OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 20, 2014, 10:27:51 PM *
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old vs. New Calendar?  (Read 203892 times) Average Rating: 0
The Stylite and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #810 on: August 01, 2009, 11:11:52 AM »

First, explain to us the relevance, as the 1583 Council condemns the "Pope's calendar," which the revised Julian is not.

Of course you are right.  The two Calendars are not identical but to the man in the street they look the same.  The difference won't really become apparent until 2800.  In that year a divergence of 1 day will occur.  The year 2800 is a leap year for the Gregorian but not for the Revised Julian.  The Revised Julian will commence to fall behind the Gregorian just as the Julian already does.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #811 on: August 01, 2009, 01:31:00 PM »

...
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583? 
...

We only need to hear what kind of "canon" is apt to be established by the type of document named Sigillion.

What does Sigillion means, does someone know?

Seal.  The reference is to the seal on the document authenticating it as valid, in this case that it came from the EP's chancellary.  Papal Bulls (>sigillium bullae "seal of lead").  The word passes into Arabic as sijill "official record."

The authority, therefore, of the Sigillion in question hinges on how much authority you get the EP.  Since Moscow at the time had not completely regularized its relationship with the EP-she proclaimed her autocephaly when the EP apostacized at Florence and remained in apostacy for a while thereafter-it would be recognizing the authority of an authority she didn't recognize (the EP still hadn't completely reconciled himself to Russian or rather Kievan autocephaly). And since the Serbian and Bulgraian synods in resistance to the millet bashi-otherwise known as the Serbian and Bulgarian patriarchates, by there existence refuse to grant the EP the right to speak for them, they can accept or reject it as they see fit, no matter how much some would like to make the EP and the Resident Synod of New Rome the Pope and Curia of the East.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #812 on: August 01, 2009, 01:34:02 PM »

Quote
What I'm driving at is that you ignore the witness of those who disagree with you (i.e., those who condemn the New Calendar) and cite as authoritative the unanimous witness of those who agree with you.  By definition, this is the logical fallacy known as "stacking the deck".

The only witness I will admit as meaningful is that of the Orthodox Church, and I define that as the Patriarchies, the autocephalies and the autonomies which maintain communion with one another.  If that is "stacking the deck" so be it.  My "deck" cannot but lie with the canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church.  Other witness and opinions, whether from the Celtic Orthodox Church or the Russian Zarist Church, have little relevance.
At least you're honest.  Your faulty logic does absolutely nothing to prove (to anyone but yourself) your original claim that the New Calendar is not in error, but at least you're honest. Tongue

I find it hard to believe that you reject the unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church as "faulty logic."
Nah!  I call faulty only that which YOU have artificially constructed and put forth to be the "unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church". Wink

Don't ask me to define my meaning again, for I already have.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #813 on: August 01, 2009, 01:59:55 PM »


who, though he be an Athonite elder, repeats the error of the calendar, and the hierarchs who use it, as being heretical.
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583?  If belief in the heretical nature of the New Calendar is an error, against what authority is it errant?

The authority of the pleroma of Orthodoxy. 

None of the patriarchies, autocephalies or autonomies has made a statement that the New Calendar is errant.  Quite the contrary.  Within universal Orthodoxy those who keep the New Calendar and those who keep the Old enjoy full intercommunion and preserve the bond of love among themselves.
Of course!  All those who don't believe the New Calendar to be an error don't believe the New Calendar to be an error.  You've conveniently excluded all those Orthodox who DO believe the New Calendar to be an error.  What does that prove?
That it is truly TOM contra Mundi, so the calendar issue had better be as important as upholding the full divinity of Christ to justify such a position as TOM as setting up rival synods, etc.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #814 on: August 01, 2009, 02:01:40 PM »


who, though he be an Athonite elder, repeats the error of the calendar, and the hierarchs who use it, as being heretical.
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583?  If belief in the heretical nature of the New Calendar is an error, against what authority is it errant?

The authority of the pleroma of Orthodoxy.
As you define it...  Again, a vague concept at the mercy of a very subjective perception...

No, as the diptychs define it....quite a deck of cards.


who, though he be an Athonite elder, repeats the error of the calendar, and the hierarchs who use it, as being heretical.
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583?  If belief in the heretical nature of the New Calendar is an error, against what authority is it errant?

The authority of the pleroma of Orthodoxy.
As you define it...  Again, a vague concept at the mercy of a very subjective perception...

Then please remove the subjectivity.  Inform us which Orthodox Churches have condemned the New Calendar and view those who use it as heretics.
Nah!  You're the one who cited the authority of a vague "pleroma of Orthodoxy" as evidence of your thesis.  It's up to you to defend your reliance upon that argument.

Besides, it already looks as if you've made acceptance of the New Calendar the definition of Orthodoxy, such that those who condemn the New Calendar place themselves outside the Church by their very act of condemning the New Calendar and are therefore to be ignored as schismatics.  How can anyone argue with you when you stack the deck in that way?

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2009, 02:24:11 PM by ialmisry » 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #815 on: August 01, 2009, 05:07:28 PM »


who, though he be an Athonite elder, repeats the error of the calendar, and the hierarchs who use it, as being heretical.
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583?  If belief in the heretical nature of the New Calendar is an error, against what authority is it errant?

