OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 08:59:08 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 23534 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members 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 #90 on: August 03, 2009, 09:25:03 AM »

An interesting article on the website of the Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA) to which Fr Anastasios and Jonathan belong.  It is of interest because the priest-author completely substantiates what Jonathan has been saying and referencing in this thread, namely that all the New Calendar Churches are heretical and are outside the "assembly of the Orthodox." 

See:  "The Problem of Conservative New Calendarism"
by Fr  Fr. Maximus (Marretta) 
Friday, 08 June 2007

http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=107

Peter may challenge this position by pointing out that it is simply by their own fiat that they have excluded all Churches which dissent from them. 

And Pravoslavbob would notice another significant factor in the Old Calendarist world - the proclamation that "World Orthodoxy" is heretical.

The position of the HOTCA excludes from the Church the following Churches:

Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America

There remain four Churches of "World Orthodoxy" on the Old Calendar but one suspects that the HOTCA may also exclude these from the Church by reason of their communion with the New Calendar Churches.

Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Georgia
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 #91 on: August 03, 2009, 09:53:34 AM »

An interesting article on the website of the Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA) to which Fr Anastasios and Jonathan belong.  It is of interest because the priest-author completely substantiates what Jonathan has been saying and referencing in this thread, namely that all the New Calendar Churches are heretical and are outside the "assembly of the Orthodox." 

See:  "The Problem of Conservative New Calendarism"
by Fr  Fr. Maximus (Marretta) 
Friday, 08 June 2007

http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=107

Peter may challenge this position by pointing out that it is simply by their own fiat that they have excluded all Churches which dissent from them. 

And Pravoslavbob would notice another significant factor in the Old Calendarist world - the proclamation that "World Orthodoxy" is heretical.

The position of the HOTCA excludes from the Church the following Churches:

Patriarchate of Constantinople
Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarchate of Antioch
Patriarchate of Romania
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
Church of Cyprus
Church of Greece
Church of Poland
Church of Albania
Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia
Orthodox Church in America

There remain four Churches of "World Orthodoxy" on the Old Calendar but one suspects that the HOTCA may also exclude these from the Church by reason of their communion with the New Calendar Churches.

Patriarchate of Jerusalem
Patriarchate of Moscow
Patriarchate of Serbia
Patriarchate of Georgia

Quote
The primary purpose of the fellowship of churches in the World Council of Churches is to call one another to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship. In seeking koinonia in faith and life, witness and service, the churches through the council will:

Promote the prayerful search for forgiveness and reconciliation in a spirit of mutual accountability, the development of deeper relationships through theological dialogue, and the sharing of human, spiritual, and material resources with one another;
Facilitate common witness in each place and in all places, and support each other in their work for mission and evangelism;
Nurture the growth of an ecumenical consciousness through processes of education and a vision of life in community rooted in each particular cultural context;
Assist one another in their relationships to and with people of other faith communities;
Foster renewal and growth in unity, worship, mission and service.
In order to foster the one ecumenical movement, the Council will:

Nurture relations with and among churches, especially within, but also beyond its membership;
Establish and maintain relations with national councils, regional conferences of churches, organizations of Christian World Communions, and other ecumenical bodies;
Support ecumenical initiatives at regional, national, and local levels;
Facilitate the creation of networks among ecumenical organizations;
Work towards maintaining the coherence of the one ecumenical movement in its diverse manifestations.
These principles are totally unacceptable for a person with an Orthodox understanding of the Church.
Since we understand that Orthodoxy is the only way these objectives may be fulfilled, as repeatedly stated by the Orthodox members of the WCC, no, they are not totally unacceptable.  The statement:
Quote
They illustrate that the heresy the Orthodox are confronting is not simply union with this or that heretical church (which has not yet happened except in the case of the Monophysites). Rather, the heresy is the idea that heretical groups outside the Church are indeed somehow part of the Church, and that the Orthodox Church is part of a larger whole comprised of both the Orthodox and the heterodox. Now, any statement which gives any ecclesial standing whatsoever to a body outside the Church is a heretical statement, because the Orthodox Church is the entirety of the Church. The other so-called churches are not churches at all, but false assemblies set up in opposition to the one, true Church. They are anti-churches. The charter and mission—even the very name—of the World Council of Churches cuts at the root of Orthodox doctrine by placing all "churches" on the same ontological level. Moreover, the World Council of Churches expressly recognizes only one ecumenical movement; that is, its own. It does not leave any room for a valid "Orthodox Ecumenism" which would seek to convert the heterodox. No one can claim that the purpose of Orthodox involvement in Ecumenism is to witness to Orthodoxy, since the only side of "Orthodoxy" being presented is precisely whatever can be brought into seeming conformity with the principles set out in the World Council of Churches' charter, a document which, as we have seen, denies the Orthodox teaching on the Church. Ecumenism is the exact opposite of evangelization.
can easily be refuted by looking at the Orthodox documents on the WCC's own website, some of which I've posted already on this thread.

