OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 01:45:52 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate  (Read 16880 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« on: June 26, 2005, 01:48:46 PM »

I searched the boards for this subject and couldn't find it, so I'm posting it now. If it has already been discussed, then I apologize.


http://en.rian.ru/society/20050621/40555919.html

MOSCOW, June 21 (RIA Novosti, Olga Lipich) - The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is set to join the Moscow Patriarchate as a self-governed branch, similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The union was envisaged by a draft act on canonical communication, which was published Tuesday on the official Web sites of the foreign ties department of the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR, along with other documents adopted by the cross commissions for the bilateral dialogue.

"These documents cover the key issues that ROCOR considered to be major obstacles on the way to a full dialogue," said Protopope Nikolai Balashov, the secretary for Orthodox ties of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Under the draft act, ROCOR will retain independence in terms of organization, but will still become part of the Moscow Partriarchate. By way of example, he cited the Ukrainian, Latvian, Moldovan and Estonian Orthodox Churches, all branches of the Moscow Patriarchate.

According to the draft act, "ROCOR is independent in terms of pastoral, enlightening, administrative, economic, property and secular issues."

The document also states that ROCOR bishops are members of the Local and Bishop Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, and can participate in the Holy Synod sessions. ROCOR will also receive its holy oil from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The cross commissions for dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR were established in December 2003. Metropolitan Laurus, the ROCOR Protohierarch, visited Russia in May 2004. Then the sides decided to begin the work of the commissions, and determined the range of issues to be discussed.

Since then, four joint sessions have been held.

"We are hopeful that the commissions will finish their work before the all-Foreign Council next May," Balashov said.


You can also view the documents produced by the Joint Session here on the Moscow Patriarchate site: http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/9553.html
« Last Edit: June 26, 2005, 01:49:32 PM by amnesiac99 » Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2005, 06:09:19 PM »

Blessed be God!
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2005, 06:58:20 PM »

What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2005, 08:16:22 PM »

Quote
What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?

Hmm, I assumed in my head that, since the OCA is still in some degree attached to the MP (to much of the EO world, it is attached completely), we (OCA) would automatically be in communion w/ ROCOR...maybe this is a naive assumption and there's probably more to it, but anyone who knows better, please correct me if I'm off.

As for the EP, I have no clue what it means for them.

Well, come to think of it, there probably is a lot more to it than what I described above...now I'm curious as well. Anyone who knows or has a better idea of what this means for the relationshio between ROCOR and OCA, please chime in.
Logged

hmmmm...
Mattheos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


I'm a llama!


« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2005, 08:17:16 PM »

And does this mean that ROCOR will sever ties with Schismatic Old Calendar churches such as the "Synod in Resistance"?

That would mean that the rest of the canonical Orthodox World would have defacto communion with these schismatic groups if ROCOR doesn't drop them.

This news of reconciliation is welcome and fantastic. I'm just curious as to the backlash from the fanatic ROCOR members.

Mattheos
Logged

NULL
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2005, 12:21:48 AM »

What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?

The Posistion of the Oecumenical Throne has long been that this is an Internal Issue, thus maintaining the Right of Moscow to determine the Canonicity of all the Bishops and Faithful (Schismatic or otherwise) under her Omophorion (Including the ROCOR Bishops). Thus, presumably, Communion between the Oecumenical Patriarchate and ROCOR Bishops would resume as soon as the ROCOR become Bishops In Communion with and Under the Synod of Moscow, which would be at the next Synod of Moscow IF the ROCOR Bishops' Names are entered into the Minutes as both Members of and Subject to the Synod of Moscow...that is to say if Relations between these ROCOR Bishops and their Canonical Synod in Moscow are Normalized.

And does this mean that ROCOR will sever ties with Schismatic Old Calendar churches such as the "Synod in Resistance"?

That would mean that the rest of the canonical Orthodox World would have defacto communion with these schismatic groups if ROCOR doesn't drop them.

ROCOR would become an Autonomous Church under the Patriarchate of Moscow, but only Autocephalous Churches, not Autonomous Churches, have the Authority to determine determine Issues of Communion with Other Churches. By virtue of this agreement the ROCOR Synod would have to Submit to the Synod of Moscow inregard to inter-Church relations...thus being required to Break Communion with Any Moscow is not in Communion with (or enter into communion with any Moscow is in Communion with).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2005, 04:53:43 AM »

FWIW I believe the Cyprianites said they would sever their already thin ties to the ROCOR. 
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2005, 06:01:07 AM »

And I read (from a ROCOR priest) that ROCOR was trying to encourage schismatic Old Calendarist groups like the True Orthodox Church of Romania to reconcile themselves to the Mother churches as long as they are given assurances on the calendar. I sincerely hope that succeeds. I'd like to be able to visit Slatioara (their main monastery close to where my wife is from) and worship on what I consider to be the true Calendar. I also think it would result in us moving back to the Old Calendar in the long run - I know an awful lot of ordinary Romanian clergy and lay folk who disapprove (but reluctantly follow) the New Calendar.