The authority of the pleroma of Orthodoxy.
As you define it...  Again, a vague concept at the mercy of a very subjective perception...

No, as the diptychs define it....quite a deck of cards.


who, though he be an Athonite elder, repeats the error of the calendar, and the hierarchs who use it, as being heretical.
Error or merely a different interpretation of the canons, particularly the Sigillion of 1583?  If belief in the heretical nature of the New Calendar is an error, against what authority is it errant?

The authority of the pleroma of Orthodoxy.
As you define it...  Again, a vague concept at the mercy of a very subjective perception...

Then please remove the subjectivity.  Inform us which Orthodox Churches have condemned the New Calendar and view those who use it as heretics.
Nah!  You're the one who cited the authority of a vague "pleroma of Orthodoxy" as evidence of your thesis.  It's up to you to defend your reliance upon that argument.

Besides, it already looks as if you've made acceptance of the New Calendar the definition of Orthodoxy, such that those who condemn the New Calendar place themselves outside the Church by their very act of condemning the New Calendar and are therefore to be ignored as schismatics.  How can anyone argue with you when you stack the deck in that way?

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break.  I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

Besides, since when did the diptychs actually constitute the Church?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #816 on: August 01, 2009, 06:26:28 PM »

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").


Quote
I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

One, I've yet to see evidence on this thread that even accurately identifies what they are criticizing.

Two, the only valid point I've seen on the other side has been tha the Church isn't "One" on two calendars.  Besides being contradicted by the Paschal controversies, I've yet to see an arguement how that can't be solved by everyone adopting the New Style calendar.
Quote
Besides, since when did the diptychs actually constitute the Church?
Since their institution.  "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  "Invisible" isn't there.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #817 on: August 01, 2009, 06:57:20 PM »

Quote
What I'm driving at is that you ignore the witness of those who disagree with you (i.e., those who condemn the New Calendar) and cite as authoritative the unanimous witness of those who agree with you.  By definition, this is the logical fallacy known as "stacking the deck".

The only witness I will admit as meaningful is that of the Orthodox Church, and I define that as the Patriarchies, the autocephalies and the autonomies which maintain communion with one another.  If that is "stacking the deck" so be it.  My "deck" cannot but lie with the canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church.  Other witness and opinions, whether from the Celtic Orthodox Church or the Russian Zarist Church, have little relevance.
At least you're honest.  Your faulty logic does absolutely nothing to prove (to anyone but yourself) your original claim that the New Calendar is not in error, but at least you're honest. Tongue

I find it hard to believe that you reject the unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church as "faulty logic."
Nah!  I call faulty only that which YOU have artificially constructed and put forth to be the "unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church". Wink

Don't ask me to define my meaning again, for I already have.

Well, I am not sure if I have seen your definition.   But I am happy to provide my definitive list for the pleroma of the Church.  Here is a list (hope it is complete.)  The unanimous witness of these Churches is that they accept both Old and New Calendars, irrespective of which one they themselves may be following:

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Patriarchate of Alexandria
3. Patriarchate of Antioch
4. Patriarchate of Jerusalem
5. Patriarchate of Moscow
6. Patriarchate of Serbia
7. Patriarchate of Romania
8. Patriarchate of Bulgaria
9. Patriarchate of Georgia
10. Church of Cyprus
11. Church of Greece
12. Church of Poland
13. Church of Albania
14. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
15. Orthodox Church in America
16. Church of Sinai
17. Church of Finland
18. Church of Estonia
19. Church of Japan
20. Church of Ukraine
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #818 on: August 01, 2009, 06:59:26 PM »

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").
Thus conceding my point.

Quote
I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

One, I've yet to see evidence on this thread that even accurately identifies what they are criticizing.
That really isn't the point of this thread.

Two, the only valid point I've seen on the other side has been tha the Church isn't "One" on two calendars.  Besides being contradicted by the Paschal controversies, I've yet to see an arguement how that can't be solved by everyone adopting the New Style calendar.

Quote
Besides, since when did the diptychs actually constitute the Church?
Since their institution.  "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  "Invisible" isn't there.
But neither is the Church identified SOLELY with its visible institution.

Besides, even Old Calendarists, AFAIK, believe that the Church must be visible.  They just argue that the Church is defined by its faithfulness to Tradition just as much as by its communion with canonical patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops.  If this "world Orthodoxy" you call canonical has abandoned Tradition (e.g., by adopting the New Calendar), then the diptychs of this heretical "world Orthodox" pseudo-church mean nothing to them.  The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #819 on: August 01, 2009, 07:00:56 PM »

Quote
What I'm driving at is that you ignore the witness of those who disagree with you (i.e., those who condemn the New Calendar) and cite as authoritative the unanimous witness of those who agree with you.  By definition, this is the logical fallacy known as "stacking the deck".

The only witness I will admit as meaningful is that of the Orthodox Church, and I define that as the Patriarchies, the autocephalies and the autonomies which maintain communion with one another.  If that is "stacking the deck" so be it.  My "deck" cannot but lie with the canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church.  Other witness and opinions, whether from the Celtic Orthodox Church or the Russian Zarist Church, have little relevance.
At least you're honest.  Your faulty logic does absolutely nothing to prove (to anyone but yourself) your original claim that the New Calendar is not in error, but at least you're honest. Tongue

I find it hard to believe that you reject the unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church as "faulty logic."
Nah!  I call faulty only that which YOU have artificially constructed and put forth to be the "unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church". Wink

Don't ask me to define my meaning again, for I already have.

