Author Topic: Old calenderist question  (Read 13184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Old calenderist question
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2007, 09:23:09 PM »
Like whom?

Tony Kyriopoulos, Dr Bouteneff (although his version of ecumenism is a more moderate ecumenism--he believes the Orthodox Church is the true Church, but I take issue with his introductory chapter to his book Beyond East and West. He and I have had several discussions over the past few years and I consider him a  friend though, and I respect him much more highly than some of the other ecumenists I have met), Dr Paul Meyendorff who believes it is a sin to marry converts as is Greek practice since they are "already married" (fine if Russian practice sees the marriage consummated or the grace filled in by mutual reception of the Eucharist, but let's not knock standard Greek practice), Bp Hilarion Alfayev in one of his more recent books whose title escapes me, Metropolian Georges Khodr who believes the Holy Spirit is active in Islam (not active charismatically in some Muslims to bring them to Christian baptism but actually in the religion per se--you can find the pertinent quotes online or in the book "Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement" by Metropolitan Cyprian, I believe), Dr Bradley Nassif, and various clergy with whom I have spoken over the years who I won't "out" since they were not speaking publicly, to name a few.

PM me the whole story of the Met. Sotirios thing... I'm interested. 

Since it is public knowledge, I will simply advise you that the video is from Vancouver WCC's meeting and I first saw it in a Synod in Resistance video (although the footage was not from them, it was unaltered WCC stock footage). You can probably find it if you look for it but most of their videos are available here: which show similar footage.

As for the Pope thing, I didn't like it.  And as for seeing Orthodox and Catholic Clergy concelebrate, I'd also like to hear about that (since you say you saw it, this is one of my few opportunities to get 1st hand accounts instead of hearsay).

I am glad to hear you do not like it. Since I am not a mean-spirited person by nature, I am not going to write the specifics of that concelebration I witnessed but I will PM them to you. Suffice it to say, several years ago I witnessed a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese priest, well known to me (not from Raleigh btw just in case anyone is reading this, I want to make that clear since I hold the Raleigh senior priest in high regard) come to a Byzantine Catholic parish, enter the altar, vest, and concelebrate the entire Divine Liturgy with a Byzantine Catholic priest, including a joint commemoration of both the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch.  When I asked this GOA priest if his bishop knew what he was up to, his response was, yes, my bishop knows all about me, and in fact, this priest is still a priest in the GOA, although retired.

I wouldn't say the one is wrong while the other isn't - neither is good.  But you're not going to tell me that you think they're the exact same thing, are you?  We've both had enough classes in Sacramental Theology, and done enough reading, to know that they aren't the same.  That's why I don't use the term "Ecumenism" for everything that is going on - if Ecumenism presupposes Branch Theory, then communion sharing is a logical outcome.  If there is no communion sharing, then there is no real espousing of Branch Theory (lex orandi lex credendi).  Their words are empty - they're poorly practicing Orthodox and poorly practicing Ecumenists.

I'm sorry, but this is a dangerous ground to tread on.  Vesting and serving any service with another clergyman is a deposable offense because it obscures the barrier between Orthodoxy and heresy.  Look at the photos of the Orientale Lumen conferences that are put on each year in DC, where you see pictures of RC and Orthodox bishops vested and praying services together.  Those canons say praying with heretics, not just celebrating Holy Communion together--and I question a lot of what I learned in liturgical theology classes by the way.  Of course sharing communion together is a higher act than praying together, but vesting is also a public act of the Church, and when you vest and pray with heretics, this is a flagrant violation of the spirit--not just the letter--of those canons.  To me, saying, "if the Eucharist, deposition, if Vespers, not even if it's bad" is following the letter, not the spirit, although I would argue again that the letter of those canons would say even praying with heretics is deposable. What is the underlying Canon to those canons though? Protection of the faithful.  So the oft-quoted "but what if they come to YOUR Church to pray? then you are still praying with heretics!" does not hold water with me because in that case, the Orthodox are praying the Orthodox prayers, while the heretic joins in.  What is wrong is letting the heretic pray his prayers and you join in with him, because Orthodoxy could be compromised, or letting heretical clergy pray in public with Orthodox clergy, for fear of confusing the faithful.