(btw, in the interests of full disclosure, although it is not a secret, I am fully in support of the actions which the document denounces with regard to the Miaphysites (called Monophysites in it).

The thoughts that
Quote
The heresy of Ecumenism has infected not one of the local Orthodox Churches, but all of them. Each of the Patriarchates has contributed in its own way to perverting the Orthodox faith: Constantinople by lifting the anthemas which the holy Fathers laid on the Roman Catholic Church, Alexandria by accepting the Monophysites as Orthodox, Antioch by partaking of the same chalice as the Monophysites, and all the ecumenist Churches collectively by participating in the World Council of Churches and abolishing the Patristic understanding of the Church. All of the ecumenist Churches are in full communion with one another and share the same ecumenist faith: the beliefs of one are the beliefs of all, and each of the Patriarchates supports and encourages the ecumenical gestures of the others.

Our primary question at this point ought to be, what are the faithful to do when their bishops are in heresy? The patristic answer is clear: break communion immediately, because those bishops no longer represent the Church, but a foreign body. It is impossible for Orthodox Christians to hold communion with heretical bishops, inasmuch as a common Eucharistic cup denotes a common faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria states that "the Body of Christ binds us into unity" and "there is no division of belief among the faithful." And the Apostle Paul asks, "What communion hath light with darkness? Or what concord hath Christ with Belial?"
[herein follows the account of St. Maximus of the OP]
The sound application of these principles to the present-day situation should be obvious. Anyone who considers himself to be an Orthodox Christian should sever communion with any bishop who preaches, participates in, or furthers Ecumenism directly or indirectly; and he should join himself to those Orthodox Christians who already have ceased ecclesiastical contact with such bishops. Those Christians are precisely the Old Calendarists, or True Orthodox Christians, who rejected the heresy of Ecumenism the moment it appeared, and in no way allowed themselves to be defiled by communion with bishops who alter the faith of the Apostles. When the conservative New Calendarists take this same step, they will be following the path of the Holy Fathers; they will have separated themselves from the heretics, and joined themselves to the assembly of the Orthodox.

I would like to speak to you today about the problem of conservative New Calendarism. By conservative New Calendarists I mean those who consider the institution of the Gregorian calendar and involvement in the ecumenical movement to be misguided, unfortunate, or even to some degree heretical, but nevertheless remain in churches which follow the New Calendar and foster Ecumenism. While conservative New Calendarists rightly consider Orthodoxy to be the one and only true Church of Christ and adhere to Orthodox doctrines and practices with admirable zeal, they find themselves under bishops who deny those doctrines and shun traditional piety. Although this situation is certainly uncomfortable for them, they are obligated to justify it, and to this end employ the following argument: the participation of our bishops in the ecumenical movement is wrong, but it is only an abuse, not a heresy; and if it even descends to the level of heresy, it occurs only on a personal, not an official, level. Thus the church as a whole is not implicated in the heresy, and one may in good conscience continue in communion with the bishops in question. This line of reasoning underlies virtually all serious attempts to justify remaining in the New Calendarist, or Ecumenist church, and not returning [emphasis added] to the Old Calendarist, or traditional Orthodox Church.

seem to have the official support and sanction of this TOM Church:
Quote
Encyclical Regarding Holy Communion

December 5/18, 2002

E N C Y C L I C A L

To the Holy Clergy and Pious People
Of the Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Greek Orthodox
Old Calendar Church of America

4.This Truth, that we belong to the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” has a special meaning for us, for this Church is the Ark of our salvation, which is the very reason that we exist.

Nothing other than the Orthodox Church else is able to save man. She is the Gate to Paradise.

The Holy Fathers teach us that only the Holy Mysteries which are celebrated in the bosom of the Orthodox Church have Grace and save all those who are Orthodox.

In other words, for anyone to receive the Grace of salvation, two things are required:

First, the Orthodox Christians must seek this Grace, which exists only in the Holy Mysteries, and especially the Divine Eucharist, which exist only in the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, which is the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians, and

Second, he who wishes to receive the Grace of salvation must be a genuine member of the Orthodox Church. He must not be a heretic or a schismatic.

For this reason, the genuine Orthodox Christians are not permitted to enter the churches of heretics or schismatics to receive communion, for such is a very serious sin. The person, who does so, cuts himself off from the Orthodox Church. For this same reason, the Fathers of the Church forbid to heretics or schismatics communion of the blameless Mysteries in our Churches, since by so doing, instead of salvation, they receive “a consuming fire,” (Hebrews 12:29) that is, a fire, which burns up all those who dare to partake of it.