Well, I am not sure if I have seen your definition.   But I am happy to provide my definitive list for the pleroma of the Church.  Here is a list (hope it is complete.)  The unanimous witness of these Churches is that they accept both Old and New Calendars, irrespective of which one they themselves may be following:

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Patriarchate of Alexandria
3. Patriarchate of Antioch
4. Patriarchate of Jerusalem
5. Patriarchate of Moscow
6. Patriarchate of Serbia
7. Patriarchate of Romania
8. Patriarchate of Bulgaria
9. Patriarchate of Georgia
10. Church of Cyprus
11. Church of Greece
12. Church of Poland
13. Church of Albania
14. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
15. Orthodox Church in America
16. Church of Sinai
17. Church of Finland
18. Church of Estonia
19. Church of Japan
20. Church of Ukraine
What good is that list if it automatically excludes those who disagree with you?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #820 on: August 01, 2009, 07:13:55 PM »

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").
Thus conceding my point.

That they left? I thought we covered that.

I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

One, I've yet to see evidence on this thread that even accurately identifies what they are criticizing.
That really isn't the point of this thread.

I take it on Faith that St. Maximos knew what he was talking about and knew what he was criticizing and condemning.

Besides, since when did the diptychs actually constitute the Church?
Since their institution.  "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."  "Invisible" isn't there.
But neither is the Church identified SOLELY with its visible institution.

Of course not: there are the saints in heaven, which the visible institution of the Church canonize when God glorifies them visibly to the Church.



Quote
Besides, even Old Calendarists, AFAIK, believe that the Church must be visible.  They just argue that the Church is defined by its faithfulness to Tradition just as much as by its communion with canonical patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops.  If this "world Orthodoxy" you call canonical has abandoned Tradition (e.g., by adopting the New Calendar), then the diptychs of this heretical "world Orthodox" pseudo-church mean nothing to them.  The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Then under what bushel are those diptychs?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #821 on: August 01, 2009, 07:20:14 PM »

Quote
What I'm driving at is that you ignore the witness of those who disagree with you (i.e., those who condemn the New Calendar) and cite as authoritative the unanimous witness of those who agree with you.  By definition, this is the logical fallacy known as "stacking the deck".

The only witness I will admit as meaningful is that of the Orthodox Church, and I define that as the Patriarchies, the autocephalies and the autonomies which maintain communion with one another.  If that is "stacking the deck" so be it.  My "deck" cannot but lie with the canonical bishops of the Orthodox Church.  Other witness and opinions, whether from the Celtic Orthodox Church or the Russian Zarist Church, have little relevance.
At least you're honest.  Your faulty logic does absolutely nothing to prove (to anyone but yourself) your original claim that the New Calendar is not in error, but at least you're honest. Tongue

I find it hard to believe that you reject the unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church as "faulty logic."
Nah!  I call faulty only that which YOU have artificially constructed and put forth to be the "unanimous witness of the pleroma of the Church". Wink

Don't ask me to define my meaning again, for I already have.

Well, I am not sure if I have seen your definition.   But I am happy to provide my definitive list for the pleroma of the Church.  Here is a list (hope it is complete.)  The unanimous witness of these Churches is that they accept both Old and New Calendars, irrespective of which one they themselves may be following:

1. Patriarchate of Constantinople
2. Patriarchate of Alexandria
3. Patriarchate of Antioch
4. Patriarchate of Jerusalem
5. Patriarchate of Moscow
6. Patriarchate of Serbia
7. Patriarchate of Romania
8. Patriarchate of Bulgaria
9. Patriarchate of Georgia
10. Church of Cyprus
11. Church of Greece
12. Church of Poland
13. Church of Albania
14. Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
15. Orthodox Church in America
16. Church of Sinai
17. Church of Finland
18. Church of Estonia
19. Church of Japan
20. Church of Ukraine
What good is that list if it automatically excludes those who disagree with you?

YOU'RE RIGHT!

How thoughtless of us.  We should have these also:
Quote
WCC member churches and councils
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches.html
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #822 on: August 01, 2009, 07:22:30 PM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

In that case, you could build a fairly good case for the Celtic Orthodox Church under Archbishop Maelruain (Akron, Ohio.)  One trouble though is that he is so very faithful to Tradition that he has excluded from his diptychs every Byzantine Orthodox Church, accusing us of compromise with the Miaphysite Churches.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #823 on: August 01, 2009, 07:27:10 PM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?

The Old Calendarist Churches do not have diptychs.  This is because they are isolated and do not recognise each other.   Would you see the lack of diptychs as a serious defect?
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,257



« Reply #824 on: August 01, 2009, 09:24:06 PM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?

The Old Calendarist Churches do not have diptychs.  This is because they are isolated and do not recognise each other.   Would you see the lack of diptychs as a serious defect?

