OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 08:23:54 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 24014 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2009, 12:06:37 PM »

I did not intend for this thread to be yet another foray into the calendar issue, though I should have realised that that is the way it would have gone.  I am much more concerned with the big picture differences between "World" Orthodoxy and Old Calendarists, and if there is somewhere where the two may meet.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2009, 12:12:46 PM »

Pravoslavbob,

I see that the thread's title also includes Saint Maximos.  In what way do you see him as tied into the matter of the Old Calendarist Churches and "World Orthodoxy"?

I don't, not in a direct way.  I'm sorry if you don't understand the reference, I don't know if I can or want to explain it any better.  In no way do I consider myself to be  approaching the sanctity or intelligence or anything of  St. Maximos.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2009, 01:21:00 PM »

What I find questionable is that you expect us to retract our anathemas but not the New Calendarists to retract theirs. If they don't recognize us, why should we recognize them?

And do us the courtesy of reading our Proclamation and answering my question about what's wrong with our 'spirit'. Your point about how to call the Council of 1583 is irrelevant; whether or not all the Local Churches were represented, they all assented to its outcome.

Moderator, if I'm being at all unfair, please let us know.

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

Btw, the Sigillion of 1583 itself admits it innovates:
Quote
But, lest the composition as a whole be weary to the simpler folks, we have decided to embody the matter in common language

No Father ever wrote in Common Greek (dhimotiki)
I contest that this is a case of focusing on a small, inconsequential thing such as the language of the document, and using this to discredit the entire document.  I've seen this defined as a variant of the straw man argument.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2009, 01:21:55 PM »

What I find questionable is that you expect us to retract our anathemas but not the New Calendarists to retract theirs. If they don't recognize us, why should we recognize them?

And do us the courtesy of reading our Proclamation and answering my question about what's wrong with our 'spirit'. Your point about how to call the Council of 1583 is irrelevant; whether or not all the Local Churches were represented, they all assented to its outcome.

Moderator, if I'm being at all unfair, please let us know.
Nah.  You're not being unfair. Wink  It's Irish Hermit I'm calling out for being unfair.
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: 37,963



« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2009, 01:42:51 PM »

What I find questionable is that you expect us to retract our anathemas but not the New Calendarists to retract theirs. If they don't recognize us, why should we recognize them?

And do us the courtesy of reading our Proclamation and answering my question about what's wrong with our 'spirit'. Your point about how to call the Council of 1583 is irrelevant; whether or not all the Local Churches were represented, they all assented to its outcome.

Moderator, if I'm being at all unfair, please let us know.

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

Btw, the Sigillion of 1583 itself admits it innovates:
Quote
But, lest the composition as a whole be weary to the simpler folks, we have decided to embody the matter in common language

No Father ever wrote in Common Greek (dhimotiki)
I contest that this is a case of focusing on a small, inconsequential thing such as the language of the document, and using this to discredit the entire document.  I've seen this defined as a variant of the straw man argument.

When the Greek Churches lift their ban on Dhimotiki in the Divine Liturgy or the Holy Bible, you can call it a small, inconsequential thing.  In the meantime, there is plenty of precedent in the Greek world up until the modern day (the the state abolishion of Katharevousa at least) of dismissing a document as invalid on the basis of its language.
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
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #50 on: August 01, 2009, 05:10:14 PM »

It makes sense that Old Calendarists declare the New Calendarists as graceless because I believe the Church of Greece says the same about the Old Calendarists. ...

Unfortunately, it doesn't:

- So-called "Old Calendarists" (hereinafter ScOC) state that everyone who follows New Calendar is a graceless heretic, therefore it needs re-baptism ( & re-ordination) - except their own bishops, whom all followed New Calendar between 1924 - 1935, when they joined the laity;

- ScOC state that, even if one is following the Church Calendar (namely: Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Georgia, Mount Athos), but is in communion with graceless heretics whom follow New Calendar, is also a graceless heretic except themselves, since they were in communion with ROCOR, whom was in communion with Jerusalem and Serbian, whom were in communion with everyone.

What sense does it make?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #51 on: August 01, 2009, 06:39:38 PM »

What I find questionable is that you expect us to retract our anathemas but not the New Calendarists to retract theirs. If they don't recognize us, why should we recognize them?

And do us the courtesy of reading our Proclamation and answering my question about what's wrong with our 'spirit'. Your point about how to call the Council of 1583 is irrelevant; whether or not all the Local Churches were represented, they all assented to its outcome.

Moderator, if I'm being at all unfair, please let us know.
Nah.  You're not being unfair. Wink  It's Irish Hermit I'm calling out for being unfair.

I would be happy to try and correct any unfair things  if you would give details.  I don't really like unfairness and would like to know where I am seen as such.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: August 01, 2009, 07:16:39 PM »

What good is that list if it automatically excludes those who disagree with you?

The other list of Churches.

Note 1. These Churches would NOT want to be included in the previous list I gave.  (Peter, I hope that answers your question above.)

Note 2.  These Churches are isolated groups and not, generally speaking, in communion with one another.

Note 3.  This probably is not a complete list.  Please add to it and/or correct it.  Thanks.


1. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)
2. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)
3. Holy Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites)
4. True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
5. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
6. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania
7. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
8. True Orthodox Church of Georgia
9. Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites")
10. Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church
11. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)
12. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)
13. Serbian True Orthodox Church
14. Holy Synod of Milan (Unclear whether "In Resistance" or not)
15. Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V).
....and mutliple other groups using ROCOR as a name (about 12)...too numerous to sort out
16. Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA)
17. Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA,Astoria)
18. Genuine Orthodox Church of America (Archbishop Gregory of Denver)
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 01, 2009, 09:30:25 PM »

Jonathan has referenced their 1935 "Confession of Faith" which specifically condemns the Church of Greece as s----- (the now unwelcome s word) and denies that any of its Mysteries have grace.

Citing historical documents or official documents that refer to one or another Church as schismatic is fine. What I was getting at above is that posters should avoid labeling each other as schismatic as if it is a self-evident fact.

