OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 08:33:22 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod  (Read 28786 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,492


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #495 on: September 23, 2011, 03:01:37 PM »

While all this is true and complimentary it is nothing more than recognition. This is a variant of the papal-caesarism in which all a local faith community needs is to be recognized by a ancient or major Patrriarchate to be considered legitimate or canonical. This is a Western notion and foreign to the Orthodox mind.

I don't know. It seems to me that our concept of canonicity has roots in the writings of St. Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Whatever we may think of modern day RC interpretation of his writings, he did say something about how agreement with Rome was a sure sign of one's orthodoxy.

This is the full quotation:
Quote
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,
Quote
33133313    The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
 that is, the faithful everywhere,
416
inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html


The main idea of said note:
Quote
Taking the entire argument of our author with the context, then, it amounts to this: “We must ask, not for local, but universal, testimony. Now, in every Church founded by the apostles has been handed down their traditions; but, as it would be a tedious thing to collect them all, let this suffice. Take that Church (nearest at hand, and which is the only Apostolic Church of the West), the great and glorious Church at Rome, which was there founded by the two apostles Peter and Paul. In her have been preserved the traditions of all the Churches, because everybody is forced to go to the seat of empire: and therefore, by these representatives of the whole Catholic Church, the apostolic traditions have been all collected in Rome:37973797    Nobody has more forcibly stated the argument of Irenæus than the Abbé Guettée, in his exhaustive work on the Papacy. I published a translation of this valuable historical epitome in New York (Carleton), 1867; but it is out of print. The original may be had in Paris (Fischbacher), No. 33 Rue de Seine.  and you have a synoptical view of all Churches in what is there preserved.”
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:09:44 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #496 on: September 23, 2011, 03:09:23 PM »

Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Quote from: Fabio Leite
And canonical means those who mutually recognize that each other follow the traditional canons of the Church, which the Millan Synod does not. Schismatic groups are by definition made of people who were once canonical, although their new group no longer is.

No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).

Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.
Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,492


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #497 on: September 23, 2011, 03:15:44 PM »

Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Which is the case of the "synod" of Milan. Unnaccepted and unrepetent, they do not give up their pretensions to lawfuly join canonical churches in humility. Like so many other "genuine", "true" "Orthodox", they are just to proud to be part of something, they want to be the head, their own ideological utopias of Western Orthodoxy being more important than anything.


Quote
No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).


There is no canonicity out of unit. No schismatic group is canonical. As mentioned below, canonicity is not something you can get from an Orthodox bishop and then run away with it to create your own Orthodoxy. Canonicity is more than legal formality, but a gift of Grace that exists only withing the communion of the Church

Quote
Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:16:36 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #498 on: September 23, 2011, 03:21:38 PM »


This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?
Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,492


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #499 on: September 23, 2011, 03:30:18 PM »


This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?

More than that, she was living faithfully because Rome, due to its position in the empire, was a natural meeting point for Christians from everywhere in the world who could then put in check their local practices and beliefs and filter heresies and superstitions. Since East and West drifted apart, initially for natural spontaneous reasons, Rome obviously ceased being that and fell victim of its own provincialism.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #500 on: September 23, 2011, 03:32:52 PM »


This is the full quotation:

This does not contradict what I have offered. This presumes, correctly, in that time in history that the Church of Rome was canonical faithfully living the Orthodox Standard and that all should be judged in the light of Rome.

Does Rome still hold this pristine position?
But you miss the point of why I brought this up. My point is that the faithful could measure one's orthodoxy by her agreement with a mutually respected central authority (however one understands the concept of authority), whether that authority be Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, or Timbuktu.

Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome? Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:33:10 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #501 on: September 23, 2011, 05:20:20 PM »


So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #502 on: September 23, 2011, 07:02:55 PM »


So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? Huh
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,444



WWW
« Reply #503 on: September 23, 2011, 08:12:05 PM »


So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? Huh
Why answer your question? It means getting off the endless merry-go-round of schismatic talking points and engaging in a real discussion. World Orthodox are just graceless heretics, anyway, we should be glad these representatives of True(tm) Orthodoxy even deign to speak with such as us (in direct contradiction of the teachings of St Paul, no less).

I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round: since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 08:14:07 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
searn77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & the British Isles
Posts: 240


St. Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York


« Reply #504 on: September 23, 2011, 10:23:58 PM »

Arian also served under canonical jurisdictions.

Throughout the history of The Church there has always been someone within a canonical jurisdiction teaching errors. One person does not spoil the whole unless such a teacher of errors goes uncorrected by the heirarchy under whom he must be obedient.