James 
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2005, 10:05:46 AM »

And I read (from a ROCOR priest) that ROCOR was trying to encourage schismatic Old Calendarist groups like the True Orthodox Church of Romania to reconcile themselves to the Mother churches as long as they are given assurances on the calendar.

That would certainly be a welcome change. I've long said that the Orthodox Church needs a definitive break from the ecumenical movement in order to heal the myriad internal rifts she has suffered. Metropolitan +Laurus deserves great credit for leading ROCOR in this dialogue with Moscow, in spite of the rift within the Church Abroad that resulted. We cannot allow these divisions to become permanent in reality or in our hearts.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2005, 10:26:37 AM »

That would certainly be a welcome change. I've long said that the Orthodox Church needs a definitive break from the ecumenical movement in order to heal the myriad internal rifts she has suffered. Metropolitan +Laurus deserves great credit for leading ROCOR in this dialogue with Moscow, in spite of the rift within the Church Abroad that resulted. We cannot allow these divisions to become permanent in reality or in our hearts.

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2005, 10:45:14 AM »

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.

No, that is simply wrong-headed. These groups, while schismatic, remain Orthodox in their theology and practice; as such, the divisions between us and them deserve more attention than the divisions between the Orthodox Church and, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, it is too much to hope that Rome will surrender papal conceits or that Canterbury will abandon its moral and theological relativism. Ecumenism is an increasingly futile exercise and one that has damaged the Church of Christ more than it has helped. Now, if we wish to persist in bilateral dialogue with specific churches, that is fine. But our continued membership in bodies such as the WCC and NCC is a scandal and should be ended.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2005, 11:04:31 AM »

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.

One wonders if you were banging your fists on your desk as you typed out this post LOL.

Ecumenism distorts the evangelical mission of the Church.  Read the documents that Orthodox have signed that call into question the unique salvific work of the Orthodox Church and her sacraments (such as your Patriarch's recognition of Lutheran "baptism" last year, etc.)  I recall the statements of Nissiotis, the archecumenist, who apologized for the Orthodox believing themselves to be the only true Church in the 1960's.  While Niss. is not the Orthodox Church, nothing was done to him.  The Ecumenical movement actually keeps some conservative Protestants from joining Orthodoxy; my Missouri Synod Lutheran friend took a long time to come to Orthodoxy because of its involvement in the WCC.  And others do not come over because they think that Orthodoxy accepts them as is.  I recall the difference in approach between Professor Florovsky, namely "for me, Christian unity can only mean universal conversion to the Orthodox Church" and that of my own professor, Dr. Bouteneff (whom I admire just so it is known) who stated in his book on ecumenism that coroporate reunion should have a priority over personal conversion, etc., thus in effect denying the sacraments to an entire group of people in the hopes that their "church" will come over to Orthodoxy en masse.

As far as political concerns, please.  Don't sell the souls of Orthodox for political concessions.  Besides, when Orthodox take money from Protestant groups and gov't agencies due to ecumenism, but don't actually accept such people as truly in the right, isn't there a bit of dishonesty going on here?

Finally, your rant about the "schismatics," amusing as it may be, reveals your lack of concern for the ecclesiological implications of ecumenism and your overreliance on the papal claims of Constantinople and other sees.  The issue of ecumenism is dogmatic, is moral, and as such, being a betrayal of Orthodoxy, calls to question the obligation to submit to such an authority.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2005, 11:25:57 AM »

Thank you Anastasios.  Well said.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2005, 11:32:47 AM »

No, that is simply wrong-headed. These groups, while schismatic, remain Orthodox in their theology and practice; as such, the divisions between us and them deserve more attention than the divisions between the Orthodox Church and, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, it is too much to hope that Rome will surrender papal conceits or that Canterbury will abandon its moral and theological relativism. Ecumenism is an increasingly futile exercise and one that has damaged the Church of Christ more than it has helped. Now, if we wish to persist in bilateral dialogue with specific churches, that is fine. But our continued membership in bodies such as the WCC and NCC is a scandal and should be ended.