OK:
"The Encyclical of 1818 says X, Y, and Z, and therefore the Church of X views the Church of Y as being in schism."

Not OK:
"You members of the Patriarchate of X are heretics so you should not be allowed to post stuff here."

As I stated, circumlocutions are also acceptable:

"The majority of the Patriarchates of Orthodoxy view the Old Calendarists as schismatic." is fine.

"The Old Calendarist Synods usually view World Orthodoxy as heretical" is fine.

The major reasons that we have rules like this are

A) to try to keep tensions down and
B) not make anyone from the three groups previously mentioned--
1) Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) "mainstream", 2) Eastern Orthodox "Old Calendarists" and 3) Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) feel as if they cannot post their positions respectfully.


These have always been the rules, they have not been changed on the fly, and if there is a question or concern, the moderatorial staff can always be consulted for clarification.

Furthermore--and this is not directed at anyone specific to be clear--speaking on a personal note, if anyone thinks that I personally am trying to censure anyone, think that one through.  I have spent thousands of hours in the past 7 years as part of the team to keep this site running.  Even after I converted to the Old Calendar Church, I did not close the site down or make it "Old Calendarist only."  I purposely--and with sometimes opposition from people in my own Church--kept this site going and intend to keep it going.  I log on here more often than not and see things posted against things I believe in. But I so strongly believe in the concept of a "forum" in the truest sense, that I gladly keep it up. I don't believe anyone has anything to fear from free and open discussion.  I also generally care about the people on this forum, pray for as many as I can, and have made several very close friendships from this site. I know others have come to Orthodoxy from this site as well from Protestantism and Catholicism, and that makes me very happy. But I do get sick of the rudeness and name calling, and that's something I am not willing to spend my time supporting. Hence the rules.

Fr Anastasios
Administrator
« Last Edit: August 01, 2009, 09:31:02 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: August 01, 2009, 09:37:33 PM »

I believe that Fr Anastasios fully deserves our gratitude for the years of work he has put into the Forum. 
It means a lot to many people.  It has brought many to Orthodoxy and it contains a wealth of information.

Many Years!  dear Father, to you and your staff.
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: 37,963



« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2009, 01:55:58 AM »

I believe that Fr Anastasios fully deserves our gratitude for the years of work he has put into the Forum. 
It means a lot to many people.  It has brought many to Orthodoxy and it contains a wealth of information.

Many Years!  dear Father, to you and your staff.

Many Years!
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 #56 on: August 02, 2009, 05:04:34 AM »


Irrelevant to my point that you're ignoring those who disagree with you.

Is this another Devil's advocate approach?    Wink

Those who disagree with us ignore one another.   

My second lists contains 18 Churches (could well be around 30 if you add in all the separate ROCOR Churches which keep bourgeoning in number.) 

None of these Churches agree with one another.  Their bishops are not in communion and in many cases they have anathematized each other.  They display an ecclesiastical trait more or less unknown in Orthodoxy but common in the world of Protestantism  - an inability to maintain cohesion, leaving one Church and setting up a new Church when there are personality clashes among the bishops.


Pravoslavbob wrote "I am much more concerned with the big picture differences between "World" Orthodoxy and Old Calendarists..."   - this feature of Church life in the world of Old Calendarism plays a significant role in the big picture.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 05:11:59 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2009, 05:17:41 AM »

The "true" Orthodox, in Greece and in other countries, have set up their own hierarchies of bishops and, in a few cases, patriarchs, who are not in communion with any of the canonical patriarchates or synods. I find it difficult to believe it is sufficient for a church to conduct its rites and services in a manner identical to the church from which it cut its ties. The fact remains that such a church is disobedient to any canonical hierarchy, and, this has enormous practical, doctrinal and sacramental implications, as contributors to this thread, and its recent sister thread, have tried to convey.

A good analogy from the West would be the various Roman Catholic groups which have never accepted the decisions of the Second Vatican Council. These churches have their own bishops and pope, and promote themselves as the "true Catholic church", they have branded all the post-Vatican II popes as antichrists, and the established church of Rome as heretical. Yet, like the "true Orthodox", there is little, if any, mutual recognition among them.
 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 05:24:49 AM by LBK » Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2009, 05:35:10 AM »

The other list of Churches.

Note 1. These Churches would NOT want to be included in the previous list I gave.  (Peter, I hope that answers your question above.)

Note 2.  These Churches are isolated groups and not, generally speaking, in communion with one another.

Note 3.  This probably is not a complete list.  Please add to it and/or correct it.  Thanks.


1. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)
2. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)
3. Holy Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites)
4. True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
5. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
6. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania
7. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
8. True Orthodox Church of Georgia
9. Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites")
10. Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church
11. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)
12. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)
13. Serbian True Orthodox Church
14. Holy Synod of Milan (Unclear whether "In Resistance" or not)
15. Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V).
....and mutliple other groups using ROCOR as a name (about 12)...too numerous to sort out
16. Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA)
17. Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA,Astoria)
18. Genuine Orthodox Church of America (Archbishop Gregory of Denver)

Aren't the Churches # 3, 6, 7 and 15 (ROCOR-PSCA) in communion with one another? AFAIK, they make up together quite a considerable ammount of people.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2009, 06:08:15 AM »

The other list of Churches.

Note 1. These Churches would NOT want to be included in the previous list I gave.  (Peter, I hope that answers your question above.)

Note 2.  These Churches are isolated groups and not, generally speaking, in communion with one another.

Note 3.  This probably is not a complete list.  Please add to it and/or correct it.  Thanks.


1. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Florinite)
2. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Lamian Synod)
3. Holy Synod in Resistance (Cyprianites)
4. True Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
5. Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewite)
6. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania
7. Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
8. True Orthodox Church of Georgia
9. Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, FROC/ROAC ("Suzdalites")
10. Seraphimo-Gennadite Orthodox Church
11. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Lazarus)
12. Russian True-Orthodox Church (Vyatcheslav)
13. Serbian True Orthodox Church
14. Holy Synod of Milan (Unclear whether "In Resistance" or not)
15. Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCE), also known as ROCOR (V).
....and mutliple other groups using ROCOR as a name (about 12)...too numerous to sort out
16. Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA)
17. Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA,Astoria)
18. Genuine Orthodox Church of America (Archbishop Gregory of Denver)

Aren't the Churches # 3, 6, 7 and 15 (ROCOR-PSCA) in communion with one another? AFAIK, they make up together quite a considerable ammount of people.

Yes, 3, 6 and 7 are.  The Greek Cyprianites, the Old Calendar Church of Romania and the old Calendar Church of Bulgaria.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was also in communion with these three Churches prior to its union with Moscow.  These Churches are moderate and recognise that the New Calendar Churches are authentic and have grace-filled Mysteries.

Yes, I think that the Agathangelites (ROCOR-PSCA) have now gone into communion with these 3.   That is interesting since, if memory serves,  Archbp Agathangel has declared that he does not recognise grace in the other ROCOR splinter groups.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2009, 09:23:06 AM »

Yes, 3, 6 and 7 are.  The Greek Cyprianites, the Old Calendar Church of Romania and the old Calendar Church of Bulgaria.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was also in communion with these three Churches prior to its union with Moscow.

Does the ROCOR still claim communion with these three Churches while they don't want to maintain it anymore?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 09:23:20 AM by Michał » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: August 02, 2009, 09:33:07 AM »

Yes, 3, 6 and 7 are.  The Greek Cyprianites, the Old Calendar Church of Romania and the old Calendar Church of Bulgaria.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was also in communion with these three Churches prior to its union with Moscow.

Does the ROCOR still claim communion with these three Churches while they don't want to maintain it anymore?

No, communion was broken because of the Russian Church Abroad's union with Moscow.    ROCA sent letters to the three Churches and also delegations, to explain that the Church Abroad had to follow its destiny and unite with the Church of Russia in the homeland.  But the three Churches were unable to accept ROCA's decision. 

Here is a letter from the Russian Church Abroad to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.


http://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/official/rocorsynod_photii2007-06-29en.htm
ADDRESS
of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (Moscow Patriarchate) to His Eminence Bishop Photii of Triaditza


----------------------------------------------------

16/29 June 2007
St. Tychon, Bishop of Amathus in Cyprus

To His Eminence
The Most Reverend Bishop Photii of Triaditza

Your Eminence, beloved in Christ Vladyka!

We appeal to Your Grace again with a fraternal epistle on account of the events in the life of our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

As you are informed, on 4/17 May this year, in the day of the Lord's Ascension in the church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow took place the solemn signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. According to this Act, the Russian Church Abroad remains independent “in the pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and civil matters”.

We acquainted ourselves with some of your pronouncements regarding the process of restoration of the unity in the Russian Church. We are sincerely regretful of the fact that, under circumstances not cleared up yet, you did not receive from the Chancellery of our Synod of Bishops our last letter, in which we enunciated our high appraisal of our steadfast stand for the preservation of the Orthodox Church Calendar and other primordial traditions, and expressed our intent to preserve with you good fraternal relations.

We asked you to treat the process of reconciliation with the Church in Russia with understanding and the awareness that this is an internal act of the Russian Church. It is our sincere conviction that the revival process of the Church in our much-suffered Motherland after the fall of the atheist authorities is, by God's Grace, so radical and all-encompassing, that we cannot remain aloof and not join it.

We have no intention in whatever way to retreat from our witness of the True Orthodoxy before the entire world, and shall continue to condemn both the pernicious ecumenism and modernism.

We cannot but agree with the following of your words which were published recently:

“Here we ought to admit honestly and frankly that very unfortunately with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad did not always hold to a theologically and spiritually consistent position, because all the overly stark criticism and the qualifications of the Moscow Patriarchate such as 'graceless assemblage', 'Soviet' and 'the red church' etc., are journalistically expressed extreme opinions rather than per ipso theological assessment with regard to the extremely heterogeneous and intricate organism which the Moscow Patriarchate is.”

“In this regard we cannot apply, in a way both fanatical and schematic, the maxima: if their ruling Bishops are such then all of them are such and therefore they lack Grace”.

“Too many errors were allowed in relation with the rash establishment of parishes in Russia and especially with the rash and unconsidered consecration of Bishops there. And there errors, regrettably, very quickly and in rather short terms destroyed the high authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.” (From the talk of Bishop Photii of Triaditza with the congregations in Plovdiv, Pazardzhik and Blagoevgrad, which took places on 16 and 27 November 2006).

Precisely in relation with these pronouncements of yours, we consider it to be the duty of our conscience to forewarn you in a brotherly manner that the leaders of the “opposition” of the reconciliation process are namely those people of fanatical frame of mind, who do not comprehend our balanced and moderate position and deny the presence of Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate.

And the head of this opposition, the suspended Bishop Agathangel is precisely one of the Bishops you condemn who were rashly and inconsiderately consecrated [for Russia].

Another leader of this opposition, the suspended priest Victor Dobrov, is an extremely fanaticised denouncer of the Moscow Patriarchate and our Hierarchical Synod, who indulges in the usage of such expressions in the regard of our Bishops and Priests which none could use and yet consider themselves to be still Orthodox.

The third oppositional leader, Dr. Evgenii Magerovsky, on the whole preaches the necessity that a new form be established of ecclesiastical administration, according to which the clergymen and the laypeople not only would be entitled to participate in the higher governing of the Church but also have the veto to [all] decisions made by the Bishops at the Councils or the Synods.

We earnestly ask you, Vladyka, not to become involved with such “oppositionists”, who only bring discredit to the witness of Orthodoxy and attempt to establish a schismatic structure passing off as “preserving” the genuine Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

We are very much alarmed that some of your Old Calendarist brethren have expressed their readiness even to take part in the consecrations of Bishops for the groups in opposition, which would only bring about the further fragmentation of the flock of Christ.

