OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 11:25:49 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Old Calendarist Churches ,"World Orthodoxy", and Maximos the Confessor  (Read 23161 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #135 on: April 28, 2011, 11:38:31 AM »

Why don't you first provide me with proof, rather than unsubstantiated assertions, that the Sigillion was forged or tampered with? It is simply illogical to demand to see the case for the defense when the prosecution has not even assembled its own case based on prima facie evidence.

I did not make the claim regarding the Old Calendarist forgery of codex 772, Elder Theoklitos of Mt. Athos did.  I simply asked if you knew anything which would contradict this claim.  I am led to believe that the late Abp Chrysostomos of Athens goes into more detail on this subject in the doctoral thesis which he wrote on the subject of the Old Calendarist schism, but without knowing Greek myself, and without an English translation of the dissertation, I cannot either confirm or deny the claim regarding the forgery.  I assumed that you know Greek and could consequently find a refutation in Greek quite easily, if such a refutation existed.  Knowledge of Greek would obviously better enable someone to confirm or deny the forgery claim.  If you do know Greek but simply don't want to look into this claim, then nobody can force you, only you will be leaving the claim of Elder Theoklitos unchallenged.  For an Athonite monk to claim that a documen on Mt. Athos contains a forgery would be quite an easy claim for his fellow monks to verify.  At this point, I have no reason to think he would make it up. 

I don't know Greek that well I'm afraid. But I am still baffled by the way you expect us to provide some decisive refutation to every new wild assertion the New Calendarists throw out in order to justify their defiance of the Church's anathema. The burden of proof is on you, not us. Are you not interested yourself in seeing whether Fr Theoklitos' assertion has any evidence to back it up? Or are you simply going to take his word for it? I have every reason to think the New Calendarists and their fellow-travelers on Mt Athos like Fr Theoklitos would make this up, or would at any rate simply repeat the assertion from whatever source without checking up on the facts. To say the anathema against the Menologion never actually existed in the original Sigillion obviously justifies your position and undermines our own. No one on your side has any interest in looking for evidence to support this assertion, unless we point out to you that you are going to have to provide the proof for your own claims before you expect us to refute them. This is why I'm putting the burden of proof on you to provide something more substantial than what some random Elder told you. Once you find it and show it to me, then I'll go looking for the refutation. Until then, why should I waste my time?

Funnily enough, as I showed earlier, there have been claims of forgery before, which never came to anything. To me this just looks like more of the same.
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,891


« Reply #136 on: April 28, 2011, 11:52:37 AM »

Blessed St. Maria (Skobtsova) (martyred by the Nazis in 1945) wrote a strong opinion re the calendar issue in an essay "Types of Religious Lives" see the last 2 paragraphs in the chapter on "Ritualism" http://incommunion.org/?p=26
Again, I will recommend anyone to read the last 2 paragraphs & then read the whole chapter on what Mother Maria speaks about the rigid, stagnant, ritualist mentality in her penetrating analysis. (the link is still good).
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #137 on: April 28, 2011, 12:07:07 PM »

I don't know Greek that well I'm afraid.

Ok, I apolgoize for the mistaken asumption.

But I am still baffled by the way you expect us to provide some decisive refutation to every new wild assertion the New Calendarists throw out in order to justify their defiance of the Church's anathema.

I have no such expectation.  Fr. Theoklitos is well known, is not a “New Calendarist” and as a former Old Calendarist zealot who joined the rest of the Orthodox Church, his claims carry some authority, which the zealot Old Calendarists on Mt. Athos and beyond would likely have rushed to deny if this claim is indeed made up.

To say the anathema against the Menologion never actually existed in the original Sigillion obviously justifies your position and undermines our own. No one on your side has any interest in looking for evidence to support this assertion, unless we point out to you that you are going to have to provide the proof for your own claims before you expect us to refute them. This is why I'm putting the burden of proof on you to provide something more substantial than what some random Elder told you. Once you find it and show it to me, then I'll go looking for the refutation. Until then, why should I waste my time?

