17 PM »

In the Middle East, the two countries where the government explicitly claims and/or exercises the right to recognise the Patriarch are Turkey (obviously) and Israel, which had the gall to refuse to recognise the election of Patriarch Irinios.  I am not certain whether the election has finally been accepted by the government.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2003, 07:33:10 PM »

The situation of the churches in the Middle East.

In all cases the govt where the Patriarch is in residence must confirm the Patriarch that is elected. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Patriarch of Jeruslem has yet to be confirmed by the Isreali Govt.

In Syria the govt regulates the land that the christians may hold. They do not distugish between RC, EO, OO, or any other group that calls themselves Christian. That is why there is so much cooperation in Syria among the Christian groups, it is a matter of survial. The "Greek" Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch has some flexibilty because Lebanon is a friendly country towards the Orthodox. So much happens at the Balamand because it is the Patriarch's hold in Lebanon and therefore is not regulated.

Part of the Problem with the city of Antioch is that it is in Turkey now. A Cathedral is still there but the is no real community located there. The last time I heard of a services being held there was several years ago and it was a concelebration with both Pats. Ignatius and Bartholomew on the feast of Peter and Paul.

Both the Patriarches of Jeruslem and Alexandria are held by actual Greek citizens so that creates another problem all together.  In the case of Alexandria wonderful work is being done with the help of the OCMC in bringing the Word to the people of Africa. Many under the Jersulem Patriarch have felt abadoned over the years by their Bishops and have called for the election of native Bishops rather then Bishops coming from Greece.

I hope this helps everyone in understanding some of the problems that the church faces in the Middle East.
Logged

Joseph
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2003, 07:55:57 PM »

In Syria the govt regulates the land that the christians may hold. They do not distugish between RC, EO, OO, or any other group that calls themselves Christian. That is why there is so much cooperation in Syria among the Christian groups, it is a matter of survial.

Fraternal relations on the grassroots level, familial ties, and (in the case of the E.O.) the passing away of Greek hegemony over Antioch strongly factor into the impetus for cooperation.  

There is a spontaneous will to aid each other on the parish level.  It wouldn't be unusual to find a Melchite funeral reception taking place in the basement of an Orthodox church (sadly, the deceased was one of my own family).  

Syria is an intriguing country.  The land policy you mention leads to things such as the two groups sharing the same parish church, as in the recent case of one of the suburbs of Damascus.

One forgotten point I neglected to mention concerning the location of the Patriarchs: the Syrian Orthodox had their base in southeastern Turkey (Diyarbakir, if I remember correctly) not too long ago, and moved to Homs and then Damascus due to the very bad conditions the Turks created for them.

In IC XC
Samer
« Last Edit: November 13, 2003, 08:19:24 PM by SamB » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2003, 01:08:42 AM »



The whole idea of "captivity" came up in some posts.  I realize that the ancient patriarchs of the East are in Moslem dominated nations but are they really in captivity?  The Turks dictate that the EP needs to be a Turkish citizen and I think one of the seminaries is closed.  The Turks don't dictate theological opinion and don't rule on appointment to bishoprics.  In the past they did.  So is it still captivity.  I don't see the govt's of Egypt (yes I know they persecute the Copts but refer here to the Chalcedonians), Syria or Israel creating any problems.  The churches in these countries seem to function ok.  SO is it still captivity?
Carpo-Rusyn
"Are they still captive?"
Not to "carp" on Carpo's post, this needs some answers. First, let me say that while I don't think an in-depth grasp of history is necessary for an Orthodox Christian's salvation, many of us are still concerned about our mother churches. AND this situation does affect ALL Orthodox Churches as we shall see. The following is from an old (and doobie-less) memory:

Since the time the Church of Christ became the official church of the Roman Empire in the early 4th century, ALL five ancient sees were (and still are) sponsored and protected by the Emperor or prevailing head of state. ALL five, even today. The Bishop of Rome was fortunate in that the evolution of his sponsoring state developed through his own Papal States, and by treaty negotiation when modern Italy formed, into the Vatican State. So, today, the Pope of Rome is sponsored and protected by his head of state- himself. In the east, only the Church of Cyprus had (has, still?) an identical situation (remember when Archbishop Makarios was also the President of Cyprus? Same political status as the Pope of Rome.)
Hence, this church governance model has always been in effect in the five ancient sees. It may even be "canonical", but I'm not sure.
Constantinople - Captive? You bet.
1) The Patriarch MUST, by Turkish law, be a Turkish citizen.

2) The Turkish government recognizes the EP as the bishop for the "Rumca" (Romans) in Turkey only and no status beyond Turkish borders (anti-EPer's please hold the applause until you read the rest.)

3) The EP may travel abroad only with government consent. THINK about that - the EP cannot call a Great and Holy Synod as the Turks will not allow him (or representatives) to travel to it. The chances of his calling one and not participating are nil for obvious reasons.