We trust in God's mercy in this difficult time and ask your holy prayers.

With brotherly love in Christ,

+ Metropolitan Laurus

+ Archbishop Mark

+ Archbishop Kyrill

+ Bishop Michael

+ Bishop Gabriel
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: 37,963



« Reply #62 on: August 02, 2009, 10:22:57 AM »


Irrelevant to my point that you're ignoring those who disagree with you.

Is this another Devil's advocate approach?    Wink

Those who disagree with us ignore one another.   

My second lists contains 18 Churches (could well be around 30 if you add in all the separate ROCOR Churches which keep bourgeoning in number.) 

None of these Churches agree with one another.  Their bishops are not in communion and in many cases they have anathematized each other.  They display an ecclesiastical trait more or less unknown in Orthodoxy but common in the world of Protestantism  - an inability to maintain cohesion, leaving one Church and setting up a new Church when there are personality clashes among the bishops.


Pravoslavbob wrote "I am much more concerned with the big picture differences between "World" Orthodoxy and Old Calendarists..."   - this feature of Church life in the world of Old Calendarism plays a significant role in the big picture.


Are any of the 30+ in communion with anyone on Mt. Athos? (I ask because it would seem this is a common reference point for them).
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #63 on: August 02, 2009, 12:22:59 PM »

To say there are 30 GOCs and that they are somehow all equal, and that is proof that they are all schismatic wackos, is really quite unfair. Also, some of the Churches in that list are duplicates.

In Greece there is one Synod that comprises 70% or more of the Old Calendarists, and that would be the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.  The others are almost all groups of one or two bishops that were suspended or defrocked and went to do their own thing. So how fair is it to "recognize" our power to ordain bishops, but not recognize our power to depose? It would be equivalent to us saying that the Moscow Patriarchate had failed because there are 10 or 15 or 30 Churches in Ukraine and Russia now that are independent.

But hey, it's easier just to lump every Tom, Dick, and Haralambos together, say each one is a Synod no matter if they have 200+ parishes with 13 bishops with real dioceses, or if they have 2 chapels with 3 laypeople and 5 bishops, and then say, "ah look at those crazy Old Calendarists! Always dividing!"

Our Synod (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) is in communion with Esphigmenou monastery on Mt Athos.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 12:51:44 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,689


« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2009, 01:10:11 PM »

Sorry I was away for a while. I haven't gone through every post since then in detail, so if what I say reduplicates something someone else said, please excuse me.

Irish Hermit, I admit I got upset when you didn't read through our Proclamation because we called the 1583 council Pan-Orthodox. I apologize if I offended in my reply, I see you were concerned about a point of information. I don't actually know what constitutes a 'quorum' for a council to be Pan-Orthodox. If less than half the Local Churches were represented, then I understand why one might dispute. On the other hand, there are two other councils mentioned as Pan-Orthodox. I think it's also legitimate to wonder why no other Local Church challenged the authority of the 1583 Sigillion until 1924, when one had to justify either the calendar change or remaining in communion with a Church that changed the calendar. Clearly we believe that the entire Church up until 1924 respected the anathemas pronounced against the Papal calendar. At the least you have to admit that the status of that council is subject to interpretation, rather than manifestly NOT Pan-orthodox.

In any case, what I should have said is that this small point of information is not really relevant to the question I asked, which is whether you think our spirit is uncharitable based on that Proclamation.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2009, 02:24:39 PM »

I see little point in demonising old calendarists by going on ad nauseum about the calendar and talking about how fragmented they are.   The "calendar issue" has been discussed so much elsewhere. Perhaps I should have focused on a stable old calendarist communion like the GOC in the OP, but I did not want to seem to be pointing the finger at Fr Anastasios or Jonathan.   

I suppose that many people who use the old calendar in mainstream Orthodoxy have much in common with certain old calendarist jurisdiction(s).  Both sides might believe that there is little to the idea of a Western captivity of Orthodoxy since the fall of Constantinople, both might have difficulty with theologians like Schmemann who they would see as modernist, and many more things besides.  For the most part, I find myself in agreement with Schmemann and subscribe to the idea of Western captivity.  These, and other things, are thorny issues for a great many people in the mainstream Church.  And yet, I find myself in communion with them, and they are not in communion with groups like the GOC.  I wonder what the implications might be.

I certainly respect that Fr Anastasios and Jonathan have come to embrace the GOC for reasons that they see as compelling, even though I do not always understand these reasons.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 02:26:34 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,689


« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2009, 03:27:29 PM »

Thanks, Pravoslavbob. I'm glad I finally got to hear what you had to say about all this.

You say that 'mainstream' Orthodox who use the old calendar, even if their bishops maintain communion with the new calendarists, often have more in common with old calendarists. I would venture to say even some new calendarists have more in common with old calendarists than their fellow new calendarists, to the extent they try to maintain traditional piety and hold to Orthodox doctrine and avoid ecumenist opinions. Both of these generalizations have a great deal of truth of them. Actually, I myself was surprised how much 'overlap' there was, at least in my jurisdiction, the American Metropolis of the GOC of Greece. My first impressions were of an inseparable divide.

But I'm starting to understand that while we may have a vague 'spiritual' communion with traditionalists in the mainstream churches, we don't have actual, physical communion, manifested in the shared partaking of the Holy Mysteries, and this, from my point of view, is essentially the responsibility of those mainstream churches, who are very severe towards us. They are open to greeting the heterodox in the West and in the non-Chalcedonian churches as fellow Christians, called to a 'common witness' to the world, but they are crystal clear that we are schismatics and outside the Church and utterly devoid of sacramental Grace. We find this schizophrenic attitude extraordinary and un-Orthodox. Perhaps that explains our hardened attitude: it's a reaction to the persecution and ridicule we have endured. I often wonder whether if the State Church of Greece had allowed us to keep the old calendar, the schism might never have lasted so long. But that's my private speculation.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #67 on: August 02, 2009, 03:30:58 PM »

...
Are any of the 30+ in communion with anyone on Mt. Athos? (I ask because it would seem this is a common reference point for them).
Officially, not.