Well, if neither you nor I know Greek, than we will not be able to do much to address this subject on our own.  I have asked someone who does know Greek, and who is interested in this question, to try to get some more information, and if he has the time to look into it and helps to clarify the matter, then I will pass the info on.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #138 on: April 28, 2011, 12:51:17 PM »

I imagine we don't consider Fr Theoklitos to be a figure of authority in the way you do. Just because he used to be a Zealot doesn't mean we still consider him to have the authority of one. Therefore, we are not going to take his assertions any more seriously than if some random crazy person said it. This probably explains the lack of essays rebutting the claims. If you want to believe whatever your "holy elders" tell you, uncritically, you can do so, but don't expect us to do likewise.

But I'd be interested to hear what you find out, and if there is in fact some substantial evidence lying behind Fr Theoklitos' assertions.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #139 on: April 28, 2011, 01:39:27 PM »

Christos anesti!
Why don't you first provide me with proof, rather than unsubstantiated assertions, that the Sigillion was forged or tampered with? It is simply illogical to demand to see the case for the defense when the prosecution has not even assembled its own case based on prima facie evidence.

I did not make the claim regarding the Old Calendarist forgery of codex 772, Elder Theoklitos of Mt. Athos did.  I simply asked if you knew anything which would contradict this claim.  I am led to believe that the late Abp Chrysostomos of Athens goes into more detail on this subject in the doctoral thesis which he wrote on the subject of the Old Calendarist schism, but without knowing Greek myself, and without an English translation of the dissertation, I cannot either confirm or deny the claim regarding the forgery.  I assumed that you know Greek and could consequently find a refutation in Greek quite easily, if such a refutation existed.  Knowledge of Greek would obviously better enable someone to confirm or deny the forgery claim.  If you do know Greek but simply don't want to look into this claim, then nobody can force you, only you will be leaving the claim of Elder Theoklitos unchallenged.  For an Athonite monk to claim that a documen on Mt. Athos contains a forgery would be quite an easy claim for his fellow monks to verify.  At this point, I have no reason to think he would make it up.  
My first question would be why is the sigellion isn't in the archive of the Phanar. Where else, if anywhere else, does it appear?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 01:41:18 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
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #140 on: April 28, 2011, 02:04:33 PM »

I imagine we don't consider Fr Theoklitos to be a figure of authority in the way you do. Just because he used to be a Zealot doesn't mean we still consider him to have the authority of one. Therefore, we are not going to take his assertions any more seriously than if some random crazy person said it. This probably explains the lack of essays rebutting the claims. If you want to believe whatever your "holy elders" tell you, uncritically, you can do so, but don't expect us to do likewise.
 

I will let you know if I learn anything else about this, but really Jonathan, this getting ridiculous.  "If you want to believe whatever your 'holy elders' tell you..."?  I simply asked if you knew anything about the claim, that's all.  I hardly know anything about Elder Theoklitos and I did not hold up this claim of his as a proven and uncontestable fact from an “infallible holy elder”.  It seems only uncontested in accessible English sources, but as I said, I am interested to know what is available in Greek.  You said you do not know Greek, so we could leave it at that.  If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what is in Greek on the subject, however, what is with all of the “we” statements as though you represent the Greek Old Calendarists and can explain why there are a “lack of essays rebutting the claims”, or your assertion that Elder Theoklitos’ claims are not considered by Old Calendarists to be any more serious than the words of a “random crazy person”?  Clearly Fr. Maximus (Marretta) in your Synod took the claims of Fr. Basil Gregoriates on Mt. Athos seriously enough to take about two years to formulate a response.  Why would a similar attempt not be made in the case of Elder Theoklitos and his claims?  If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what has or has not been said by Old Calendarists in Greek on the subject, it would probably be best to stop speaking for the Greek Old Calendarists on this issue and put the subject aside until further information becomes available.  I would certainly be happy to do the same.           
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,078


« Reply #141 on: April 28, 2011, 02:56:09 PM »

I imagine we don't consider Fr Theoklitos to be a figure of authority in the way you do. Just because he used to be a Zealot doesn't mean we still consider him to have the authority of one. Therefore, we are not going to take his assertions any more seriously than if some random crazy person said it. This probably explains the lack of essays rebutting the claims. If you want to believe whatever your "holy elders" tell you, uncritically, you can do so, but don't expect us to do likewise.
 

