OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 06:30:41 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Did St. John Maximovich communicate Ethiopians?  (Read 5553 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2004, 10:44:24 PM »

Two words, Ben Lomond.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2004, 11:24:12 PM »

Two words, Ben Lomond.

Joe Zollars

I.E. Reordination of Defrocked clergy.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2004, 11:48:39 PM »

Does Orthodoxy not have the same rule regarding the priesthood as the Catholic Church does: once a priest, always a priest?

I mean yes a priest can be denied the right to celebrate Divine Liturgy/Mass publicaly or to hear confessions, but when a priest is defrocked in Orthodoxy does he actually loose the priesthood?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2004, 11:54:55 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2004, 01:36:06 AM »

So... ummm... Does anyone know if Vladika John communed Ethiopeans or not?
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2004, 01:37:18 AM »

Mourad....nope, not yet.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2004, 02:02:04 AM »

hopefully not ever.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2004, 06:10:02 AM »

This piece of information I got either from Nicholas' Orthodox forum or this site, I think. I recall someone saying St. John communed New Calendarists and Ethiopians (saying they were not monophysites). Maybe I don't have the complete picture or maybe the info is patently wrong, I don't know. It's just what I recall reading.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2004, 06:11:34 AM by erracht » Logged

NULL
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2004, 11:16:11 AM »

I recall someone saying St. John communed New Calendarists and Ethiopians (saying they were not monophysites).

Ooooohhh....New Calendarists...Scaaaaarrrryyy.

And again, specifiy NCs, OOs or Monophosites not race.  Ethiopioans can be EO too.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2004, 11:19:43 AM »

Quote
Does Orthodoxy not have the same rule regarding the priesthood as the Catholic Church does: once a priest, always a priest?

I mean yes a priest can be denied the right to celebrate Divine Liturgy/Mass publicaly or to hear confessions, but when a priest is defrocked in Orthodoxy does he actually loose the priesthood?


AFAIK, IIRC, not exactly, because Eastern Orthodoxy never dogmatized on the matter. It's one of those issues on which there's a range of allowable opinion. I think some do agree with the Roman Catholics on that (that ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul, like baptism and confirmation/chrismation); others say the grace of the priesthood is taken away if a priest is defrocked.

Orthodox are admirably clear-cut about 'validity' among themselves - if a priest isn't under one of their bishops, with a piece of cloth (antimension, portable altar) signed by him representing him as the fons of apostolic authority*, then functionally he's not a priest, no matter one's opinion about ordination's indelible character.

(Which is why, from the POV of the commonly understood Orthodox churches including ROCOR, a bishop who's been deposed - ex-Valentin of Suzdal', for example - isn't an Orthodox bishop at all right now. AFAIK that could change if one of them reinstated him.)

*Which is why, per Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco (OCA), active online, Orthodox priests don't sign themselves 'Father' when writing their bishops. (That's when you see 'Priest John Smith' written instead.) The bishop is in himself a 'reverend father in God' (as the Anglican Prayer Book puts it); a priest is given the title 'Father' by him to use among his people as a courtesy, because he represents the bishop.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2004, 12:00:49 PM by Serge » Logged

Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2004, 01:36:49 PM »

Joe,

Quote
then those priests are commiting a heretical and schismatic act at the most and are gravlely sinning at the worst.  if you can't make it to your NC Church, you just don't commune on sundays when you are unable to attend.  In all circumstances, one should always confess to the priest one recieves the Holy Mysteries from.

I think "heretical" is a little strong a description of such situations, since I do not think such decisions are this thought out by the clergy involved.

However with that said, I'm hard pressed to see how communing those outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church (in particular when the question of heresy is there - a question which the Antiochian Patriarchate may feel has been addressed to their satisfaction, but hardly to that of the Orthodox Communion as a whole) can be justified.  I'll let God be the judge of the consciences of those involved; it's the propriety of the visible act itself I have issues with.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2004, 01:39:49 PM »

Joe,

Quote
The AA does have an official policy of both communing and concelebrating with the NC's.  however this is not a policy in any other Orthodox church.  In fact, citing these reasons the EP himself told Jerusalem to reordain clergy coming from antioch.

This is news to me.  What is your source for this?  If it's true, that would imply a severence of communion with Antioch by both the EP and the JP; something I am totally unaware of.

Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2004, 01:51:04 PM »

Ooooohhh....New Calendarists...Scaaaaarrrryyy.

Ah, herein lies the tricky part of using initials  NC = Non-Chalcidonians.  New Calender, Neo-Conservatives, North Carolinians?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2004, 01:54:40 PM »

Aaron,

Quote
I will say that I understand why you don't want to answer the question about your claim that the AOC is not in communion with the ROCOR, being as there are many members of both on this forum.