Which is the case of the "synod" of Milan. Unnaccepted and unrepetent, they do not give up their pretensions to lawfuly join canonical churches in humility. Like so many other "genuine", "true" "Orthodox", they are just to proud to be part of something, they want to be the head, their own ideological utopias of Western Orthodoxy being more important than anything.

The Synod of Milan is seeking to join the Moscow Patriarchate so I don't see how they "want to be the head" if they are wanting to be under the Moscow Patriarch.

Quote
No, This definition refers to two canonical synods in mutual recognition and in unity. Recognition does not make the other canonical. Both must already be canonical. Or a canonical synod may make corrections to another and if they comply then they become also canonical followed by recognition (read: unity).


There is no canonicity out of unit. No schismatic group is canonical. As mentioned below, canonicity is not something you can get from an Orthodox bishop and then run away with it to create your own Orthodoxy. Canonicity is more than legal formality, but a gift of Grace that exists only withing the communion of the Church

But that's just it; we don't think we're schismatic. Certain bishops in Greece, at the time when the new calendar was being introduced in the Greek Church because of ecumenism, ceased commemorating the bishops who accepted the calendar change. And if you read the Ecumenical Patriarch's 1920 encyclical "Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere" you'll see that it wasn't just because of the calendar that these "Old Calendarists" didn't go along with the other Greek bishops. These Old Calendarists didn't split from the Church, they remained faithful to the Church. And in Russia when the Soviets infiltrated the Russian Church, certain Russian clergymen ceased commemorating the Seargianist clergy and remained faithful to the Church. Both the Old Calendarists and the Russian Catacomb Orthodox were highly persecuted and even martyred for their faith in the Church. But they did not split from anybody; they remained united to the Orthodox Church.

So these bishops didn't just get their orders and run away like a kid stealing ice cream. They received their orders and remained true to the Orthodox Church.

Sadly due to persecutions, historical circumstances, and misunderstandings, the Old Calendarists and Catacomb Orthodox are not all in communion with each other which is not unheard of in the history of the Orthodox Church when a heresy arises (ex. Arian controversy, St. Meletius, and St. Athanasius). But hopefully in time we will hear of more Old Calendarist synods uniting with one another.

"Many of them follow the bishops of the few Orthodox jurisdicitions that have strong stands against the apostasy of our times: the Catacomb Church of Russia, the Russian Church Outside of Russia, the True Orthodox Christians [Old Calendarists] of Greece. But there are some left in other jurisdictions also, grieving over the ever more evident apostasy of their hierarchs and striving somehow to keep their own Orthodoxy intact;" - Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future


Quote
Quote from: Fabio Leite
Besides, the orders are a gift of the Church and that exist only *in* the Church. One cannot just get it and run away like a kid stealing an ice-cream and then crying "it's mine, mine, mine". Outside the oasis of the Church in the hot sun of schismatic desert, the ice-cream simply melts away.

That's another way of saying what I said in my last paragraph.

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.
searn77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & the British Isles
Posts: 240


St. Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York


« Reply #505 on: September 23, 2011, 10:40:39 PM »


So it comes down to whether one believes the calendar change outside a pan-Orthodox Council, joint prayer with non-Orthodox, neo-sergianist collaboration with secular powers, the eager and relentless pursuit towards unity with the heretical Rome, etc, etc, does or does not violate canonical tradition.
How does that answer my question? Huh
Why answer your question? It means getting off the endless merry-go-round of schismatic talking points and engaging in a real discussion. World Orthodox are just graceless heretics, anyway, we should be glad these representatives of True(tm) Orthodoxy even deign to speak with such as us (in direct contradiction of the teachings of St Paul, no less).

Have any Old Calendarists on this forum that you have personally encountered really come across like you portray here, exaggeration aside? I admit, there may have been some who sinfully acted like that. But I've seen this same type of holier-than-thou type of attitude from New Calendarists as well. This attitude isn't trademarked by us.
Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #506 on: September 23, 2011, 10:49:00 PM »

But you miss the point of why I brought this up....

Well one would think so until such authority itself falls into schism or heresy.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome?

An interesting question. Were contemporary churchman in Orthodox England, for example, aware that the Arian Goths were a significant influence upon Rome in the years prior to the Great Schism?  Of those in doctrinal contradiction to Old Rome I cannot say, I am not that old myself.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?

Pride knows no bounds. But if you are insinuating that the traditional Orthodox are to be alikened to these “separatists” in your example then the analogy fails. The very existence of the traditionalist movement is in the face of the treacheries of the heresiarch Meletios Metataxis and his living inheritance in our own day.

Why answer your question? It means getting off ...

Indeed. There is more to do in life than be here on OC.net
What a heartless disposition. God forgives.

Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.

Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #507 on: September 24, 2011, 01:13:34 AM »

But you miss the point of why I brought this up....