Unofficially, it seems Esphigmenou commune at least one group. Officially, Esphigmenou can't declare it.

I think we may be a bit unfair in gathering all these groups together. AFAIK about the theology of Synof in Resistence, there is no much of the complaint I can launch against their stance, except for their attempts to establish their branches elsewhere. The only reason I could understand for such attemps would be to make their problem more visible Orthodoxy-wide, but I'm not sure.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
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: 37,963



« Reply #68 on: August 02, 2009, 05:19:17 PM »

To say there are 30 GOCs and that they are somehow all equal, and that is proof that they are all schismatic wackos, is really quite unfair. Also, some of the Churches in that list are duplicates.

In Greece there is one Synod that comprises 70% or more of the Old Calendarists, and that would be the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.  The others are almost all groups of one or two bishops that were suspended or defrocked and went to do their own thing. So how fair is it to "recognize" our power to ordain bishops, but not recognize our power to depose? It would be equivalent to us saying that the Moscow Patriarchate had failed because there are 10 or 15 or 30 Churches in Ukraine and Russia now that are independent.

But hey, it's easier just to lump every Tom, Dick, and Haralambos together, say each one is a Synod no matter if they have 200+ parishes with 13 bishops with real dioceses, or if they have 2 chapels with 3 laypeople and 5 bishops, and then say, "ah look at those crazy Old Calendarists! Always dividing!"

Our Synod (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) is in communion with Esphigmenou monastery on Mt Athos.

Father, I'm not lumping all the Old Calendarists together, but applying their own criteria to themselves. In particular to the "grace-less" Churches, grace-less in that they claim those who use the New Calendar, and those who think such New Calendar Churches have grace are themselves also grace-less.

I don't doubt your bishops ability to depose (or ordain for that matter for a lot of them).  However, I've yet to see a consistent standard to depose and suspend or defrock bishops for going to do their own thing that cannot be applied by the bishops on our diptychs to bishops in the TOM.  Further I see it a major problem that other than ROCA, the TOM doesn't seem to have achieved any lasting Catholicity.  Such was not the case in the days of Athanasius, St. Maximos and St. Mark of Ephesus.
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 #69 on: August 02, 2009, 05:36:35 PM »

To say there are 30 GOCs and that they are somehow all equal, and that is proof that they are all schismatic wackos, is really quite unfair.

Dear Father,

Let me affirm that it is not I who has said that the number of Old Calendarist Churches is proof that they are "schismatic wackos."   What I have said is that it is reminiscent of the spirit of Protestantism and its tendency to divide.  Remember that as a member of the Russian Church Abroad I stand in amazement at the proliferation of Russian Churches Abroad since May 2007.


Quote
Also, some of the Churches in that list are duplicates.

Happy to remove such Churches if you will indicate which ones.  Also happy to include any ones I have over looked.  IPC, I apologise for overlooking the Russian Zarist Church.  It ought to have been there.  My apologies.

Quote
Our Synod (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) is in communion with Esphigmenou monastery on Mt Athos.

Father, what does that mean?    I myself am in communion with the monastery of Panteleimon and the Great Lavra, Vatopedi and Hilandar, etc.  How do we differ here?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 05:37:47 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #70 on: August 02, 2009, 05:47:00 PM »

I see little point in demonising old calendarists by going on ad nauseum ..... and talking about how fragmented they are.   

Dear Pravoslavbob,

I introduced the matter of the spirit of divisiveness because you asked us to concentrate on the big picture and, in my opinion, this tendency towards division is a major feature of the OC movement.  One that should be taken into account in the overall picture.  I mentioned this a little in message 100.    It is certainly one factor in Old Calendarism which is prominent enough to warrant some investigation as to its causes and its influence on the movement.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: August 02, 2009, 05:57:02 PM »

An Orthodowiki site which makes an attempt to catalogue the Old Calendarist Churches

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Calendarists
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 06:09:26 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: August 02, 2009, 06:07:49 PM »


....the responsibility of those mainstream churches, who are very severe towards us.

Jonathan,

I would say that the Orthodoxwiki article is more on the button. The Churches have various approaches to the Old Calendar movement.

" The mainstream churches have varying positions on different Old Calendarist churches, ranging from an active desire to restore unity to a denial of the Old Calendarists' Orthodoxy.

Please also see what I wrote earlier

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg343006.html#msg343006

The historic Churches are, mostly, inclined to be lenient towards the Greek Old Calendarist Churches and accept their Sacraments, at least as a temporary charitable measure while the mess sorts itself out.  In doing this they are simply exercising the power of the keys to bind and loose and in this instance they are overriding quite a few of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.  But, as was said, this is being done out of charity and a hope for their return to the communion of the Church.

On the other hand, the Greek Old Calendarist Churches usually deny our Sacraments and many even say we are already damned.  Remember IPC who is a member of one of the Old Calendarist type Churches - that is the position of his Church.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 02, 2009, 06:10:27 PM »

To say there are 30 GOCs and that they are somehow all equal, and that is proof that they are all schismatic wackos, is really quite unfair.

Dear Father,

Let me affirm that it is not I who has said that the number of Old Calendarist Churches is proof that they are "schismatic wackos."   What I have said is that it is reminiscent of the spirit of Protestantism and its tendency to divide.  Remember that as a member of the Russian Church Abroad I stand in amazement at the proliferation of Russian Churches Abroad since May 2007.

Dear Father,  I know you did not say schismatic wackos. Although others do use the "long list" to "prove" schismatic "nature" and I am not sure that comparing us to Protestants is really nice, but you have a right to your opinion.  I think that your posting style and mine are different.  You tend to reply to people directly, while my thoughts may arise from one post but I tend to immediately go off to generalities.  So don't think I was accusing you of something; your post simply reminded me of a common criticism.  I'll try to not do that at least in regards to you if it causes you consternation.