Though some of these Groups may remain Orthodox in Theology (then again, so are some Anglo-Catholics), I would argue that by virtue of entering into Schism they are not Orthodox in their Practice. Discussions between us and these Schismatic organizations are as much oecumenical discussions as those between us and the latins or anglicans; and just like with our discussions with the latins and anglicans, we have expectations we expect these groups to meet if we are to consider them Orthodox and enter into Communion with them. The Orthodox Church has considerable influence in and receives considerable benifit from membership in the WCC, and now is not the time to go back on our Comitment to this Organization; for even if we did, without a subsequent shift towards radicalism and fundamentalism within the Church issues of communion with the said schismatics would not be resolved.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2005, 11:48:58 AM »

One wonders if you were banging your fists on your desk as you typed out this post LOL.

Nope, I've always found that a calm argument with carefully chosen words, while letting the other person bang his fists on their desk and head against the wall, is more effective; I try to avoid getting emotionally involved iny debates.

Quote
Ecumenism distorts the evangelical mission of the Church.ÂÂ  Read the documents that Orthodox have signed that call into question the unique salvific work of the Orthodox Church and her sacraments (such as your Patriarch's recognition of Lutheran "baptism" last year, etc.)ÂÂ  I recall the statements of Nissiotis, the archecumenist, who apologized for the Orthodox believing themselves to be the only true Church in the 1960's.ÂÂ  While Niss. is not the Orthodox Church, nothing was done to him.ÂÂ  The Ecumenical movement actually keeps some conservative Protestants from joining Orthodoxy; my Missouri Synod Lutheran friend took a long time to come to Orthodoxy because of its involvement in the WCC.ÂÂ  And others do not come over because they think that Orthodoxy accepts them as is.ÂÂ  I recall the difference in approach between Professor Florovsky, namely "for me, Christian unity can only mean universal conversion to the Orthodox Church" and that of my own professor, Dr. Bouteneff (whom I admire just so it is known) who stated in his book on ecumenism that coroporate reunion should have a priority over personal conversion, etc., thus in effect denying the sacraments to an entire group of people in the hopes that their "church" will come over to Orthodoxy en masse.

The Corporate Conversion philosophy, however, does have the advantage of allowing evangelism without proselytism...a line that is often Crossed when any religious group tries to evangelize individuals; with that said, there is room for both in the Orthodox Church one does not have to exclude the other, it simply requires us to be careful. Furthermore, the exposure the Orthodox Church gets to the World through the WCC can also be benificial, we can influence other churches and make ourselves and our posistions known. The WCC is a useful forum which has brought both political and economic benifit to the Orthodox Church.

Quote
As far as political concerns, please.ÂÂ  Don't sell the souls of Orthodox for political concessions.ÂÂ  Besides, when Orthodox take money from Protestant groups and gov't agencies due to ecumenism, but don't actually accept such people as truly in the right, isn't there a bit of dishonesty going on here?

We have made our Posistions quite clear, there is no deceit involved. Much of the money we receive are for cultural preservation, benifiting everyone whether they're Orthodox or not, but costs we would have to pay out of pocket if not for these grants from oecumenical organizations

Quote
Finally, your rant about the "schismatics," amusing as it may be, reveals your lack of concern for the ecclesiological implications of ecumenism and your overreliance on the papal claims of Constantinople and other sees.ÂÂ  The issue of ecumenism is dogmatic, is moral, and as such, being a betrayal of Orthodoxy, calls to question the obligation to submit to such an authority.

I have made no secret of my Loyality to the Oecumenical Throne on this board; I believe the Oecumenical Patriarch and the Bishops who stand with him on these issues to be correct and representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole, I do not believe they have compromised on doctrinal or moral issues, though politics, in the greatest spirit of Byzantium, have certainly been played...to our advantage IMO. As far as my 'rant' about the schismatics, I believe myself to be correct in my statements, they broke from the Church and defied their Synod over issues of nominal significance, in light of Chrysostom's statement that Schism is a worse crime than Heresy, I do not see how we can regard these organizations as being substantially more orthodox than the Latins or Anglicans.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2005, 02:13:25 PM »

Those ones who wish to find by themselves if sergianism is an "issue of nominal significance" would do well in looking for a book named The Truth About Religion in Russia, issued by the Moscow Patriarchate and published in English in 1942 by Hutchinson and Co. as part of the propaganda efforts of the MP in the West during the II World War. Its purpose is showing to the Western readers that there was no religious persecution at all in the USSR. The exemplary preface was written by Patriarch Sergius himself; the rest of the book is the work of various MP Hierarchs and clergymen. I believe this book had a massive printing and worldwide distribution (despite the hardship of circumstances) and it may not be too hard to find, as even in Brazil I was able to find a copy in a local library.