Well one would think so until such authority itself falls into schism or heresy.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Also, you look through the 20/20 hindsight that the centuries have given us and see early Rome as orthodox, but what of those who during the time of Rome's orthodoxy disagreed with Rome?

An interesting question. Were contemporary churchman in Orthodox England, for example, aware that the Arian Goths were a significant influence upon Rome in the years prior to the Great Schism?  Of those in doctrinal contradiction to Old Rome I cannot say, I am not that old myself.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Did they think Rome canonical? Or did they not and instead seek to use cunning words to justify their separation from Rome and from the rest of the Church?

Pride knows no bounds. But if you are insinuating that the traditional Orthodox are to be alikened to these “separatists” in your example then the analogy fails. The very existence of the traditionalist movement is in the face of the treacheries of the heresiarch Meletios Metataxis and his living inheritance in our own day.
Okay. Undecided You're still speaking from your list of talking points, but you still fail to address my point.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,444



WWW
« Reply #508 on: September 24, 2011, 10:52:50 AM »



Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 10:57:05 AM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
searn77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & the British Isles
Posts: 240


St. Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York


« Reply #509 on: September 24, 2011, 12:12:47 PM »



Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?

Offending and mocking Fr. Symeon or anyone else and then asking them to answer your questions is never a good way to try and have a discussion.

Here's a quote from Bishop Photius of Triaditsa about the "pan-orthodox council" of 1923:
Quote
To call such a church forum "Pan-Orthodox" is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express "their own, personal opinions," [11] or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions. Professor Troitsky defines this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" from an ecclesiological point of view as "a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time, concerning which, they expressed their opinions."[12] Nevertheless, in spite of the canonical irregularity of the congress' make-up and its representatives, Meletius very self-assuredly announced that, "We work as a commission of the whole Church."[13]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx

Here are some recent examples of Sergianism. Clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate and the government are working in communion to seize churches from Catacomb synods (the only synod I have heard of them doing this to is ROCOR-A) and giving them over the Moscow Patriarchate. Here's one instance where this has happened:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121%3A2011-01-21-21-24-31&catid=24%3A2010-04-15-03-46-45&Itemid=4&lang=en
And here's another instance where they're trying to do the same thing to a monastery:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200%3A2011-09-08-16-55-36&catid=49%3A2010-12-14-01-43-57&Itemid=5&lang=en

You can not believe it if you wish as you're free to do that. I won't mock or attack other members on this forum. But I don't think I want to partake in discussion on this thread any longer.
Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,444



WWW
« Reply #510 on: September 24, 2011, 12:42:46 PM »



Quote from: FormerReformer
I for one will gladly jump on the merry-go-round...

I am not with the Milan Synod nor am I its apologist. The Milan Synod by its own actions considers itself among World Orthodox therefore it is now in schism.



I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo about the name change to the "Autonomous Metropolia", I let my subscription to "Schismatic Churches Update Weekly" run out after the "used to be in communion with" section started running beyond a hundred pages and my mailman went on strike.

Still, now you're not even addressing the points from the merry-go-round, but are hanging upside down on the monkey bars of nitpicking what name your group is currently addressed by.

To reask:since when does it take a pan-Orthodox synod to change something (like, say, a calendar) that was never set by an ecumenical Council (though the only texts that claim to be from an Ecumenical council related to the calendar issue state that the Pascha should be the Sunday after the full moon following the Spring Equinox)? And if it does take an pan-Orthodox council to change the calendar, what about the pan-Orthodox council that changed the calendar (1923)? What does neo-Sergianism mean and what ecumenical Council condemned Sergianism in the first place (and is it even possible to have a Neo-sergianim when the original Sergianism was less than 80 years ago and according to the Milan Synod  Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia [TOC(tm)]is still going strong what with the MP being the same-old-sergianists)?

Offending and mocking Fr. Symeon or anyone else and then asking them to answer your questions is never a good way to try and have a discussion.

Here's a quote from Bishop Photius of Triaditsa about the "pan-orthodox council" of 1923:
Quote
To call such a church forum "Pan-Orthodox" is, to put it mildly, presumptuous. The representatives of the three elder sees after Constantinople (Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) refused to take part. The Russian Church, the Archbishop of Sinai and the Bulgarian Church (which the Ecumenical Patriarch considered to be schismatic at that time) also did not participate. It is noteworthy that more than half of the local Churches were not represented, and the authority of those who did participate is questionable as well. According to the opinion of the famous canonist and theologian, S. Troitsky, who analyzed the ecclesiological-legal aspect of this question, the members of the commission had no right, at the time of the meeting, to express the opinions of their Churches since the local Churches had not yet formulated their decisions on the questions that went into the protocol of the congress. In such circumstances the delegates could only, in fact, express "their own, personal opinions," [11] or, at best, the opinion of their synods, which themselves had no right to decide general Church, canonical or even more importantly, dogmatic questions. Professor Troitsky defines this "Pan-Orthodox Congress" from an ecclesiological point of view as "a private meeting of a few people, who had as their agenda the examination of various questions which troubled the Orthodox Church at that time, concerning which, they expressed their opinions."[12] Nevertheless, in spite of the canonical irregularity of the congress' make-up and its representatives, Meletius very self-assuredly announced that, "We work as a commission of the whole Church."[13]
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/photii_2.aspx