ROCOR is not in communion with the AOC, in the sense that at least officially ROCOR and AOC clergy do not concelebrate, and AOC laity as a rule should not be communed by ROCOR clergy (nor should ROCOR laity receive ministrations by AOC clergy.)  Of course, such policies (for whatever reasons) are not always rigorously adhered to.

The reasons for this lack of fraternity are well known, and do not need to be re-hashed at the present moment.  However, like you bring up, ROCOR is tacitly in communion with Churches (most would say this is true of the Serbian Orthodox Church, though some on both sides would disagree with this; however it is quite clear that ROCOR has maintained communion with the JP) who are themselves in communion with the Antiochians, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate, and other bodies that ROCOR currently does not have an official relationship with.

With that said then, the lack of communion on ROCOR's part is not a statement that those they do not share the chalice with (or concelebrate with) are foreign to the Church - rather it's a breakdown in fraternity because ROCOR perceives those groups in question to be on a slippery slope headed for disaster, and believe that there is much that is now common in these groups (wide spread heterodoxy, anti-canonicity and ill advised attacks on traditional piety) which is dangerous to the faith of Orthodox Christians, in particular those in ROCOR's care.  The situation at present is similar to the break down in fraternity that recently occured between the EP and the Church of Greece (though it is over much weightier issues, and not territorial disputes).

In other words they (ROCOR) are walled off from certain groups, both as a witness against the unsavory activities of those groups but also as a measure to protect their own faithful - it's not a sentence, as if to say that those parties are to be regarded as formal heretics or schismatics.

A similar situation to this can be found amongst the "moderate" Old Calendarists whose reasons for being separated from their "mother Churches" is almost identical, and in the case of Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod and those in communion with him, are themselves in communion with ROCOR.  I've also been told that back in the '90s, it was not unknown for these Old Calendarists to concelebrate with the JP (until the EP stepped in and basically bullied the JP into stopping this.)

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2004, 02:10:55 PM »

Serge,

Quote
AFAIK, IIRC, not exactly, because Eastern Orthodoxy never dogmatized on the matter. It's one of those issues on which there's a range of allowable opinion. I think some do agree with the Roman Catholics on that (that ordination leaves an indelible mark on the soul, like baptism and confirmation/chrismation); others say the grace of the priesthood is taken away if a priest is defrocked.

This is a difficult subject, one which I wish had a better, pan-Orthodox answer as it has important implications.

Everything I've read (even from more "modernistic", ecumenically minded Churches, the EP in particular; thus this isn't just a "ROCOR" or "Old Calendarist" thing) is that when a clergyman is defrocked, he loses the ability to act as a Priest.  In other words, it's not like in the RCC where if a person were supsended they'd say he could still administer "valid" sacraments, but they'd simply be "illicit" (something affecting the moral realm of the celebrant and those who knowingly participate, but not affecting the strict validity of the rites themselves.)

However at the same time, it has been known that when Orthodox Priests defect to a sect, but then repent and come back to the Church, if they are still allowed to minister as Priests, they are not "re-ordained".  This is much like the situation of people who apostacize from the Church, but then return - they repent and will be Chrismated, but are not re-Baptized.

This would heavily imply (imho, require) a recognition that Holy Orders leave some kind of mark upon the soul of the one who receives them.  However, unlike the Roman Catholic teaching, the ability to minister as Priest in any sense is heavily tied up with one's unity with the Church.  Perhaps this is similar to the Roman Catholic view of their priests hearing confessions - while a priest in their view can say Mass "validly" but illicitly, their ability to validly absolve people during confession is tied up with having "juristiction" from their bishop, who in turn implicitly receives this from the Pope - if that juristiction doesn't exist, the absolutions are invalid.

Maybe it could be said that the Orthodox view is like this (RC view on confession), but extended to all of the Holy Mysteries and Priestly functions.

Quote
Orthodox are admirably clear-cut about 'validity' among themselves - if a priest isn't under one of their bishops, with a piece of cloth (antimension, portable altar) signed by him representing him as the fons of apostolic authority*, then functionally he's not a priest, no matter one's opinion about ordination's indelible character.

This sounds correct - though given that re-ordinations do not take place in cases of defection where the Priest is allowed to return to minister, it would seem heavily implied that a character is placed upon his soul, like in Baptism.

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #59 on: June 17, 2004, 08:47:44 PM »

So... ummm... Does anyone know if Vladika John communed Ethiopeans or not?

I just read through this whole thread and was wondering the same thing.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.067 seconds with 42 queries.