The joint declaration of the MP and ROCOR Commissions about sergianism is a monument to doublespeak, a "criticism without condemnation". It does movingly "regret" and criticize the sergianist path in not a few passages; but, at the same time, most of the text is rather dedicated to the justification of this path, given its results and the current circumstances. Sergianist ecclesiastical policies are considered to have been responsible for the salvation of the Russian Church ("the policies of Metropolitan Sergius enabled the reestablishment of church life during and after the Second World War") while the way of non-cooperation with communist persecutors is dismissed as inefficacious ("the passage of time showed that communities refusing communion with the church hierarchy headed by Metropolitan Sergius were deprived of the possibility of survival under persecution, and those remnants that did survive could not openly confess Christ's teachings and influence the spiritual life of the people") or spiritually dangerous ("among those who remained separated from communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, the danger arose of veering into sectarianism") and thus the sergianist way, no matter how fairly one can "criticize" it, is not to be condemned at all ("at the same time, a critical view of the above document does not equate to a condemnation of His Holiness Patriarch Sergius, and does not express an effort to besmirch his person and mitigate his First-Hierarchical service in the difficult years of the Church's life in the Soviet Union.").

These are the bases upon which ROCOR and MP are planning to reconcile now: the justification of sergianism as a "necessary evil" and, therefore, an express repudiation of all previous condemnations of it ("in connection with this, it is proposed that when the above Act [of Canonical Communion] is put into effect, all previous acts which would hinder the fullness of canonical communion are declared invalid" -- See another joint declaration by ROCOR and MP Commissions).
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 04:48:37 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2005, 03:17:20 PM »

Quote
in light of Chrysostom's statement that Schism is a worse crime than Heresy, I do not see how we can regard these organizations as being substantially more orthodox than the Latins or Anglicans.

Well, except for the fact that they hold to no heresy...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 03:17:27 PM by Beayf » Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2005, 05:06:11 PM »

Before you get too wrapped up in your arguments, GreekisChristian, please keep in mind the better parts of the Church throughout the world are quite opposed to the ecumenical movement.  The recent confrence on the subject in Thessaloniki (and if your travels ever take you there, you may be surprised at just how many people are anti- ecumenists) is a prime example of that.  The entire Athonite establishment, many bishops within Greece (including the well respected Metr. Hierotheos Vlachas and the Archbishop Panteleimon of Thessaloniki of blessed memory), such promiment bishops as Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro and Bishop Artemije (who it appears the EP is trying to silence!) have all spoken vocally against ecumenism. 

Before claiming the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on this matter, I'd look first at what the modern saints and fathers of the church felt on the issue: Saint Nektarios, Saint Savvas the new, Saint Justin Popovich, Elder Philotheos Zervakos, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia or Elder Cleopa of Sihastria. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2005, 03:10:35 AM »

Those ones who wish to find by themselves if sergianism is an "issue of nominal significance" would do well in looking for a book named The Truth About Religion in Russia, issued by the Moscow Patriarchate and published in English in 1942 by Hutchinson and Co. as part of the propaganda efforts of the MP in the West during the II World War. Its purpose is showing to the Western readers that there was no religious persecution at all in the USSR. The exemplary preface was written by Patriarch Sergius himself; the rest of the book is the work of various MP Hierarchs and clergymen. I believe this book had a massive printing and worldwide distribution (despite the hardship of circumstances) and it may not be too hard to find, as even in Brazil I was able to find a copy in a local library.

The So-Called Heresy of which Patriarch Sergi of Moscow is accused is essentially the clearly diabolical teaching of "Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' The Patriarchate of Moscow did what they had to do to Survive and the Church in Russia today is in a better Posistion because of it. Surely one would not argue that Russia would be better off today if the Communists had completely surpressed the Church and eliminated every trace of it from Russia, which very well may have happened if the Church insisted on being a continuing Counter-Revolutionary force. Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group and rather did that they knew was best for Orthodoxy, both in Russia and for the Unity of the Orthodox Churches.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2005, 03:11:00 AM »

Well, except for the fact that they hold to no heresy...

My point was that Schism was worse than Heresy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2005, 03:22:14 AM »

Before you get too wrapped up in your arguments, GreekisChristian, please keep in mind the better parts of the Church throughout the world are quite opposed to the ecumenical movement.ÂÂ  The recent confrence on the subject in Thessaloniki (and if your travels ever take you there, you may be surprised at just how many people are anti- ecumenists) is a prime example of that.ÂÂ  The entire Athonite establishment, many bishops within Greece (including the well respected Metr. Hierotheos Vlachas and the Archbishop Panteleimon of Thessaloniki of blessed memory), such promiment bishops as Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro and Bishop Artemije (who it appears the EP is trying to silence!) have all spoken vocally against ecumenism.ÂÂ  

As I have said many times, I am a subject of the Oecumenical Throne, it is the Oecumenical Patriarchate's view on Oecumenism that concerns me most, Monastics and Spiritual Fathers have their place in the Church, a very important place, but it is not in Ruling the Church and establishing policy. His All-Holiness is a competent and skilled Canonist, and I believe has what is best for the Church in mind.