4) It's against Turkish law to convert from  moslem to Christianity or to aid and abet that conversion. So, no converts and the remaining Christians are still fleeing or dying out.

5) The Turks have closed Halki School of Theology. This was SUPPOSEDLY done by a law meant to control radical Islamic schools in Turkey -yeah right. Halki is the Patriarchal seminary in Turkey. Without it, no new clergy or source of future monastics for future bishops. The seminary in America must supply priests for here and who says the Turks would approve another American bishop as patriach as they did Athenagoras, an American who had to become a Turkish citizen?

6) Halki houses the Patriarchal library (full of priceless POST 4th Crusade manuscripts) and the Patriarchal Archives (again, post 1261- the pre 4th Crusade documents were hauled to Rome as booty and I assume are at the Vatican . I'd rather have those back than a copy of a sacred icon, thank you.)
The Turks will NOT allow the library or archives to be moved (or accessed at this point) and this includes moving them to another country.

7) The Patriarchal properties have been suspiciously fire-bombed several times in the last twenty years. Perpetrators never found, of course.  It's not even safe to be there.

8] The systematic "legal" confiscation of church property throughout Turkey- all those decimated churches turning into museums and mosques at the goverment's set prices.

9) The above is how the Church lives there, what about the individual faithful Christian?

I'm sure there is more, but as I said. I'm old. But this is CAPTIVITY. When one considers the ramifications of item 3) above the Turks are holding a strangle hold over ALL Orthodoxy.

Antioch:
This see has been well covered in previous posts, but the draconian rules the Syrian government imposes on all Christians makes them all captive.

Jerusalem:

A sad state of affairs to be sure.
As Jerusalem is a disputed city the Patriarch must be approved by both the Palestinians and the Israelis. What a catch-22. The Israelis refuse to recognize the Patriarch because he "supports" the Palestinians who also must (and have) approve(d) him. This is a blatant Isaeli property grab by extortion. Without their approval the Patriarch can conduct no official business. (I'm sure they'd relent if he agreed to sell them their parlament buildings which they occupy but which the Church owns. They would have to approve him for him to sign the transfer.) By the way, in Irsael itself Christians are treated most poorly.

Alexandria:
Carpo's already alluded to the dismal treatment of the Orthodox (both Easterns and Orientals) there. It's worse than we know. Death sentences for converting to Christianity (any flavor) , changing one's moslem name,  for a moslem marrying a Christian? Not captive? Lord have Mercy.

So, my new friend, carpo-rusyn, this is captivity.

Demetri - the old Greek transplanted to the ACROD and who prays for ALL Orthodox Christians (and carpo)


{Edited to correct numerous midnight typos}
« Last Edit: November 15, 2003, 12:01:02 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2003, 08:44:43 AM »


Since the time the Church of Christ became the official church of the Roman Empire in the early 4th century, ALL five ancient sees were (and still are) sponsored and protected by the Emperor or prevailing head of state. ALL five, even today. The Bishop of Rome was fortunate in that the evolution of his sponsoring state developed through his own Papal States, and by treaty negotiation when modern Italy formed, into the Vatican State. So, today, the Pope of Rome is sponsored and protected by his head of state- himself.


Well, in the end the papacy betrayed itself in taking its political power seriously. That is the third proximate cause of the reformation, after all. (#s 1 and 2: greed and corruption)
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2003, 10:36:29 AM »

Demetri

Thanks for the reponse.  Yes captivity is justified, though I didn't see anything in the posts about the govt's involved dictating theology.

[The Bishop of Rome was fortunate in that the evolution of his sponsoring state developed through his own Papal States, and by treaty negotiation when modern Italy formed, into the Vatican State. So, today, the Pope of Rome is sponsored and protected by his head of]

Could you explain this a little more?

[Well, in the end the papacy betrayed itself in taking its political power seriously.]

Could you explain this Keble?

Carpo-Rusyn


Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2003, 10:37:13 AM »

Oops!  Thanks Demetri for praying for me.



CR
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2003, 12:10:58 PM »

Demetri

Thanks for the reponse.  Yes captivity is justified, though I didn't see anything in the posts about the govt's involved dictating theology.

[The Bishop of Rome was fortunate in that the evolution of his sponsoring state developed through his own Papal States, and by treaty negotiation when modern Italy formed, into the Vatican State. So, today, the Pope of Rome is sponsored and protected by his head of] state -himself.

Could you explain this a little more?

Carpo-Rusyn


As to your first observation, the captivity did result in the tainting of Orthodox texts , but that is a discussion I would prefer off-list with you.

As to your question, well, it is history. Surely you know the Vatican is a "country" in international law. How it became so is a study of the growth of temporal power of the Papacy and to explain "a little more" might require a doctoral thesis. Again, a private exchange is welcomed. I'll assemble some reference material for you.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags:
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 0.157 seconds with 81 queries.