Most of the Russian splits though happened before 2007.

Quote
Happy to remove such Churches if you will indicate which ones.  Also happy to include any ones I have over looked.  IPC, I apologise for overlooking the Russian Zarist Church.  It ought to have been there.  My apologies.

It's not my job to go through the list though. Just like when I made the claim about the ROCOR website and LBK called me to task, I had to spend almost 2 hours to research it and then corrected my error. You've found the wiki article on the history of the Old Calendarists (I don't think it's the best, but I don't have time to add any edits) so perhaps you might want to spend some time reading up and seeing where the duplicates are.  But I am not saying you "have" to.  In different circumstances, I might be more amenable to taking more time to explain some of the history, but this thread is too controversial and it would probably fall on deaf ears for most people.

Quote
Quote
Our Synod (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) is in communion with Esphigmenou monastery on Mt Athos.

Father, what does that mean?    I myself am in communion with the monastery of Panteleimon and the Great Lavra, Vatopedi and Hilandar, etc.  How do we differ here?
[/quote]

Someone asked if we were in communion with anyone on Mt Athos so I was pointing out that we are, in fact, "in communion with" one of the monasteries.

in Christ,

Fr Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #74 on: August 02, 2009, 06:39:42 PM »

Thanks, Pravoslavbob. I'm glad I finally got to hear what you had to say about all this.

You say that 'mainstream' Orthodox who use the old calendar, even if their bishops maintain communion with the new calendarists, often have more in common with old calendarists. I would venture to say even some new calendarists have more in common with old calendarists than their fellow new calendarists, to the extent they try to maintain traditional piety and hold to Orthodox doctrine and avoid ecumenist opinions. Both of these generalizations have a great deal of truth of them. Actually, I myself was surprised how much 'overlap' there was, at least in my jurisdiction, the American Metropolis of the GOC of Greece. My first impressions were of an inseparable divide.

But I'm starting to understand that while we may have a vague 'spiritual' communion with traditionalists in the mainstream churches, we don't have actual, physical communion, manifested in the shared partaking of the Holy Mysteries, and this, from my point of view, is essentially the responsibility of those mainstream churches, who are very severe towards us. They are open to greeting the heterodox in the West and in the non-Chalcedonian churches as fellow Christians, called to a 'common witness' to the world, but they are crystal clear that we are schismatics and outside the Church and utterly devoid of sacramental Grace. We find this schizophrenic attitude extraordinary and un-Orthodox. Perhaps that explains our hardened attitude: it's a reaction to the persecution and ridicule we have endured. I often wonder whether if the State Church of Greece had allowed us to keep the old calendar, the schism might never have lasted so long. But that's my private speculation.

I know, the whole situation is annoying and wrong. It annoys me when mainstream bishops approach Catholics and Protestants in the spirit of Christian love as they call it but they won't even dare think about even looking at the Old Calendarists. You say that attitude is un-Orthodox but in reality, it is simply un-Christian. It is understandable that the Old Calendarists have a hardened attitude toward the Church of Greece and I cannot simply see why they didn't just give churches a choice to stay on the Church calendar and you are probably right that if they had, the schism wouldn't have lasted as long but the fact that was forced on the Church made that difficult. I have to agree that the mainstream Church is to blame for the whole mess because the calendar innovation was forced and it brought no good at all. I pray that God will enlighten the Church of Greece to lift the anathemas placed on the Old Calendarists which in my view are silly. They want unity with groups that do hold heretical doctrines (Catholic and Protestant) but they don't seem to care about Orthodox unity. I have the view that the calendar isn't a matter of doctrine but the reason why the change was wrong was because it caused disunity in the Church which is the real travesty of it all and the change wasn't needed.


I've been following the thread closely so I hope nobody minds me chiming in every once in a while.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 06:45:41 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2009, 06:55:35 PM »

..

Dear Andrew,

Why did no Old Calendar groups develop in the Church of Antioch when it changed calendars?   I have never heard of any Antiochian Old Calendar Church.   What is so different about the Antiochians that they were able to avoid any divisions and preserve their church unity?



« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 06:57:51 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2009, 07:31:45 PM »

Thanks, Pravoslavbob. I'm glad I finally got to hear what you had to say about all this.

Did you see my earlier post, Jonathan?

Dear Jonathan,

From research that I have done, I actually believe that the Western calendar is correct.  This was not an easy thing for me to admit to.  I don't want to go into details, this has  been discussed a lot  elsewhere on this board.  (Sorry, I am not trying to be dismissive.)

My intention was not for this to be another thread about the calendar.  My point is that I disagree with a lot of the ways that old calendar communions approach the Orthodox faith.  (Of course, many people in world Orthodoxy take the  same or similar approaches, but I perceive, rightly or wrongly, that people are more free to disagree with them.)  Well, I should perhaps correct myself and say that I disagree with the way that I perceive that they approach the faith.  For example, I don't agree with the tendency that they seem to have to say that there are no such things as "small t" traditions in the Church (traditions of men), but that everything handed down must be seen as "large t" traditions.  (Many traditionalists would say that there is no such thing as a "Western captivity" of Orthodox theology, wheras to me, it is painfully true that such a thing existed and still  exists.)  Don't get me wrong, sometimes a conservative approach to the faith is very necessary, but I do not see the Church as being "conservative" or "liberal".  I see Her as being the Body of Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit but also inspired by the "changeless creativity" of the Spirit.  People, on the other hand, make many mistakes.  In her essence, I see the Church as absolutely perfect, but many confusing traditions of men, in my view, are taken to be "Tradition", large t. 

On the other hand, I do see emerging in the mainstream Churches a disturbing tendency towards relativism.  I think this is partly because of how the Church has been battered so strongly over the last few hundred years.  There is so much corruption, because of the way that the Church has had to survive under the Turkocracy and under communism.  The devil is doing his best to destroy the Church, though of course he will not ultimately succeed.  However, there might indeed come another period where most of the Church is not really the Church anymore, for a time.  Why shouldn't this happen?  After all, so many Christians were Arian in the fourth century that it wasn't funny.