Concerning the Conference in Thessaloniki, as I was told from a Priest who attended and spoke at it, it was clearly stacked. A single Monastery had arranged it with an agenda, and people who did not fit into their agenda were not invited...so it's to be expected that the said agenda was advanced by the conference. The Priest to whom I refer was one of the very few people to speak favourably of the Oecumenical Movement.

Oecumenism is essentially nothing more than dialogue and the politeness and civility that goes along with dialogue. When people speak against Oecumenism they sometimes speak against dialogue, but more often than not they object to the politeness and civility. These people need to realize that the Oecumenical Throne and others involved in these Dialogues are not selling anyone or anything out, they maintain the Orthodox Theology, Praxis, and Mindset that they have always held...they have simply been around enough to realize that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2005, 03:31:13 AM »

Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group

Absurd. Those bishops who resisted submission to the godless bolsheviks were not just those safe outside of Russia's borders. Dozens of bishops were martyred for not submitting to this authority, as I'm sure you know. So it's ridiculous to claim that those bishops outside of Russia were "self righteous" when their voices echoed the voices of the bishops already murdered for their beliefs- only the emigres could speak openly without fear of persecution. What should they have done, kept quiet?
That being said, you have some audacity to place the word churchin quotation marks, considering this church produced one of the greatest saints of this century. Also, I hope you do realize that the GOA was in communion with ROCOR at least until the 1960's. After that, the GOA began to break ties with ROCOR for ROCOR's refusal to join the ecumenical movement, as well as their condemnation of the Orthodox decline of the ecumenical throne. And, as I'm sure you know as an astute student of the "fair and balanced" Orthodox seminary you attend- the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem have always maintained communion with ROCOR. It was Serbia who helped house and protect ROCOR's bishops after the revolution. I realize that Holy Cross' Church history classes which deal with 20th century Orthodoxy rarely extend beyond the history of Greek Christians in America, but this lack of knowledge is pathetic, especially when spoken with such pomp. Did you convert at seminary?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2005, 10:13:34 AM »

The So-Called Heresy of which Patriarch Sergi of Moscow is accused is essentially the clearly diabolical teaching of "Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' The Patriarchate of Moscow did what they had to do to Survive and the Church in Russia today is in a better Posistion because of it. Surely one would not argue that Russia would be better off today if the Communists had completely surpressed the Church and eliminated every trace of it from Russia, which very well may have happened if the Church insisted on being a continuing Counter-Revolutionary force.

Absurd as well. We are not talking about "being a continuing counter-revolutionary force". We are talking about adopting the same stance the holy Confessors and Martyrs of the first three centuries adopted when facing Roman persecutions.

The Holy Martyrs of the first three centuries were not a "revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary force" at all, but they did not actively cooperated with the Roman persecutors. They did not provide lists of Christians to the persecuting authorities. They did not usurpate the ecclesiastical prerrogatives of arrested Hierarchs. They did not write letters to authorities asking them not to release these Hierarchs. They did not deny to the whole world the very existence of persecution. They did never lie. They were not active colaborators in governmental anti-Christian propaganda, neither praised such colaboration as a civic virtue. They did not worked as informers to the persecutors. They did not condemn as betrayers Christians who affirmed the existence of persecution. Most of all, they never were so lacking of faith, or so arrogant, that they thought the Church might not survive if they confessed the Faith truly and properly and were punished with death because of it. They knew that the Church is eternal, the very foundation of Universe, and that the world will come to an end, but not the Church. They knew that they were not to "save the Church", but the Church was to save them, if they remained faithful to the Church until the end. They knew that God would keep and sustain the Church, in His own way, according to His promise.

The last phrase of your statement above is an example of the "what-is-not-seen falacy", as Bastiat called it. Who knows how much time communist rule in Russia would take if all the Hierarchs have adopted the traditional stance in face of persecutions? Who knows if God would have mercy on them and shorten those days? All we know is what we have seen: the traditional teaching about how Christians should endure persecutions was not followed by some pivotal members of the Church -- with tragic and enduring spiritual consequences.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 10:17:51 AM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2005, 10:43:50 AM »

Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement want to catch people? Have never weakened the Orthodox praxis, ethos, and doctrine? Have you ever even read anything that the Orthodox ecumenists have written or signed, GreekisChristian?