I will let you know if I learn anything else about this, but really Jonathan, this getting ridiculous.  "If you want to believe whatever your 'holy elders' tell you..."?  I simply asked if you knew anything about the claim, that's all.  I hardly know anything about Elder Theoklitos and I did not hold up this claim of his as a proven and uncontestable fact from an “infallible holy elder”.  It seems only uncontested in accessible English sources, but as I said, I am interested to know what is available in Greek.  You said you do not know Greek, so we could leave it at that.  If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what is in Greek on the subject, however, what is with all of the “we” statements as though you represent the Greek Old Calendarists and can explain why there are a “lack of essays rebutting the claims”, or your assertion that Elder Theoklitos’ claims are not considered by Old Calendarists to be any more serious than the words of a “random crazy person”?  Clearly Fr. Maximus (Marretta) in your Synod took the claims of Fr. Basil Gregoriates on Mt. Athos seriously enough to take about two years to formulate a response.  Why would a similar attempt not be made in the case of Elder Theoklitos and his claims?  If you don’t know Greek, and don’t know what has or has not been said by Old Calendarists in Greek on the subject, it would probably be best to stop speaking for the Greek Old Calendarists on this issue and put the subject aside until further information becomes available.  I would certainly be happy to do the same.           


I felt you were insinuating something by some of your phrasing, such as "then Elder Theoclitus' claims will remain unchallenged", which to me at any rate carried the clear implicature that the burden of proof was on someone on our side to challenge and refute the claim, as if all you had to do on your side was make a bald accusation and leave it at that. I don't feel you are being entirely honest when you say on the one hand that you aren't necessarily agreeing with Fr Theoclitus, while at the same time you keep bringing his claim up in different conversations, as if this were something that we needed to address promptly in order to justify ourselves. Why do you keep bringing it up if you are not yourself willing to vouch for its validity? You did not begin this by saying "by any chance, do you know of any OCist who addressed this claim?" Rather, you began by saying "why haven't you considered the lack of any challenges to this claim?", as if there needed to be any challenges. I'm saying again that we do not need to address this issue at all unless you can provide some solid evidence supporting Fr Theoclitus' assertions. So, if you don't want to raise hackles, watch your phrasing.

Regarding Fr Basil and Fr Maximus, Fr Basil made assertions about the way the Church has historically treated heresy but he also backed them up with evidence. Fr Maximus for the most part did not deny the validity of the evidence Fr Basil brought to bear, but instead showed how other evidence must also be considered, which taken in its entirety supports the position of the GOC.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #142 on: April 28, 2011, 03:21:21 PM »

I felt you were insinuating something by some of your phrasing, such as "then Elder Theoclitus' claims will remain unchallenged", which to me at any rate carried the clear implicature that the burden of proof was on someone on our side to challenge and refute the claim, as if all you had to do on your side was make a bald accusation and leave it at that. I don't feel you are being entirely honest when you say on the one hand that you aren't necessarily agreeing with Fr Theoclitus, while at the same time you keep bringing his claim up in different conversations, as if this were something that we needed to address promptly in order to justify ourselves. Why do you keep bringing it up if you are not yourself willing to vouch for its validity? You did not begin this by saying "by any chance, do you know of any OCist who addressed this claim?" Rather, you began by saying "why haven't you considered the lack of any challenges to this claim?", as if there needed to be any challenges. I'm saying again that we do not need to address this issue at all unless you can provide some solid evidence supporting Fr Theoclitus' assertions. So, if you don't want to raise hackles, watch your phrasing.
 

I should have said "then Elder Theoclitus' claims will remain unchallenged in English[/b][/i]".  I keep bringing it up only hoping that someone will have more information.  It would be foolish of me to hold up this claim as solid fact based merely on an assertion without any supportive documentation or explanation.   

Fr Maximus for the most part did not deny the validity of the evidence Fr Basil brought to bear, but instead showed how other evidence must also be considered, which taken in its entirety supports the position of the GOC.

I agree that Fr. Maximus’ conclusions support your position, but I don’t believe his evidence supports his conclusions.  However, I honestly do not have the time to jump in to this one.  It would be impractical to attempt on a discussion board to refute an article that took him 2 yrs to produce.  I’ll leave that job to someone more qualified, to address in a different format and at another time. 
Logged
Tags: Old Calendarists traditionalist ecumenism ecclesiology theologoumena calendar dogma schism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  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 0.062 seconds with 34 queries.