I have real sympathy for some points raised by old calendarists, but at the moment, I could not see myself becoming one because:

1) I do not believe that the Spirit has abandoned the mainstream Church, and until I do see that this happens, I must follow my conscience and remain obedient to Her

2)I do not feel comfortable that there is a place for the creative (not innovationist) kind of thought that I like in old calendar Churches. 
I think that while conservative approaches are sometimes best, it is  ironic that, historically, staunchly conservative factions are often the ones that end up in heresy.  Not always, of course.  This leads to point number 3): 

Somewhat ironically, I do not feel that the old calendar Churches understand the faith in a Traditional way.  By my way of thinking, they are too concerned with following the letter of the law, and do not understand that this is not what is meant by being "traditional".

I suppose this is why, in my original musing, I just sort of indicated that I sometimes feel stuck between a rock and a hard place, though still at home enough in "World" Orthodoxy. 
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2009, 07:44:50 PM »

Our Synod (Archbishop Chrysostomos II) is in communion with Esphigmenou monastery on Mt Athos.

Quote
Someone asked if we were in communion with anyone on Mt Athos so I was pointing out that we are, in fact, "in communion with" one of the monasteries.

It should be pointed out that Esphigmenou has long been disobedient to even the monastic government of Mt Athos itself.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2009, 08:26:40 PM »

I'm not aware that we've really discussed the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and what this means to relations between the Old Calendarists and World Orthodoxy.  Until such time that one side or the other in this debate receives vindication from a yet-to-be-convened "ecumenical council", are the Old Calendarists right to cite the witness of St. Maximos, who, in defiance of imperial pressure, refused to return to communion with the established patriarchates until they repented of what he deemed the heresy of monotheletism?  We can ultimately say he was right to do so, now that his legacy stands vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  But prior to that council, much of the "World Orthodox" of his day, to include Constantinople, certainly must have thought St. Maximos an intractable schismatic, much as the World Orthodox of today consider the Old Calendarists.

So how does this apply to today's situation?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2009, 09:00:11 PM »

I'm not aware that we've really discussed the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and what this means to relations between the Old Calendarists and World Orthodoxy.  Until such time that one side or the other in this debate receives vindication from a yet-to-be-convened "ecumenical council", are the Old Calendarists right to cite the witness of St. Maximos, who, in defiance of imperial pressure, refused to return to communion with the established patriarchates until they repented of what he deemed the heresy of monotheletism?  We can ultimately say he was right to do so, now that his legacy stands vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.  But prior to that council, much of the "World Orthodox" of his day, to include Constantinople, certainly must have thought St. Maximos an intractable schismatic, much as the World Orthodox of today consider the Old Calendarists.

So how does this apply to today's situation?

First thoughts..... it doesn't.

Do we postulate an equivalence between the heresy of monothelitism and the Revised Julian Calendar?

Saint Maximos is a fine example of those who do not choose the path of schism and separation from the Church but of a principled inner resistance.  He endured dreadful persecution, having his tongue torn out and his hand cut off.  Despite this he remained within the Church.

As I say, these are just first thoughts.  I am keen to hear what others think.
Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« Reply #80 on: August 02, 2009, 09:05:23 PM »

..

Dear Andrew,

Why did no Old Calendar groups develop in the Church of Antioch when it changed calendars?   I have never heard of any Antiochian Old Calendar Church.   What is so different about the Antiochians that they were able to avoid any divisions and preserve their church unity?

Hmm, good point. I'm not saying that the Old Calendarists are right in their points either but I'm not convinced that they are entirely wrong looking at some of the acts of the Greek Church when it changed calendars. There was all out hostility to those who were against the Old Calendarists in Greece by condemning them as heretics. My biggest problem with the situation is that there is no effort going on to heal the wounds caused by the calendar change by the Church but instead they go to the Catholics and pray with them. There are plenty of problems that I have with Old Calendarist groups as well, the strongest fact is their question of grace and then the fact that they would re-baptize me if I were to join them. I believe that there should be only one calendar in the Church for the sake of unity and it was a mistake that it was changed but I will not go into schism over it. Heck I don't care if I'm on the Old, New, or Coptic calendar because it really doesn't matter in my view since it is not an issue of doctrine, just of time and it didn't compromise the Orthodox Faith.

I'm sure pride has a lot to do with the schism between the Old and New Calendarists, the Old Calendarists chose to be disobedient and broke communion with the rest of the Church on an issue where it wasn't a issue of doctrine and even when it comes to ecumenism which the Old Calendarists probably have the biggest issue with nowadays and probably say was one of the fruits of the new calendar is still not an issue to cause schism over. The whole ecumenical movement is wrong but it is also pointless and I believe it won't end up in any kind of unity whether pseudo or true so I don't see the need to break away for the Church. Which is clear in the example of someone like St. Mark of Ephesus who lived during a time when the Orthodox East was looking to unify with Rome and accept the heresies it taught, but in the face of this ecumenism of the time, did St. Mark break communion? No, he stayed in the Church and helped resolve the issue without breaking communion which is another issue of inner resistance. The breaking away from the Church does nothing to solve the issue.

You do bring an interesting point that Antioch has no Old Calendarist groups and to my knowledge neither does Alexandria or Jerusalem. God bless them for that. The whole issue is still an issue I don't fully understand I'm sure since I'm young both in age and in faith and still have much to figure out since I'm still confused about it.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 09:07:25 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2009, 09:07:32 PM »

Saint Maximos is a fine example of those who do not choose the path of schism and separation from the Church but of a principled inner resistance.  He endured dreadful persecution, having his tongue torn out and his hand cut off.  Despite this he remained within the Church.
But then, doesn't this assessment require a definition of the Church in hindsight and a retroactive application of this definition to St. Maximos's situation?  At the time, many of those who thought of themselves as in the Church deemed St. Maximos a schismatic.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2009, 09:12:56 PM »

Saint Maximos is a fine example of those who do not choose the path of schism and separation from the Church but of a principled inner resistance.  He endured dreadful persecution, having his tongue torn out and his hand cut off.  Despite this he remained within the Church.
But then, doesn't this assessment require a definition of the Church in hindsight and a retroactive application of this definition to St. Maximos's situation?  At the time, many of those who thought of themselves as in the Church deemed St. Maximos a schismatic.
So in your eyes you would see him as a schismatic?