As far as speaking against politeness and civility, that is absurd.  Some people certainly are like that but the majority of the time people are speaking against the "dialogue" not the politeness.  What anti-ecumenical writings have you read, by the way?

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2005, 11:28:53 AM »

Absurd. Those bishops who resisted submission to the godless bolsheviks were not just those safe outside of Russia's borders. Dozens of bishops were martyred for not submitting to this authority, as I'm sure you know. So it's ridiculous to claim that those bishops outside of Russia were "self righteous" when their voices echoed the voices of the bishops already murdered for their beliefs- only the emigres could speak openly without fear of persecution. What should they have done, kept quiet?
That being said, you have some audacity to place the word churchin quotation marks, considering this church produced one of the greatest saints of this century. Also, I hope you do realize that the GOA was in communion with ROCOR at least until the 1960's. After that, the GOA began to break ties with ROCOR for ROCOR's refusal to join the ecumenical movement, as well as their condemnation of the Orthodox decline of the ecumenical throne. And, as I'm sure you know as an astute student of the "fair and balanced" Orthodox seminary you attend- the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem have always maintained communion with ROCOR. It was Serbia who helped house and protect ROCOR's bishops after the revolution. I realize that Holy Cross' Church history classes which deal with 20th century Orthodoxy rarely extend beyond the history of Greek Christians in America, but this lack of knowledge is pathetic, especially when spoken with such pomp. Did you convert at seminary?

Actually it was ROCOR's failure to Submit to their Proper Synod in Moscow that lead to the Oecumenical Throne breaking Communion with them. As Constantinople ruled, the Status of ROCOR is an entirely internal Issue within the Synod of Moscow: if Moscow Regards them as part of their Synod, and Hence members of the Church, they are...if Moscow regards them as out of Communion, then they are. As it's an internal issue the opinions of Serbia and Jerusalem are of nominal concern as they lack Jurisdiction. It's a simple issue of Canonical Order within the Church, and the fact that None of the Orthodox Patriarchates broke Communion with Moscow over this issue (Not even Serbia or Jerusalem) demonstrates that this is entirely an issue of Church Discipline and not Theology...Moscow fell into no heresy, but ROCOR did commit Schism. With this said, I hope the bonds of communion are restored, for while I have little tolerance or simpathy for Schismatics I can sympathize with the plight of the White Russians.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2005, 11:33:37 AM »

Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group and rather did that they knew was best for Orthodoxy, both in Russia and for the Unity of the Orthodox Churches.

Bogoliubtsy answered it well. My only additions to his answer are the following:

a) ROCOR was not established "in defiance of MP Synod", but on the grounds of the Directive #362 issued by the Holy Synod of Moscow (then presided by the holy New Martyr St. Tikhon) in November 7/20, 1920. This Ukaze has allowed Bishops outside Russia to form an administration of their own.

b) The canonical basis of ROCOR was then object of universal recognition; the first headquarters of ROCOR were in Constantinople. In December 2, 1920, Metropolitan Dorotheus, Locum Tenens of the EP (there was no Ecumenical Patriarch from 1918 to 1921, so Metropolitan Dorotheus was in the higher position of that local Church), has blessed the Higher Church Administration of ROCOR to continue his work there, under the leadership of Metropolitan Anthony. (ROCOR would move her headquarters to Serbia one year later).

c) Communion between ROCOR and EP continued until the 60's, when it was made utterly impossible by the actions and sayings of Patriarch Athenagoras. A selection of quotations from Patriarch Athenagoras:

"The Age of Dogma has passed." (June, 1963)

"We see no obstacle on the path leading to union between the Church of Rome and the Church of the East... We do not see an obstacle, for the very simple reason that such obstacles do not exist." (October, 1967)

"All of the Christian Churches are journeying, today, towards Church unity. Christian peoples have grown weary of looking at the darkness of the past. The interminable quarrels of nine whole centuries have led to nothing other than the spiritual coldness of many people and an obfuscation of their awareness that the Church is one." (November, 1967)

"We Churches are all emerging from ourselves. We are awakening the consciences of Christians to the fact that we belong to the same religion. We are making the longing for union the predominant demand of our age. We are lowering the banners of hatred and, in their place, we are raising the Cross of love and sacrifice. And finally, we are exchanging Holy Cups with each other, praying that we may, one day, commune from the same Cup, as we used to live during the first millennium of Christianity, in spite of the differences that existed then." (November, 1967)

"In the movement for union, it is not a question of one Church moving towards the other, but let us all together refound the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, coexisting in the East and the West, as we lived up until 1054, in spite of the theological differences that existed then." (December, 1967)