Ecumenism, which today has captivated many people, is the result of all this. It is the work of the antichrist and of his followers. This Ecumenism would swallow up the very last lambs of Christ, that is us, the genuine Orthodox Christians, if it could. This is why Ecumenism is a pan-heresy.

In the face of this great danger, as your Bishop and Shepherd of the Orthodox Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of America, who am charged by God to protect His flock from the heretics and schismatics who have placed themselves outside the Church, I call upon the faithful children of our Church not to enter the churches of schismatics and heretics to take communion. You should communicate only in temples that belong to our Church, which here in America are only the Sacred Temples of the Holy Metropolis (GOC) of America. You should have the permission of your spiritual father, who himself should be a clergyman of our Holy Metropolis, and should have confessed and fasted correctly prior to Communion. Those who do not have an Orthodox faith and confession, that is heretics, ecumenists, false old calendarists, etc., will not be permitted to be imparted the Holy Mysteries in our Holy Temples, even as the Holy Synod of our Church has directed.

6.Neither the Holy Synod of our Church, nor I as your bishop, are chasing from our Church anyone who is seeking his salvation. However, this salvation must be achieved as Christ wills, not as just anyone wills. For this reason, all who wish to receive Communion in our Churches must formerly enter into the bosom of the Orthodox Church as genuine Christians. With the permission of their confessor, and along with appropriate preparation, they will always be welcomed to receive the Mystery of Mysteries which is Holy Communion.

7.The Clergy of the Sacred Metropolis of America are sternly commanded to apply the provisions of this Encyclical with all strictness.

The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God the Father, and the Communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

PAVLOS
Metropolitan of North and South America
http://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152:encyclical-regarding-holy-communion&catid=19:encyclicals&Itemid=67
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 09:54:08 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: 32,656


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #92 on: August 03, 2009, 03:01:43 PM »

An interesting article on the website of the Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America (HOTCA) to which Fr Anastasios and Jonathan belong.  It is of interest because the priest-author completely substantiates what Jonathan has been saying and referencing in this thread, namely that all the New Calendar Churches are heretical and are outside the "assembly of the Orthodox." 

See:  "The Problem of Conservative New Calendarism"
by Fr  Fr. Maximus (Marretta) 
Friday, 08 June 2007

http://www.thegreekorthodoxchurch.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=107

Peter may challenge this position by pointing out that it is simply by their own fiat that they have excluded all Churches which dissent from them.
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.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 03:07:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #93 on: August 03, 2009, 05:14:40 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

My apologies to all wronged parties! 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #94 on: August 03, 2009, 08:03:36 PM »

The Anathemas


1.  We are been given evidence that the Greek Old Calendarists

i)  declared the Church of Greece to be schismatic
         1935 GOC confession of faith:
         http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/e_index.htm (look under "History")



ii)  anathematized New Calendarists
         the 1974 Declaration cited by Jonathan

2.  We have not seen evidence that the Church of Greece anathematized the Greek Old Calendarists.  The claim is that they issued their anathemas prior to those issued against them by the GOC.

Is there a chance of referral to documents or websites?
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #95 on: August 03, 2009, 10:06:09 PM »

What is the meaning of "Tradition"?
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #96 on: August 03, 2009, 10:28:23 PM »

What is the meaning of "Tradition"?

"Orthodox are always talking about Tradition. What do they mean by the word? A tradition,
says the Oxford Dictionary, is an opinion, belief, or custom handed down from ancestors to posterity.
Christian Tradition, in that case, is the faith which Jesus Christ imparted to the Apostles,
and which since the Apostles’ time has been handed down from generation to generation in the
Church (Compare Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3). But to an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means something
more concrete and specific than this. It means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it
means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons,
the Service Books, the Holy Icons — in fact, the whole system of doctrine, Church government,
worship, and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages. "

This is from Bp Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church"
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_INDEX.HTM

Use the Alphabetical Search link at the top of the page to do a search with the word tradition.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #97 on: August 03, 2009, 11:22:16 PM »

^ My question was designed to provoke discussion.  I know what I think Tradition is.  Metropolitan Kallistos' definition is fine as a place to begin.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2009, 11:26:38 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: August 03, 2009, 11:32:55 PM »

^ My question was designed to provoke discussion.  I know what I think Tradition is.  Metropolitan Kallistos' definition is fine as a place to begin.

OK. That's great.  But how are we doing so far in bringing into focus the big picture between the Old Calendarist Churches and "World Orthodoxy"?

I have made mention of two points which seem significant.