I would view him more as the "loyal opposition."
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,968


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2009, 10:35:43 PM »

Saint Maximos is a fine example of those who do not choose the path of schism and separation from the Church but of a principled inner resistance.  He endured dreadful persecution, having his tongue torn out and his hand cut off.  Despite this he remained within the Church.
But then, doesn't this assessment require a definition of the Church in hindsight and a retroactive application of this definition to St. Maximos's situation?  At the time, many of those who thought of themselves as in the Church deemed St. Maximos a schismatic.
So in your eyes you would see him as a schismatic?

I would view him more as the "loyal opposition."
IF this was the 7th Century, when St. Maximos was alive, and I thus didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we have now in the 21st Century, and IF I was a member of a church in communion with Constantinople as I am now, who knows what I may have thought about St. Maximos.  I just might have thought him schismatic.
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: 37,963



« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2009, 10:53:54 PM »

Saint Maximos is a fine example of those who do not choose the path of schism and separation from the Church but of a principled inner resistance.  He endured dreadful persecution, having his tongue torn out and his hand cut off.  Despite this he remained within the Church.
But then, doesn't this assessment require a definition of the Church in hindsight and a retroactive application of this definition to St. Maximos's situation?  At the time, many of those who thought of themselves as in the Church deemed St. Maximos a schismatic.
So in your eyes you would see him as a schismatic?

I would view him more as the "loyal opposition."

To answer the question, "I'm not aware that we've really discussed the witness of St. Maximos the Confessor and what this means to relations between the Old Calendarists and World Orthodoxy."  Well, the OP brought him in.

The distinction I see between him and the TOM is that yes, overwhelming the Church had sided with the emperor, but St. Maximus was not alone.  Rome came back to its senses after Pope Honorius, and Pope Martin (former legate to Constantinople) convened the Lateran Council which condemned and anathematized Monotheletism. For publishing its decrees he was arrested. A string of successors in Rome, however, refused to promote Monotheletism.  Jerusalem under St. Sophronius had remained Orthodox.  It is clear that Monotheletism reached only as far as the emperor's reach.

In the case of the TOM, yes the actions of the Greek and Romanian kingdoms were disgraceful (I don't know about Bulgaria, btw what is now the Bulgarian archdiocese, being on the new calendar but under ROCA when they were in communion with TOM Churches is a problem for the latter).  Alexandria we know what happened: Met./Arb./EP/Pope Meletius showed up.  But Antioch?  What about the Churches in the New World?  If the calendar was such an ecumenist plot, and the Bolsheviks in such control over the Church in Russia, why didn't they force it on the PoM?  In the alternative, why didn't they have the PoM break communion with "World Orthodoxy" which was on the New Calendar?
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2009, 10:57:01 PM »

Bishop Kyrill of the Bulgarians took his Church to the NC without blessings from the ROCOR Synod, and they instructed him to return to the OC.  When he refused, he was removed from ROCOR and joined the Metropolia. That is my recollection from the time I read the sources in the ROCOR Archives.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #86 on: August 03, 2009, 12:20:20 AM »

Something of interest from Joseph Suaiden who has written the history of the Synod of Milan.

Here is his overview of the history of the Greek Old Calendarist and other traditional groups.

One passage in particular stands out.    The Greek Old Calendarists received their episcopate from the ROCOR Archbishop Leonty of Chile (the bishop shown in Fr Anastasios' avatar) AND the NEW Calendar bishop Theophil Ionescu who was himself a member of ROCOR.   So the Greek Old Calendarist apostolic succession voluntarily involves a New Calendar bishop.

http://www.geocities.com/joesuaiden/trueorthodox/trueorthodoxchurch.html

"After the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom, the Florinites had no Bishops, and it is said that Metropolitan Chrysostom advised his flock to go under the protection of the Matthewite Bishops. Fearing the repercussions, however, the Florinites opted to seek a new hierarchy and appealed to Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR,  see "Outside Russia" below) to help them. In 1960, Archimandrite Akakios Pappas was made a Bishop for these communities without the official blessing of the ROCOR by Archbishop Leonty of Chile and Bp Theophilos Ionescu, a Romanian New Calendar Bishop under the ROCOR.  Later Bp Akakios and Bp Theophilos made 5 more Bishops, and they proceeded to elect Auxentios of Patras to be their new leader as Archbishop of Athens
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: August 03, 2009, 12:26:56 AM »

Bishop Kyrill of the Bulgarians took his Church to the NC without blessings from the ROCOR Synod, and they instructed him to return to the OC.  When he refused, he was removed from ROCOR and joined the Metropolia. That is my recollection from the time I read the sources in the ROCOR Archives.

That is interesting.  I was reading last week a message from Fr Lebedeff where he speaks of the Romanian Orthodox cathedral in Canada which was under the Russian Church Abroad and it was permitted to use the New Calendar untroubled during its time under ROCA - about 40 years.  It was only in recent years that it departed from ROCA's jurisdiction.

Do you have any memory of this?  I'll see if I can locate Fr Lebedeff's message but the Yahoo groups are having trouble doing searches for more recent messages.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 12:27:40 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #88 on: August 03, 2009, 05:44:21 AM »

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.”
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: August 03, 2009, 06:02:47 AM »

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.”

Truly excellent well-balanced words.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22540.msg343061.html#msg343061
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 0.173 seconds with 71 queries.