If God can create sons of Abraham from rocks (as Jesus spoke), then could he not create Orthodox without diptychs?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #825 on: August 02, 2009, 12:08:51 AM »

Then let such Churches produce their diptychs.  Let us see how they manifest the ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

No one in the Church supported  Pope St. Victor's excommunication over the calendar.  Father has not said that their condemnation of the New Calendar places them outside the Church.  Rather it is their seperation, and their encourage of the faithful under the bishops of the diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow... to seperate from themselves from said bishops and join a TOM Church, seperates them from the Churches in said diptychs.
But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").
Thus conceding my point.

That they left? I thought we covered that.
No.  That they condemned the New Calendar while they were still what you would call Orthodox and left what you call the Orthodox Church to carry out the logical conclusion of their condemnation of the New Calendar.

I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

One, I've yet to see evidence on this thread that even accurately identifies what they are criticizing.
That really isn't the point of this thread.

I take it on Faith that St. Maximos knew what he was talking about and knew what he was criticizing and condemning.
Your point being?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #826 on: August 02, 2009, 12:11:06 AM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?
I thought YOU were the one discounting the Old Calendarist Churches. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #827 on: August 02, 2009, 12:47:47 AM »

Thus conceding my point.

That they left? I thought we covered that.
Quote
No.  That they condemned the New Calendar while they were still what you would call Orthodox and left what you call the Orthodox Church to carry out the logical conclusion of their condemnation of the New Calendar.


If that is the crux of the complaint from the Old Calendarists, trhen they would not be too different to the Old Ritualists of Russia who also " left what you call the Orthodox Church" over whether to use 2 or 3 fingers when crossing oneself, whether to sing Alleluia two or three times....  They actually numbered a third of the population in their early days.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #828 on: August 02, 2009, 12:53:21 AM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?
I thought YOU were the one discounting the Old Calendarist Churches. Wink

From several of your messages you give the impression that the Orthodox Church is something different to what I have been taught it to be.  What is the teaching of the Orthodox Church in America?   Does Metropolitan Jonah consider that his diptychs are faulty and does he commemorate the primates of the Old Calendarist Churches?   Does he ignore the anathemas of the Church of Greece and maintain communion with the Old Calendarist bishops?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #829 on: August 02, 2009, 12:59:44 AM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?
I thought YOU were the one discounting the Old Calendarist Churches. Wink

I offered two lists of Churches.  One was a list of the Patriarchies, autocephalies and autonomies which comprise one Orthodox Church.  The second was a list of Old Calendarist Churches which really comprise no Church since they are totally not integrated units and not in communion with one another.  But ALL the members, bar one, of the second list have one thing in common.  They have discounted the Churches on the first list.  If I am guilty of faulty logic once again please bear with me and explain where I went wrong.
Logged
LBK
Moderated
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,481


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #830 on: August 02, 2009, 01:33:20 AM »

There is much truth to be gleaned from the following article:

Patronal Feast Day at the Monastery of the Sacred and Life-giving Calendar

The Sacred Cenobitic Stavropegial Hesychastic Apophatic Peripatetic Monastery of the Sacred and Life-Giving Calendar is located on the Greek Island of Periphrenitis, just off the Golden Horn. On April 1 (Orthodox Style) the community celebrates its patronal feast: The Universal Exaltation of the Sacred and Life-Giving Calendar. Two years ago, the monastery became the site of the historic 24th Ecumenical Council, where the heresy of the Pseudo-Neo-Julian (but really papal-filioquist) Calendar was anathematized along with several of the community's neighbors.

The celebration is attended by faithful from all around the globe, who travel great distances to pray at the world's only Orthodox monastery. This year the number of worshippers is so great that the brotherhood is contemplating the construction of an addition to the chapel, currently located in a garage. Dr. Vladislav Morass, author of numerous definitive Orthodox theological books and articles, was recently baptized at the monastery. "I'm so glad to have finally found the true Church," he said.

The service of the All-night Vigil culminates with the singing of the newly-composed Akathist Hymn to the Sacred and Life-Giving Calendar. Wafting through the windows along with clouds of incense, the heart-rending strains of the hymn can be heard throughout the streets of Periphrenitis: Rejoice, thou who containest twelve months! Rejoice, thou who truly hast 365 days! Rejoice, (except for on leap year, which is calculated without regard for the deceptive and apostate motions of this vain world)! Rejoice, for thou preservest the Patristic Astronomy! Rejoice, for thou disregardest the sophistries of the papal astronomers! Rejoice, firm bulwark against the filioque, which is implicit in Latin astronomy! Rejoice, thou who grantest unto the faithful cheaper egg nog! (etc, etc)

When asked whether the community's stance on the calendar change of the 1920's had not degenerated into "hemerologolatry" Abbot Exacustodian [Throckmorton, PhD,BS,MDA,ATM,DDT] replied in the negative: "Only someone infected with the false western pagan phronema of the platonized Franks could think such a thing. This is what happens to those who have not been illuminated, and yet try to examine the calendrical mysteries with their fallen minds. And to think that this sort of thinking goes by the name of 'common sense' in our day! Of course we do not worship the calendar. Rather, we honor the calendar with a relative veneration. This veneration passes over to the prototype of calendars -- the form of the calendar if you will, which is an image of the True Calendar, which is an image of Eternity. How can we expect to arrive in Eternity if we do not venerate the correct calendar? How can we discern the signs of the times if we don't what time it is? Woe to you, Jerusalem, for you have missed the time of your visitation by thirteen days. Truly, those who venerate a different calendar have fallen into darkness and shall perish eternally, along with most of the people praying here tonight."