Here are some recent examples of Sergianism. Clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate and the government are working in communion to seize churches from Catacomb synods (the only synod I have heard of them doing this to is ROCOR-A) and giving them over the Moscow Patriarchate. Here's one instance where this has happened:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121%3A2011-01-21-21-24-31&catid=24%3A2010-04-15-03-46-45&Itemid=4&lang=en
And here's another instance where they're trying to do the same thing to a monastery:
http://news.ruschurchabroad.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200%3A2011-09-08-16-55-36&catid=49%3A2010-12-14-01-43-57&Itemid=5&lang=en

You can not believe it if you wish as you're free to do that. I won't mock or attack other members on this forum. But I don't think I want to partake in discussion on this thread any longer.

I'm sorry, but it is somewhat tiring to go over the same talking points over and over and over and over. If we are limiting the conversation to Calendars, Sergianism, etc then by all means don't get all huffy that someone hasn't followed every last turn of the alphabet soup of your Church but answer questions relating to your little merry-go-round. I'd assume you readily have merry-go-round information ready. My "mocking" is open and honest, Papa Symeon mocks us every time he changes the talking points when a question is asked he doesn't like the answer to.

EDITed for afterthought: Why is it "speaking the Truth in Love" for you guys to call us Sergianists and ecumenicists and not at all offensive, but it's mocking and offensive for me to speak the truth in jest?

As for the "pan-orthodoxy" of the 1923 congress, I would say it's at least as "pan-Orthodox" as the councils in Constantinople in the 16th century often referred to in condemnation of the Gregorian calendar (which only had the three ancient Churches in attendance). A meeting of the representatives of more than one local Church is either "pan-Orthodox" or it isn't (this doesn't preclude that it's a Robber Synod, but even a robber synod is still "pan-Orthodox"), if you want a meeting of all the Churches for pan-Orthodox appellation then there is absolutely no canonical grounds for condemning the Gregorian calendar to begin with.

As for your recent examples of "Sergianism".... First- who and when condemned "Sergianism". Second- is every instance of the Orthodox Church working in concert with the government "Sergianism" when it claims property or enforces "Orthodoxy"? Doesn't this make all the Ecumenical Councils "Sergian" and the Baptists right?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 12:45:37 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #511 on: September 24, 2011, 01:00:11 PM »

Searn, that isn't Sergianism.  In those two cases you cited, it was the Moscow Patriarchate using the government to do their wishes, not the other way around.  BTW, I don't take you Russian Old Calendarist sectarians very seriously, after all the Russian Church has been a department of the Russian government since 1700.  Then again, I'm a member of "ROCOR-Laurus" so what do I know.  
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 01:04:06 PM by Ionnis » Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #512 on: September 24, 2011, 01:24:04 PM »

If an 8th Ecumenical Council is indeed gathered by the Phanar and they ratify union with Rome, where will you stand? With the "Unionist" or with the anti-Unionists?  Yes this is hypothetical but it may happen.
Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,444



WWW
« Reply #513 on: September 24, 2011, 01:27:17 PM »

If an 8th Ecumenical Council is indeed gathered by the Phanar and they ratify union with Rome, where will you stand? With the "Unionist" or with the anti-Unionists?  Yes this is hypothetical but it may happen.

It really depends on what the terms of reunion are, just like the last two times an "8th Ecumenical Council" were called and ratified a union with Rome.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 01:29:09 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #514 on: September 24, 2011, 01:34:15 PM »

Searn, that isn't Sergianism.  In those two cases you cited, it was the Moscow Patriarchate using the government to do their wishes, not the other way around.  BTW, I don't take you Russian Old Calendarist sectarians very seriously, after all the Russian Church has been a department of the Russian government since 1700.
Good point. IIRC, the Romanov Tsars, starting from Peter the Great, were not all that friendly to Orthodoxy in their Russia, yet the Russian Orthodox Church consented to compromising with the imperial government to create a grossly uncanonical situation: the abolition of the patriarchate and its replacement with a Holy Synod chaired by a layman and acting as an arm of the government.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 01:36:03 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Tags: Milan Synod 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   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 0.116 seconds with 47 queries.