1.  The tendency of Old Calendarist groups to divide

2.  The declaration by (most) Old Calendarist groups that New Calendarists lack grace and have no Mysteries.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #99 on: August 04, 2009, 09:17:07 PM »

^  Frankly, I think you are missing the point.  I wanted to look at differences and similarities in how the faith is approached by old calendarists and world Orthodox.  It is fine if polemics come into play in some ways, but up until now it seems to me that polemics are being employed for their own sake.  I don't necessarily deny completely the validity of the points that you have made, but I fail to see how they relate to what similarities and differences are in terms of how the different communions approach the faith. 
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #100 on: August 04, 2009, 11:00:50 PM »

What is the meaning of "Tradition"?

Jaroslav Pelikan said it best.  His 1984 book The Vindication of Tradition gave rise to one of his most memorable and most often quoted one-liners. In an interview in U.S. News & World Report (July 26, 1989), he said:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #101 on: August 04, 2009, 11:05:53 PM »

^ Yes, I think that Pelikan quote is really excellent.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
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 #102 on: August 04, 2009, 11:38:49 PM »

What is the meaning of "Tradition"?

Jaroslav Pelikan said it best.  His 1984 book The Vindication of Tradition gave rise to one of his most memorable and most often quoted one-liners. In an interview in U.S. News & World Report (July 26, 1989), he said:

Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition.

Yes, an excellent observation.

Just so everyone knows, Pelikan was a renowed Lutheran scholar (he was involved in the English translation of the Book of Concord, the Lutherans' Symblic Book) who embraced Orthodoxy.
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 #103 on: August 05, 2009, 12:36:14 AM »

^  Frankly, I think you are missing the point. 

Well, you asked for the "big picture" and I have been trying to make suggestions.

Has anything offered so far by anybody addressed what you are seeking? 
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #104 on: August 05, 2009, 06:21:30 PM »

The Anathemas


1.  We are been given evidence that the Greek Old Calendarists

i)  declared the Church of Greece to be schismatic
         1935 GOC confession of faith:
         http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/e_index.htm (look under "History")



ii)  anathematized New Calendarists
         the 1974 Declaration cited by Jonathan

2.  We have not seen evidence that the Church of Greece anathematized the Greek Old Calendarists.  The claim is that they issued their anathemas prior to those issued against them by the GOC.

Is there a chance of referral to documents or websites?

the soundest reference I know is the book "the struggle against ecumenism" by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. They say the state church formally anathematized those who celebrated on the old calendar in 1927. This was several years before we had bishops and could adopt an official position on the matter.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #105 on: August 05, 2009, 06:39:10 PM »

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.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #106 on: August 05, 2009, 09:44:50 PM »

Has anything offered so far by anybody addressed what you are seeking? 

Some people have chimed in with some great comments on the nature of Tradition, but others seem to be not considering this side of the discussion at all, which is very interesting.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: August 06, 2009, 12:29:03 AM »

The Anathemas


1.  We are been given evidence that the Greek Old Calendarists

i)  declared the Church of Greece to be schismatic
         1935 GOC confession of faith:
         http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/e_index.htm (look under "History")



ii)  anathematized New Calendarists
         the 1974 Declaration cited by Jonathan

2.  We have not seen evidence that the Church of Greece anathematized the Greek Old Calendarists.  The claim is that they issued their anathemas prior to those issued against them by the GOC.

Is there a chance of referral to documents or websites?

the soundest reference I know is the book "the struggle against ecumenism" by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. They say the state church formally anathematized those who celebrated on the old calendar in 1927. This was several years before we had bishops and could adopt an official position on the matter.

Dear Jonathan,

Second-hand quotes from the other side don't really count for anything.  Too much opportunity for misrepresentation.  I think we need to see the actual statement from the Church of Greece.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: August 06, 2009, 06:37:29 AM »

Anyway, the way the state church persecuted us, notoriously going so far as to trample upon the Holy Mysteries, shows that they did not recognize us as Orthodox and our Mysteries as valid.

Seems to be a bit of a local failing.  The Greeks of Constantinople did the same to the Holy Mysteries of the Latin Orthodox churches in Constantinople - at a time when they were both in full communion !!!!!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,656


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #109 on: August 08, 2009, 06:46:44 PM »

Tangents split off and moved:

Regarding specifically the merits of either side of the Old vs. New Calendar Debate - merged into this sticky:  Old vs. New Calendar?