But one source of grief overshadows the celebrations this year, and that is the recent loss of communion with the neighboring community of the Four Holy Bodily Humors, a brotherhood dedicated to the faithful preservation of the Patristic Biology, without which, according to Abbot Pansophistikos [Himerologitis], the Orthodox mindset cannot be preserved in this age of apostasy. Fr. Pansophistikos is celebrating the Feast of the Calendar in his own chapel this year, together with faithful from almost every hemisphere.

Pansophistikos regrets the recent separation, but says that it couldn't be helped. "We had a good relationship with them, but the Abbot fell into such delusion that he stopped saying 'te-ri-rem.' Now none of the monks there say 'te-ri-rem' according to the revealed and Apostolic tradition of saying 'te-ri-rem.' How do they expect to get through the aerial tollhouses without saying 'te-ri-rem?' But we shall keep the traditions of the Fathers without addition or subtraction. Keeping them without astronomy is not enough."


Source



Fixed broken link  -PtA
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 01:43:39 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #831 on: August 02, 2009, 01:45:56 AM »

The only diptychs that matter are those of the Orthodox churches that have remained faithful to Tradition.

Not sure of your point here?  Are you discounting the Old Calendarist Churches?
I thought YOU were the one discounting the Old Calendarist Churches. Wink

From several of your messages you give the impression that the Orthodox Church is something different to what I have been taught it to be.  What is the teaching of the Orthodox Church in America?   Does Metropolitan Jonah consider that his diptychs are faulty and does he commemorate the primates of the Old Calendarist Churches?   Does he ignore the anathemas of the Church of Greece and maintain communion with the Old Calendarist bishops?
You don't know the role of the Devil's Advocate in a debate, do you? Wink

(No intent to imply that the Old Calendarists I've been defending are in league with the devil, since I believe no such garbage. Wink)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 01:48:02 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,358



« Reply #832 on: August 02, 2009, 01:59:07 AM »

But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").
Thus conceding my point.

That they left? I thought we covered that.
No.  That they condemned the New Calendar while they were still what you would call Orthodox and left what you call the Orthodox Church to carry out the logical conclusion of their condemnation of the New Calendar.

As opposed to those who criticize the New Calendar and stayed in?

I think this makes their criticism legitimate and therefore something we shouldn't dismiss so flippantly.

One, I've yet to see evidence on this thread that even accurately identifies what they are criticizing.
That really isn't the point of this thread.

I take it on Faith that St. Maximos knew what he was talking about and knew what he was criticizing and condemning.
Your point being?
Your point of order is off point.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 01:59:47 AM by ialmisry » 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #833 on: August 02, 2009, 04:12:31 AM »

But they "separated themselves from the Church", as you say it, largely because they found the New Calendar to be in error.  Their condemnation of the calendar thus preceded their decision to break communion with "world Orthodoxy" and was the reason for their break. 

But only their break concerns us. As Orthodox Luker has repeatedly pointed out, the issue of schism only came up 11 years after the revision of the Julian calendar (recommended by a Serbian Orthodox astronomer and not a "atheist astronomer of the Pope"), making it more accurate at present than the Gregorian ("atheist calendar of the Pope").
Thus conceding my point.

That they left? I thought we covered that.
No.  That they condemned the New Calendar while they were still what you would call Orthodox and left what you call the Orthodox Church to carry out the logical conclusion of their condemnation of the New Calendar.

As opposed to those who criticize the New Calendar and stayed in?
Irrelevant to my point that you're ignoring those who disagree with you.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #834 on: August 03, 2009, 05:29:24 AM »

Jonathan said: "Of course!  All those who don't believe the New Calendar to be an error don't believe the New Calendar to be an error.  You've conveniently excluded all those Orthodox who DO believe the New Calendar to be an error.  What does that prove?"

- I am interjecting here having read the entire thread up to this point and not knowing what was posted after (now actually earlier as this post appears).

There is a third, very important option that Jonathan does not list. ROCOR Metropolitan Anastassy stated that ROCOR did see the New Calendar as a problem but clearly stated that ROCOR does not break communion with those who follow it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #835 on: August 03, 2009, 03:00:36 PM »

Jonathan said: "Of course!  All those who don't believe the New Calendar to be an error don't believe the New Calendar to be an error.  You've conveniently excluded all those Orthodox who DO believe the New Calendar to be an error.  What does that prove?"
Actually, it was I who said that.  I don't want Jonathan to get blamed for something he didn't say. Wink

- I am interjecting here having read the entire thread up to this point and not knowing what was posted after (now actually earlier as this post appears).

There is a third, very important option that Jonathan does not list. ROCOR Metropolitan Anastassy stated that ROCOR did see the New Calendar as a problem but clearly stated that ROCOR does not break communion with those who follow it.
Actually, what I said was intended to address a fallacy in reasoning, so I read your response as unrelated to the context of my quote.  Very good insight nonetheless, and certainly worth reading within the larger context of this thread, but it doesn't follow logically from what you quoted of my words. Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #836 on: August 03, 2009, 08:06:24 PM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #837 on: August 03, 2009, 08:17:20 PM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Didn't Bp Theophan of Poltava condemn the New Calendar? What was his status in ROCOR anyway--some people really seem to like him and were against Met Anthony Khrapovitsky and vice-versa.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #838 on: August 03, 2009, 08:26:10 PM »

Bishop Theophilus had joined the ROCOR from the Romanian Patriarchate and was given a blessing to continue on the New Calendar temporarily until he could explain to his flock why they were returning to the Old.