Praying with heretics is different.  Still bad (as evidenced by the strong language of the canons), but different.  I think some of the people accused of Ecumenism are guilty only of this, and shouldn't be grouped together with the more dangerous Branch Theorists, who are able to hide behind the larger mass of "co-prayers."  If you're really committed to eliminating both practices, methinks the best approach would be to separate the Branchers (my definition of real Ecumenists) from the co-prayers.  Once you get the co-prayers to reject the Branch Theorists, then you can concentrate on the prayer issue.

I am not so sure that this can be done and again, I think creating a delineation actually is more legalistic than you would intend for it to be.

This should be an entire thread unto itself: converting people in the modern world, and how to achieve mass conversion (since it's different now than it was 1000 years ago).

Agreed, but let me again speak from personal experience: people who used to tell me I was well enough off as a Byzantine Catholic (yes, Orthodox did tell me this, including an Antiochian priest I know) did not inspire me to convert. The people who told me I was wrong and a heretic are the ones that made me think "I need to look into this." Yes, I am a man and men tend to relate differently than women, and some men are different than others in terms of what approach works. But still, a firm witness seems to be more productive in my opinion, although I would never advocate rudeness.

My point was this: praying with heretics actually meant something different back then; it is a seperate issue.  Just as all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, so too are all true Ecumenists praying with heretics, but not all people who pray with heretics are ecumenists.  Sometimes prayer with heretics is worse: in ancient days it was often a sign of the rejection of your own diety.  Sometimes it is less serious, as in the cases of people praying with someone who is dying yet of a different religion.  Don't label all the same.

Could you elaborate on what you mean it was different back then?  And most would not say it is wrong to pray with someone who is dying of a different religion. I would pray with them, too--provided I was doing the praying.  Otherwise I would sit quietly with them and provide comfort in any way that I could.

As such, there are people who participate in the official-type dialogs who are not ecumenists (using branch theory as the definition).  They speak with the others about Orthodoxy, refute points about their own, and are done.  No communion with the others.  No "two-lungs" speak. 

From my readings of the documents of ecumenists--which I did for my class on ecumenism--I came to the conclusion that that is a very small minority of the participants, and partly for this reason, I decided to become an Old Calendarist, because I see ecumenism as directly opposed to missionizing heterodox. Obviously as an ex-heterodox person, I have a vested interest in sharing Orthodoxy with others ;) If this type of thing--refuting misconceptions about Orthodoxy--were the sole gameplan of those in the WCC, who would object?

In Christ,

Please Buy My Book!

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

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Re: Old calenderist question
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2007, 09:31:11 PM »
Side note:

"When I asked this GOA priest if his bishop knew what he was up to, his response was, yes, my bishop knows all about me..."

A most devious answer, don't you think? It is neither yes nor no - lets one apply any answer one wants to hear.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 09:31:33 PM by Αριστοκλής »
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,323
Re: Old calenderist question
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2010, 04:12:36 PM »
After looking for an open thread on this topic not in convert issues (I'd hate to suck them into this), I found this thread to post this reply:
I'm not a fan of the New Calendar but it bears no relevance to the question of whether the OCA is autocephalous or not.

It should also be noted that many OCA parishes are still on the Old Calendar, so the OCA is not a "New Calendarist" organization by any means.

No it does not, but it indicates a willingness to be offside with Russia,

And? It is autocephalous, after all.

Jerusalem, Mt. Athos, Serbia etc.

And side with Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc.

Given what Jerusalem is doing to its flock, I wouldn't cite is for shepherding.

for the sake of what even it's advocates surely must now concede was an ill-conceived change,

Not in the slightest. How many implemented it was ill conceived, but that wasn't the case over all for the OCA.  The Diocese of AK, for instance, is still all Old Calendar.

that is at best rapproachment with the secular and heterodox world and at worst is the product of the enemies of Orthodoxy.

It is the best rapproachment with God's Creation and the signs for seasons that He put in the heavens on the fourth day of Creation.

  Moral and theological leadership demands a return to the Old Calendar.

LOL. It does no such thing.

Who on earth benefits from the New Calendar?

Those on it.

Heterodox Protestant and Latin churches and not much more.

They have their own calendar.

How can half the OCA be fasting,the other half feasting?

Ask Pope St. Victor.

t is as bad as Anglicans with women priests in some diocese and not others with the pretence of meaningful communion.

Thank you for demonstrating what silly lengths things can be taken.
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