Regarding the history of how ROCOR has related to both World Orthodoxy and the GOC - made the subject of its own thread:  Relations between ROCOR, World Orthodoxy, and the GOC
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 06:47:11 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: August 09, 2009, 05:27:24 AM »

 Huh   The term "World Orthodoxy" was invented by Old Calendarist people as a denigratory term for the canonical Orthodox, i.e., the ancient Patriarchates (e.g. Constantinople) and the autocephalies (such as the OCA and Greece) and autonomies (such as the Ukrainian Church.)   Do we feel that this is an appropriate term or do we feel uncomfortable that this term intended to insult people is used on the Forum? 
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 05:30:43 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: 32,656


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: August 09, 2009, 11:02:22 AM »

Huh   The term "World Orthodoxy" was invented by Old Calendarist people as a denigratory term for the canonical Orthodox, i.e., the ancient Patriarchates (e.g. Constantinople) and the autocephalies (such as the OCA and Greece) and autonomies (such as the Ukrainian Church.)   Do we feel that this is an appropriate term or do we feel uncomfortable that this term intended to insult people is used on the Forum? 
Honestly, I really don't care about the origins of the phrase "World Orthodoxy".  I'm not the least bit insulted, and I actually use the term myself to refer to my church when talking to Old Calendarists.  I also know that we World Orthodox make up the greatest majority of the Orthodox on this forum, which makes me think that someone else would have cried foul a long time ago if they really felt insulted by the term.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #112 on: August 09, 2009, 11:44:33 AM »

Huh   The term "World Orthodoxy" was invented by Old Calendarist people as a denigratory term for the canonical Orthodox, i.e., the ancient Patriarchates (e.g. Constantinople) and the autocephalies (such as the OCA and Greece) and autonomies (such as the Ukrainian Church.)   Do we feel that this is an appropriate term or do we feel uncomfortable that this term intended to insult people is used on the Forum? 

I don't like the term World Orthodoxy but feel like sometimes it is necessary to use it to differentiate.  When I use it I don't intend it to be offensive.  I sometimes will use the term "mainstream" Orthodoxy but that term actually is self-defeating for me and not really tenable since I obviously believe my Church to be Orthodox and not in any way "unusual."

We should also note that the term Old Calendarist was originally a perjorative term invented by NC people to insult us. But we have taken it in stride and now often use it to describe ourselves.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2009, 11:45:07 AM 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.
AmdeBirhan
Pillar of Light
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian
Jurisdiction: ArchDiocese Western Hemisphere
Posts: 22



« Reply #113 on: August 09, 2009, 01:43:32 PM »

Forgive me for buttin' in, especially since I am such a novice as to this Old/New calendarist issue...  BUT- I recently had my first visit to a monastary, Greek Orthodox Holy Transfiguration in Boston Mass.  The Father Boniface gave me a book about Papa Nicholas Plannas, who lived until 1932, an Old- calendarist priest in Greece. 
   He celebrated the Old calendar Holy days and Festivals of the Saints, and they appeared to him, encouraging him to celebrate against the threat of persecution.  A simple man, he loved the Liturgical life, and began at 3am everday, ending at 3pm or later.  In his love for service and honoring of the Saints, he did not wish to advert from the practice he was used to, and kept it in secret at great risk.
  When he was summoned before the Archmandrite and questioned as to whether he was keeping the Old calendar- he replied- "Oh, oh, only at night!"
   This was to show that he was not seeking to cause a problem, but he did as his heart compelled him, out of his love for the "old way".

   MY thoughts on this, in light of Papa Nicholas, and those who keep the 'Old calendar'...  If it was good enough for the Church to keep it for so long, and for the Saints, Angels and Our Lord and God, to have their memorials celebrated, thier festivals kept and holy feats commemorated on certain days, at certain times, should they not have gotten used to it?
   For example...  Saint Michael the Archangel keeps his feast day in the heavens, and so it was bound on earth as well as in heaven.  Should we then re'schedule it ?  and for what reason?  Is it for Saint Michael's benefit?  Did we have the wrong day before?
  Is it now a correction? Or is the heavenly host celebrating as they have done previously?

I would like to have the mental capacity to overstand this matter more fully, but I keep getting lost in the posts, and further away from the heart of the matter.  Obviously there is a lot I don't know, mainly what I DO need to know, and what I DONT need to know, in order to see what problems exist and why.

As far as anathemas-  if the Church teaches me to keep Sunday as a Holy day- the Chief of Holy Days- and I do so...  then they switch it to monday....  and I keep worshiping on Sunday, becasue I became rooted in the Tradition, THEN they Anathematize me becasue I refuse to change the custom which I was previously taught, then this I would say is UNFAIR. 

Is there an explaination of WHY the calendar was changed?

Please be patient with me in response, or just ignore me if you like.  Thanks.  AMDE
Logged

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.- HEB 4v12
AmdeBirhan
Pillar of Light
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Christian
Jurisdiction: ArchDiocese Western Hemisphere
Posts: 22



« Reply #114 on: August 09, 2009, 02:10:21 PM »

AFter just investigating a little further, and reading thru the 1935 Confession of Faith, http://www.ecclesiagoc.gr/e_index.htm ...I found the reasonings of the Old calendarists, represented by the 3 fathers who signed it,  to be quite valid.  I know how I would feel if ones were to try to change the Ethiopian calendar. 
   QUESTION- Did they have to rewrite the Syanxis?  Or did they just 'correct' the dates?