Father, do you have any reference that the Romanian Orthodox Synod which was formed in France by Saint John Maximovitch was intended to change from the New Calendar to the Old?  My understanding has been that Saint John had no problems with the New Calendar.

Together Saint John and Bishop Theophil Ionescu consecrated the bishop for the Orthodox Church of France which was certainly created by Saint John to be a New Calendar jurisdiction using the Western Rite.

They seemed to have no problem with the New Calendar.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #839 on: August 03, 2009, 08:37:41 PM »


Didn't Bp Theophan of Poltava condemn the New Calendar?

I think his major objection was that such a change could not be introduced without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

But my conversation with Peter has centred on the contemporary Orthodox Churches and whether or not they condemn the New Calendar. It is only to be expected that the bishops back in the 1920s would have had varying views.


Bishop Theophan is a completely fascinating man.

A Life of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava
Written by Vladimir Moss

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/212/a-life-archbishop-theophan-poltava/
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,057


« Reply #840 on: August 05, 2009, 05:57:42 PM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Didn't Bp Theophan of Poltava condemn the New Calendar? What was his status in ROCOR anyway--some people really seem to like him and were against Met Anthony Khrapovitsky and vice-versa.

I read Vladimir Moss´ life of Bp Theophan. Moss really likes him for various reasons. One is that Theophan supported the old calendarists right away, while Met Anthony maintained communion with the new calendarists, not because he approved of the calendar change, but because he felt it was safer to stay with the 'official' church (the ROCOR was too busy at the time with its own problems to worry about internal affairs of other churches). The other was because Theophan opposed Anthony's teaching about redemption, i.e. that the sacrifice on the Cross was not an atonement for sin but simply the perfect offering that brought us salvation. It's part of Moss' campaign against the 'new soteriology': Romanides, Met Anthony etc. I was really into that while I was reading lots of Moss, but now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, at least according to Moss Theophan was strongly against the calendar innovation and supported the old calendarists. You can find his life on his website. Irish Hermit kindly provided a link.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,057


« Reply #841 on: August 05, 2009, 06:09:31 PM »

Bishop Theophilus had joined the ROCOR from the Romanian Patriarchate and was given a blessing to continue on the New Calendar temporarily until he could explain to his flock why they were returning to the Old.


Father, do you have any reference that the Romanian Orthodox Synod which was formed in France by Saint John Maximovitch was intended to change from the New Calendar to the Old?  My understanding has been that Saint John had no problems with the New Calendar.

Together Saint John and Bishop Theophil Ionescu consecrated the bishop for the Orthodox Church of France which was certainly created by Saint John to be a New Calendar jurisdiction using the Western Rite.

They seemed to have no problem with the New Calendar.

I wouldn't say St John had no problem with the new calendar: didn't he always date his letters by the traditional calendar, even when they were not on ecclesiastical business? Anyway, I think the point about his attitude to _some_ new calendarists was that a certain degree of condescension was necessary in order to bring them into traditional Orthodoxy. This is manifestly not the same thing as having 'no problem' with the new calendar. Actually, Met Philaret thought he went a bit too far in his condescension, in his letter to Abbess Magdalena of the Lesna Convent.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,057


« Reply #842 on: August 05, 2009, 06:12:13 PM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,057


« Reply #843 on: August 05, 2009, 06:26:24 PM »

Jonathan said: "Of course!  All those who don't believe the New Calendar to be an error don't believe the New Calendar to be an error.  You've conveniently excluded all those Orthodox who DO believe the New Calendar to be an error.  What does that prove?"
Actually, it was I who said that.  I don't want Jonathan to get blamed for something he didn't say. Wink

- I am interjecting here having read the entire thread up to this point and not knowing what was posted after (now actually earlier as this post appears).

There is a third, very important option that Jonathan does not list. ROCOR Metropolitan Anastassy stated that ROCOR did see the New Calendar as a problem but clearly stated that ROCOR does not break communion with those who follow it.
Actually, what I said was intended to address a fallacy in reasoning, so I read your response as unrelated to the context of my quote.  Very good insight nonetheless, and certainly worth reading within the larger context of this thread, but it doesn't follow logically from what you quoted of my words. Wink

Actually PtA you put it so wittily I wouldn't mind taking the blame for that.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #844 on: August 06, 2009, 12:17:13 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf
Are you sure you've given us the right link?  I can't find mention of Metropolitan Philaret/Filaret anywhere in this document, nor do I find anything citing specific condemnation of the New Calendar itself.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #845 on: August 06, 2009, 12:25:01 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

There is no doubt that some of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad were against the New Calendar, because they saw it as a symbol of the introduction of other ills in church life.   But it is very important to grasp that these private opinions were NEVER endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has NEVER condemned the New Calendar.