"We are deceived and we sin, if we think that the Orthodox faith came down from Heaven and that all [other] creeds are unworthy. Three hundred million people have chosen Islam in order to reach their god, and other hundreds of millions are Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. The goal of every religion is to improve mankind." (December, 1968)

Such teachings were denounced by Metropolitan Philaret of New York in his Sorrowful Epistles. EP's reaction was not to review these statements, but rather in practice put an end to the intercommunion that had existed between EP and ROCOR until then.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 11:44:30 AM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2005, 11:39:20 AM »

GreekisChristian:

Do you have the proper documentation for when Constantinople broke communion with ROCOR? It is my understanding that this only happened after ROCOR approved after the fact of the consecrations of bishops for the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.  Others, however, claim that Constantinople and ROCOR never actually broke communion but simply refrain from concelebrating; witness, for instance, the 2 to 3 concelebrations between ROCOR and Pat of Constantinople clergy in various settings over the past 2 years that are public knowledge.

Some would say that ROCOR didn't commit schism; the MP did when it enthroned Sergius and created the anti-canonical MP in 1946.  Others would claim that it really doesn't matter if Constantinople approves of this or that group, considering that the Masonic Patriarch Meletius once even approved of the Living Church (!) and entered communion with it.

Btw, I'm just curious why we should care that you have little tolerance or sympathy for schismatics? Wink  That's why I imagined in a previous post that you get excited about this stuff, because you seem to have a penchant for telling us what you personally like or dislike, who you are in allegiance to, etc...I don't see how any of that matters in the discussion at hand, but I suppose you are free to throw it around.  You don't for instance see me often cite the authority or position of the Orthodox Church to which I am affiliated, for instance.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2005, 11:54:09 AM »

My point was that Schism was worse than Heresy.

You have just quoted any number of Episcopal bishops in justifying their consents to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.

Just thought you should know.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2005, 11:56:51 AM »

Absurd as well. We are not talking about "being a continuing counter-revolutionary force". We are talking about adopting the same stance the holy Confessors and Martyrs of the first three centuries adopted when facing Roman persecutions.

The Church today is not the Pre-Imperial Church of the first three centuries, Church and State cannot be separated as easily as you might like. Be it with the Roman Emperors, Tzars, Ottoman Sultans, et cetera the Church has been closely tied to the State, Christian or Not...and so this Continued into the Communist Era. The Church did what it needed to to survive, and part of this Survival was to weed out the Counter-Revolutionary elements within the Church for their existance was a threat to the Church as a whole. It may be unfortunate that it came to that point, but it was necessary. There was no freedom of speech in the USSR, but neither is Freedom of Speech a central Element of Orthodoxy; Complaints about persecution were political, not religious, in nature. While being martyred for the faith is a great act of self-sacrifice and devotion to the Church, being Killed so that you can have the right to publically complain about it is political, not religious, martyrdom.

The last phrase of your statement above is an example of the "what-is-not-seen falacy", as Bastiat called it. Who knows how much time communist rule in Russia would take if all the Hierarchs have adopted the traditional stance in face of persecutions? Who knows if God would have mercy on them and shorten those days? All we know is what we have seen: the traditional teaching about how Christians should endure persecutions was not followed by some pivotal members of the Church -- with tragic and enduring spiritual consequences.

I'm simply honestly looking at history and analyzing it...a few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR. And the Church would not be better off today for having no Churches, no Infastructure, and no Government Support...you think the Protestants are problematic now, imagine what it would be like if every trace of the Church had been destroyed by the Communists.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2005, 12:07:19 PM »

Do you have the proper documentation for when Constantinople broke communion with ROCOR? It is my understanding that this only happened after ROCOR approved after the fact of the consecrations of bishops for the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.  Others, however, claim that Constantinople and ROCOR never actually broke communion but simply refrain from concelebrating; witness, for instance, the 2 to 3 concelebrations between ROCOR and Pat of Constantinople clergy in various settings over the past 2 years that are public knowledge.

I dont have any documentation right now, though I'll look for some later when I get home from work. What I had always been taught is that Constantinople broke Communion with ROCOR when Moscow broke Communion with ROCOR. Moscow had allowed the Bishops outside Russia to see to their own administration immediately after the Revolution when things were in Chaos, but this was never intended to be permanent; when the Synod of Moscow finally came to the Conclusion that things had settled down enough that they could again address the issue of their Jurisdictions outside Russia they Summoned back the ROCOR Bishops, so that they could act as part of the Synod of Moscow as a whole. Unfortunately the ROCOR Bishops refused, they appealed to Constantinople, Constantinople Ruled in Favour of Moscow by saying it was an internal matter, at which time Communion was broken with ROCOR.