By the way, two verses from the Holy Scriptures come into mind-  Not to change the boundaries set by our fathers, and that it is not permissible to celebrate a holy day early or late, but only at the proper time.  I believe both came thru Moses. 
Logged

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.- HEB 4v12
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,878



« Reply #115 on: August 09, 2009, 02:31:25 PM »

Has anything offered so far by anybody addressed what you are seeking? 

Some people have chimed in with some great comments on the nature of Tradition, but others seem to be not considering this side of the discussion at all, which is very interesting.

I think it is because this subject is the root of our core weakness: the majority of Orthodox are traditionalists as described by Pelikan. As a result, they tend to reject anything that does not jibe with their understanding of tradition, even if it is contradicted by the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. Traditionalists seem paralyzed by the fear that any deviation, in any matter, may somehow be against the Mind of The Church. So much for the primacy of the Holy Scriptures and a Living Faith! I am all for a conservative approach to change. I fail to understand reflexive, almost blind, rejection of change.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: August 10, 2009, 06:03:10 AM »

Huh   The term "World Orthodoxy" was invented by Old Calendarist people as a denigratory term for the canonical Orthodox, i.e., the ancient Patriarchates (e.g. Constantinople) and the autocephalies (such as the OCA and Greece) and autonomies (such as the Ukrainian Church.)   Do we feel that this is an appropriate term or do we feel uncomfortable that this term intended to insult people is used on the Forum? 
Honestly, I really don't care about the origins of the phrase "World Orthodoxy".  I'm not the least bit insulted, and I actually use the term myself to refer to my church when talking to Old Calendarists.  I also know that we World Orthodox make up the greatest majority of the Orthodox on this forum, which makes me think that someone else would have cried foul a long time ago if they really felt insulted by the term.

Well I am crying foul.   FOUL!  There are Old Calendarists who use "World Orthodoxy" as synonymous with "Pseudo-Orthodoxy" - a vile term to apply to the Church of Christ.

http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy_milan_synod.shtml
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,656


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #117 on: August 10, 2009, 10:19:18 AM »

Huh   The term "World Orthodoxy" was invented by Old Calendarist people as a denigratory term for the canonical Orthodox, i.e., the ancient Patriarchates (e.g. Constantinople) and the autocephalies (such as the OCA and Greece) and autonomies (such as the Ukrainian Church.)   Do we feel that this is an appropriate term or do we feel uncomfortable that this term intended to insult people is used on the Forum? 
Honestly, I really don't care about the origins of the phrase "World Orthodoxy".  I'm not the least bit insulted, and I actually use the term myself to refer to my church when talking to Old Calendarists.  I also know that we World Orthodox make up the greatest majority of the Orthodox on this forum, which makes me think that someone else would have cried foul a long time ago if they really felt insulted by the term.

Well I am crying foul.   FOUL!  There are Old Calendarists who use "World Orthodoxy" as synonymous with "Pseudo-Orthodoxy" - a vile term to apply to the Church of Christ.

http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy_milan_synod.shtml

If it's that important to you, then, please bring this concern up to one of the admins in private via pm.  Otherwise, I don't want you derailing this thread with your personal agenda, no matter how honorable your agenda really may be.
Logged
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #118 on: April 06, 2011, 03:46:38 PM »

Dear Irish Hermit and LBK:

If your one-sided over-emphasis on canonical authority is taken to the extreme; then, the Sanhedrin would have been justified in condemning Christ as a blasphemer, and handing Him over to the Romans. After all, they were the canonical authorities of the Jews at the time.

Thank God most Orthodox don't think in this shallow way. Obviously, there's more to Orthodoxy than only canonicity.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 03:48:13 PM by Romanicus » Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #119 on: April 06, 2011, 03:52:25 PM »

Obviously, there's more to Orthodoxy than only canonicity.

Funny hats.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #120 on: April 06, 2011, 04:05:55 PM »

Do you enjoy picking scabs off of old wounds?  The thread you are replying to is only 1.5 years old.

Dear Irish Hermit and LBK:

If your one-sided over-emphasis on canonical authority is taken to the extreme; then, the Sanhedrin would have been justified in condemning Christ as a blasphemer, and handing Him over to the Romans. After all, they were the canonical authorities of the Jews at the time.

Thank God most Orthodox don't think in this shallow way. Obviously, there's more to Orthodoxy than only canonicity.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Romanicus
Molestus molestorum Dei.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: the fanatical one
Posts: 40



« Reply #121 on: April 06, 2011, 07:04:01 PM »

Michael:

Well, that too.

Punch:

Heck, yeah!
Logged

"Its later than you think." -- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #122 on: April 07, 2011, 12:27:20 AM »

Michael:

Well, that too.

Punch:

Heck, yeah!