As ROCORorthodox wrote earlier:

"Metropolitan Anastassy had maintained communion and frequented concelebrations with the new-calendarist Greek Archdiocese of America. This was not simply a matter of practice, but was the official position of the ROCOR Synod. For, in an address to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese of America, on 14/27 September 1961, the ROCOR Synod declared:

"Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her policy was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them."

In another address, to the new-calendarist Church of Greece, on 3 October 1961, the ROCOR Synod repeated this  position yet again, stating:

"Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless... we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced."
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 12:37:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #846 on: August 06, 2009, 12:34:41 AM »

One more thing. I see a lot of the ROCOR pro-new-calendarist people citing Met Anthony and Anastassy for their position. The trouble is Met Philaret and Met Vitaly had a different position, and they clearly opted for the old calendarists, and also Met Laurus up until the last couple years of his tenure (Fr Anastasios has given much information on the personal closeness between Laurus and our Met Pavlos in other threads). I'm not sure why the former two should have greater authority than the latter. Especially since, from what I can gather, the former were adopting a wait and see attitude, rather like our first three bishops, who waited 12 years before renouncing the state church, in the hope it would change its course and return to the traditional calendar. So Met Philaret realized, as Abp Leonty had earlier, that the official church was not going to change its course, that it was getting deeper and deeper into ecumenism and that it was time to break with world orthodoxy and declare for the old calendarist church.

The trouble is, from your position, that the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad made very clear statements refusing to condemn the New Calendar.    Since it has never modified these statements then your suggestion of a " wait and see attitude" demonstrates that the Synod of Bishops perceived their approach to be correct.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #847 on: August 06, 2009, 12:35:45 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

There is no doubt that some of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad were against the New Calendar, because they saw it was a symbol of the introduction of other ills in church life.   But it is very important to grasp that these private opinions were NEVER endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has NEVER condemned the New Calendar.
You're changing the rules here, Irish Hermit. police  First you ask me to prove that an Orthodox bishop condemned the New Calendar.  Then when someone else names a bishop of your own jurisdiction who condemned the New Calendar, you have to dismiss this evidence by pointing out that the whole of the ROCOR synod never condemned the New Calendar.  Don't you see now how you just raised the bar that needs to be reached to prove something to you?  Just admit that you're manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable and be done with this chicanery.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 12:36:19 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #848 on: August 06, 2009, 12:51:44 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

There is no doubt that some of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad were against the New Calendar, because they saw it was a symbol of the introduction of other ills in church life.   But it is very important to grasp that these private opinions were NEVER endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has NEVER condemned the New Calendar.
You're changing the rules here, Irish Hermit. police  First you ask me to prove that an Orthodox bishop condemned the New Calendar.  Then when someone else names a bishop of your own jurisdiction who condemned the New Calendar, you have to dismiss this evidence by pointing out that the whole of the ROCOR synod never condemned the New Calendar.  Don't you see now how you just raised the bar that needs to be reached to prove something to you?  Just admit that you're manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable and be done with this chicanery.

Actually, Peter. it was you who "changed the rules."  Through this thread you and I have been speaking about Churches which condemned or did not condemn the New Calendar.  Now you have switched to bishops.

So no, I have not raised the bar as you allege.  I have simply returned to your original line of argumentation which is the correct line since it is Churches which have the authority in this matter and not individual bishops.  I shall refrain from accusing you of "manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable" since I think you may not be aware you switched the focus from "churches" to "bishops." 

"...be done with this chicanery" strikes me as a petty thing.   But let us get away from this chicanery of suddenly focusing on bishops and return to the correct focus of authority - CHURCHES.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 12:53:45 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #849 on: August 06, 2009, 12:58:58 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

Wow, that document is only two years old. I didn't think the old rhetoric was still being thrown about by ROCOR Bishops, but there you go.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 01:01:52 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #850 on: August 06, 2009, 01:13:15 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

Wow, that document is only two years old. I didn't think the old rhetoric was still being thrown about by ROCOR Bishops, but there you go.

The holy Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) who was the third First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad died in 1985.

Peter says that he is unable to find the Metropolitan's condemnation of the New Calendar in the catechism cited by Jonathan.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 01:14:11 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #851 on: August 06, 2009, 01:35:12 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

There is no doubt that some of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad were against the New Calendar, because they saw it was a symbol of the introduction of other ills in church life.   But it is very important to grasp that these private opinions were NEVER endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has NEVER condemned the New Calendar.
You're changing the rules here, Irish Hermit. police  First you ask me to prove that an Orthodox bishop condemned the New Calendar.  Then when someone else names a bishop of your own jurisdiction who condemned the New Calendar, you have to dismiss this evidence by pointing out that the whole of the ROCOR synod never condemned the New Calendar.  Don't you see now how you just raised the bar that needs to be reached to prove something to you?  Just admit that you're manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable and be done with this chicanery.

Actually, Peter. it was you who "changed the rules."  Through this thread you and I have been speaking about Churches which condemned or did not condemn the New Calendar.  Now you have switched to bishops.

So no, I have not raised the bar as you allege.  I have simply returned to your original line of argumentation which is the correct line since it is Churches which have the authority in this matter and not individual bishops.  I shall refrain from accusing you of "manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable" since I think you may not be aware you switched the focus from "churches" to "bishops." 