Well, I have to admit that I also somewhat enjoy that perverse pleasure.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #123 on: April 07, 2011, 01:48:13 AM »

Dear Irish Hermit and LBK:

If your one-sided over-emphasis on canonical authority is taken to the extreme; then, the Sanhedrin would have been justified in condemning Christ as a blasphemer, and handing Him over to the Romans. After all, they were the canonical authorities of the Jews at the time.

Thank God most Orthodox don't think in this shallow way. Obviously, there's more to Orthodoxy than only canonicity.

The Sanhedrin acted correctly in light of the law given to Israel by God through Moses.    This requires the death sentence for false prophets and blasphemy.  For example, Deuteronomy 18:20.

Our Saviour was, in the eyes of the High Priest and Sanhedrin, merely one of not a few false prophets who were common in Israel at that period.   They were regularly put to death even as the Lord was, after a trial before the Sanhedrin and then a Roman execution.  It is true that the charges of blasphemy brought against the Lord and which ensured His death were false, but the Sanhedrin was obliged (by God, through the divine revelation of Scripture) to apply the death penalty for blasphemy.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2011, 01:03:17 PM »


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 .

Something interesting.... 

The Old Calendarist Lie of Codex 772
by Elder Theoklitos Dionysiatis

One lie constituted the generative origins of the Old Calendarists which, to this day, weakens the mission of Orthodoxy with the influence of these schismatics towards simple Christians.

And which lie is this?  That during 1583 and 1593, two Local Synods under Patriarch Jeremiah II - which convened in order to condemn the all-daring overthrow of the First Ecumenical Synod’s ruling concerning the Feast of Holy Pascha under Papism - also condemned the calendar change.

And how was this lie created?  From a forgery which a premature zealot, Iakovos of New Skete, made in the handwritten codex of St. Panteleimon's Monastery (Mt. Athos), contained in number 772!

Extract from

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/02/old-calendarist-lie-of-codex-772.html
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #125 on: April 27, 2011, 08:32:08 PM »

I don't suppose there's any scholarly reference for this forgery claim.
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2011, 08:40:07 PM »

I don't suppose there's any scholarly reference for this forgery claim.

Heck, the article itself was not even that well written.  Nom nom nom schismatics nom nom going to hell nom nom nom Greece is the center of the universe, so we won't discuss the 75% of Orthodox who didn't adopt the new calendar nom nom nom . . .
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2011, 08:57:07 PM »

I don't suppose there's any scholarly reference for this forgery claim.

Heck, the article itself was not even that well written.  Nom nom nom schismatics nom nom going to hell nom nom nom Greece is the center of the universe, so we won't discuss the 75% of Orthodox who didn't adopt the new calendar nom nom nom . . .

Apparently this Elder was once a Zealot, but he was scandalized by some dispute among a group of other Zealots, and somehow concluded from this that they were all wrong and the commemorators were right.

If every Orthodox Christian left the Church because some other members behaved scandalously on occasion, there would be no Orthodox Christians.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #128 on: April 27, 2011, 09:05:08 PM »

Apparently this Elder was once a Zealot, but he was scandalized by some dispute among a group of other Zealots, and somehow concluded from this that they were all wrong and the commemorators were right.

If every Orthodox Christian left the Church because some other members behaved scandalously on occasion, there would be no Orthodox Christians.

But Jonathan, what about the forgery claim?  I have asked many Old Calendarists about this and nobody seems to know anything about this claim.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #129 on: April 27, 2011, 09:35:39 PM »

Apparently this Elder was once a Zealot, but he was scandalized by some dispute among a group of other Zealots, and somehow concluded from this that they were all wrong and the commemorators were right.

If every Orthodox Christian left the Church because some other members behaved scandalously on occasion, there would be no Orthodox Christians.

But Jonathan, what about the forgery claim?  I have asked many Old Calendarists about this and nobody seems to know anything about this claim.

Is it so surprising? A google search only turns up this claim by Elder Theoclitos as quoted by Mr Sanidopoulos, which as far as anyone can tell he made up out of thin air. If you could provide some scholarly study, something with credible authority, proving or at least making a reasonable case for forgery, then perhaps we would be prepared to take it seriously, and compose a proper rebuttal, or perhaps a concession. Until then, don't expect us to refute it before it has even been proven.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #130 on: April 27, 2011, 09:55:35 PM »

Firstly, at least in my view Met Philaret has greater authority than Abp Anthony, who was the only ROCOR bishop not to sign the declaration of communion with Abp Auxentius and the Old Calendarist Synod. Met Philaret was the First Hierarch of ROCOR. In any case, even Abp Anthony had to admit joining the World Council of Churches was a terrible event for the New Calendarists. What would he say now that your part of ROCOR is in the WCC?