"...be done with this chicanery" strikes me as a petty thing.   But let us get away from this chicanery of suddenly focusing on bishops and return to the correct focus of authority - CHURCHES.

If we were to go back to much earlier in this thread, you'd be right.  However, I'm calling your bluff based on the context you set in this imperative:
Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

If anything, you lowered the bar only to raise it again when someone met your challenge. Wink

Additionally, if one follows the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, then one has to recognize that the flock pastored by a bishop IS a church unto itself, not a mere sector of the Church, yet a church in communion with other churches.  So it is proper to speak of the authority of bishops as the authority of the Church.

But no, I have not changed the rules of engagement, as you allege, since I've never taken you up on your demand that I prove anything to you.  You're still the one demanding proof to counter your thesis, so the rules are still yours to set and reset.  I just don't have to play the game your rules govern, so I'm not going to. Wink
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 01:38:05 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #852 on: August 06, 2009, 02:01:23 AM »

Actually, I never said anything about any jurisdiction's exclusion of dissenting churches per se.  My objection has always been to your use of such an exclusion to manufacture your bogus claim that no Orthodox bishop ever condemned the New Calendar.

Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

Met Philaret of ROCOR condemns it explicitly in his foreword to Fr Basil Sakkas' book:

http://www.roacusa.org/Catechism/The%20Problem%20of%20Conservative%20New%20Calendarism.pdf

There is no doubt that some of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad were against the New Calendar, because they saw it was a symbol of the introduction of other ills in church life.   But it is very important to grasp that these private opinions were NEVER endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad.  The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has NEVER condemned the New Calendar.
You're changing the rules here, Irish Hermit. police  First you ask me to prove that an Orthodox bishop condemned the New Calendar.  Then when someone else names a bishop of your own jurisdiction who condemned the New Calendar, you have to dismiss this evidence by pointing out that the whole of the ROCOR synod never condemned the New Calendar.  Don't you see now how you just raised the bar that needs to be reached to prove something to you?  Just admit that you're manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable and be done with this chicanery.

Actually, Peter. it was you who "changed the rules."  Through this thread you and I have been speaking about Churches which condemned or did not condemn the New Calendar.  Now you have switched to bishops.

So no, I have not raised the bar as you allege.  I have simply returned to your original line of argumentation which is the correct line since it is Churches which have the authority in this matter and not individual bishops.  I shall refrain from accusing you of "manipulating the rules of logic to make your case unassailable" since I think you may not be aware you switched the focus from "churches" to "bishops." 

"...be done with this chicanery" strikes me as a petty thing.   But let us get away from this chicanery of suddenly focusing on bishops and return to the correct focus of authority - CHURCHES.

If we were to go back to much earlier in this thread, you'd be right.  However, I'm calling your bluff based on the context you set in this imperative:
Prove it.  Name the Orthodox bishops who condemn the New Calendar.

If anything, you lowered the bar only to raise it again when someone met your challenge. Wink

I made a response to Fr Anastasios' mention of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and Jonathan's mention of Metropolitan Philaret (which according to Peter he has not proven anyway.)   I would not accuse either Fr Anastasios or Jonathan of either "lowering" or "raising" the bar.  They brought in the question of the opinions of these individual bishops. There was nothing wrong in their speaking about these bishops and I was content to discuss it with them, but it is a peripheral issue. 

The real issue is one of authority in the condemnation of the New Calendar and that authority lies not with individual bishops but with the Churches and finds expression through the statements of the Synods of the Churches.   I am sorry if that is not clear to you. Or are you playing Devil's Advocate again?  Anyway, I took us back to the real issue- that of the Churches' statements on the New Calendar.  To date nobody has produced a single statement from any Church condemning the New Calendar and in the case of the Russian Church Abroad ROCORthodox has provided us with synodal statements to the contrary.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #853 on: August 06, 2009, 02:07:15 AM »

Additionally, if one follows the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, then one has to recognize that the flock pastored by a bishop IS a church unto itself, not a mere sector of the Church, yet a church in communion with other churches.  So it is proper to speak of the authority of bishops as the authority of the Church.

This would be an oversimplified understanding.  The canons direct the bishops to act in a conciliar fashion and in unity with the head bishop of the region.

But, if we were to follow your logic, a bishop of the Russian Church has authority to place his diocese on the New Calendar, or a few bishops of the Constantinople Patriarchate may decide to place their dioceses on the Old Calendar.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,825


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #854 on: August 06, 2009, 02:18:08 AM »

To date nobody has produced a single statement from any Church condemning the New Calendar and in the case of the Russian Church Abroad ROCORthodox has provided us with synodal statements to the contrary.
First, we need people who will actually agree with your definition of an Orthodox church, which you have deliberately made excessively restrictive in order to filter out those Orthodox churches who do condemn the New Calendar.  As long as your definition of an Orthodox church excludes the Old Calendarist churches (for whatever reason), you'll always be able to assert that no Orthodox church has ever condemned the New Calendar.  I, however, refuse to submit to such an attempt to stack the deck, and I encourage all other posters to follow my lead on this.
Logged
Tags: old calendar New Calendar calendar computus paschalion ecclesiastical moon nomikon faska cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 »   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 0.223 seconds with 72 queries.