In 1974 Met. Philaret, along with the ROCOR Synod - OFFICIALLY stated that the issue concerning the NC could only be decided by a pan-Orthodox council.  Consider this fact in light of the other previous synods which allegedly anathematized the NC.  Apparently Met. Philaret did not go along with these previous anathemas.  He himself had NC parishes in ROCOR under his authority.   
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #131 on: April 27, 2011, 09:58:58 PM »

Is it so surprising? A google search only turns up this claim by Elder Theoclitos as quoted by Mr Sanidopoulos, which as far as anyone can tell he made up out of thin air. If you could provide some scholarly study, something with credible authority, proving or at least making a reasonable case for forgery, then perhaps we would be prepared to take it seriously, and compose a proper rebuttal, or perhaps a concession. Until then, don't expect us to refute it before it has even been proven.

Did you Google english sites only?  Elder Theoclitos' claim has been around for a while now and was known in Greece long before the claim was translated in English.  Don't you know Greek?  If not, surely you know other members of your Greek Old Calendarist Synod who should be able to respond to this.  If these claims have been around for a while in Greek, surely a response in Greek can be found somewhere.  
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #132 on: April 27, 2011, 10:16:46 PM »

Firstly, at least in my view Met Philaret has greater authority than Abp Anthony, who was the only ROCOR bishop not to sign the declaration of communion with Abp Auxentius and the Old Calendarist Synod. Met Philaret was the First Hierarch of ROCOR. In any case, even Abp Anthony had to admit joining the World Council of Churches was a terrible event for the New Calendarists. What would he say now that your part of ROCOR is in the WCC?

In 1974 Met. Philaret, along with the ROCOR Synod - OFFICIALLY stated that the issue concerning the NC could only be decided by a pan-Orthodox council.  Consider this fact in light of the other previous synods which allegedly anathematized the NC.  Apparently Met. Philaret did not go along with these previous anathemas.  He himself had NC parishes in ROCOR under his authority.   

With regard to the NC parishes, the whole point is that they were under his authority, i.e. their celebration on the NC was allowed by pastoral condescension. It did not in any way express the position of the Synod, which was firmly traditionalist. If you are trying to use this fact to argue that Met Philaret was pro-NC, how do you account for the fact that he refused to concelebrate with priests or bishops from the NC churches, or to allow anyone under his authority to do so? You might conclude that Met Philaret was of a split mind about it, which no more helps your case than mine. Alternatively, you can differentiate between pastoral condescension and dogmatic strictness.

I also recall reading that these NCists under ROCOR were eventually expelled when they refused to adjust to the traditional calendar.

It is true that the 1974 Sobor left the decision about the status of the NCists and ecumenists to a pan-Orthodox council. It's worth remembering, though, that the 1974 Sobor made no declaration concerning whether or not the ecumenists and NCists were still in the Church. That appears to have been left to the individual conscience, and in any case there was also the policy of not concelebrating with new calendarists and ecumenists that you have to take into account. Furthermore, it seems the ROCOR reversed its stand when it anathematized ecumenism in 1983. Notwithstanding Met Vitaly's later interpretation of the anathema as binding on ROCOR only (the first time an anathema of a heresy was only locally applicable!), there is nothing in the original text of the anathema that suggests it had anything other than universal application. Finally, the fact that ROCOR believed this particular instance could only be resolved by a Pan-Orthodox council does not change the fact that Local Councils have historically had the authority to anathematize heresies, prior to or even without a subsequent ecumenical decision. In other words, the ROCOR decision of 1974 does not per se take away the authority of the GOC of Greece to anathematize the new calendar (assuming this is what you were referring to by "previous councils"). In fact, if we adopt Met Vitaly's reasoning, we could still argue the GOC had competent authority to anathematize the new calendar, given that this was, at least originally, only a local affair. You might want to recall that just before the 1974 Sobor, the ROCOR had officially entered into communion with the GOC, thus implicitly recognizing the GOC's claim against the NC State Church.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,464


« Reply #133 on: April 27, 2011, 10:19:42 PM »

Is it so surprising? A google search only turns up this claim by Elder Theoclitos as quoted by Mr Sanidopoulos, which as far as anyone can tell he made up out of thin air. If you could provide some scholarly study, something with credible authority, proving or at least making a reasonable case for forgery, then perhaps we would be prepared to take it seriously, and compose a proper rebuttal, or perhaps a concession. Until then, don't expect us to refute it before it has even been proven.

Did you Google english sites only?  Elder Theoclitos' claim has been around for a while now and was known in Greece long before the claim was translated in English.  Don't you know Greek?  If not, surely you know other members of your Greek Old Calendarist Synod who should be able to respond to this.  If these claims have been around for a while in Greek, surely a response in Greek can be found somewhere.  

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.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #134 on: April 28, 2011, 12:00:33 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. 
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 0.166 seconds with 72 queries.