Quote
Some would say that ROCOR didn't commit schism; the MP did when it enthroned Sergius and created the anti-canonical MP in 1946.  Others would claim that it really doesn't matter if Constantinople approves of this or that group, considering that the Masonic Patriarch Meletius once even approved of the Living Church (!) and entered communion with it.

But it was not with Moscow that the Vast Majority of the Orthodox Church broke Communion, clearly it was the Opinion of the Orthodox Patriarchates that it was the Synod of Moscow's right to establish a Patriarch, for they did have the blessings of an Endimousa Synod to have a Patriarchate.

Quote
Btw, I'm just curious why we should care that you have little tolerance or sympathy for schismatics? Wink  That's why I imagined in a previous post that you get excited about this stuff, because you seem to have a penchant for telling us what you personally like or dislike, who you are in allegiance to, etc...I don't see how any of that matters in the discussion at hand, but I suppose you are free to throw it around.  You don't for instance see me often cite the authority or position of the Orthodox Church to which I am affiliated, for instance.

I had already cited St. John Chrysostom in reference to Schism and had established my Opinion to be inline with His. So while I may refer to opinion out of literary style, I have already backed it up with a Patristic Authority, and if requested I can do it again.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2005, 12:14:42 PM »

You have just quoted any number of Episcopal bishops in justifying their consents to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.

Just thought you should know.

Except in consenting to the consecration they seem to be creating a Schism within the Global Anglican Communion. We'll see at the next Lambeth Conference, is it in 2008?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2005, 12:27:30 PM »

greekischristian,

Quote
I'm simply honestly looking at history and analyzing it...a few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR. And the Church would not be better off today for having no Churches, no Infastructure, and no Government Support...you think the Protestants are problematic now, imagine what it would be like if every trace of the Church had been destroyed by the Communists.

Of course, conversly, one could argue that it is precisely because of the worldliness and spirit of comprimise within the hierarchy of the MP, that they are now having the problems they are battling the Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. coming into Russia proper - why they frankly seem to have so little to offer in competition to these sects (and why they're so quick to rely on legal measures to deal with these groups.)

As you can see, asking these kind of "what if" questions is always a double edged sword.  Rather than utilitarian arguments, I would think any discussion of ecclessiastical legitimacy would ultimatly be founded upon principle - and this seems to me to be the biggest weakness of your argument thus far... it seems evangelical principles have taken a back seat, and  all is reduced to mere "survival" (at any price, which seems to be precisely the opposite of the message left to the Church by the phenomenon of Christian martyrdom) in the most basic, and frankly, atheistic/providence-denying way (as if the survival of the Church and Her mission was ever ultimatly in human hands.)

Voices like yours however, are giving me more reason to think and perhaps re-examine just why I am where I am, and if in all good conscience I should remain - since frankly, everything in "ecumenist-Orthodoxy" involves the sort of rabid "reductionism" and latent materialism you seem only too eager to defend.

Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2005, 12:49:35 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2005, 12:51:16 PM »

The Church did what it needed to to survive, and part of this Survival was to weed out the Counter-Revolutionary elements within the Church for their existance was a threat to the Church as a whole. It may be unfortunate that it came to that point, but it was necessary.

This is the way you talk about the (at least) twenty million Holy New Martyrs of the Communist Yoke in Russia...

As a "counter-revolutionary threat", a sort of "scoria" the Church needed to be "weed out".

This is the way you justify all the lies, all the denunciations, all the ecclesiastical facilitation to such mass-murdering. As a part of the "weeding out" that would assure the "survival" of the Church.

Am I talking with a Christian? Is such an effort of providing apologies for mass-murderers and their collaborators worthy of a decent man imbued with basic and generally accepted morality, whatever may be his religion?

Nevertheless there still remains a good point in your answers: they show, with irresistible clearness, the ultimate logical and moral consequences of the justification of sergianism. They are the best warning I know to those ROCOR members who are being tempted by the weak grounds of the recent process of reconciliation.

A few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR.

The "what-is-not-seen falacy" simply re-hashed. I have described what was seen, your answer is a speculation about what was not seen (and can never be seen). This kind of reasoning is simply not a satisfactory answer; but it may provide a comfort to a guilty conscience.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 12:59:00 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2005, 01:11:10 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Very True, Moscow appologized to ROCOR, ROCOR has retracted their 'condemnations' of Moscow (if they haven't formally appologized; I don't know what they have said, but it's of little significance in the long run)...the issue is pretty much Settled that Moscow may have been abit Harsh on ROCOR and their Allies, but it was far from Heresy, a necessary evil at worse, but in any case all is forgiven and we can get on with life...with the excepton of internet orthodoxy, we'll still be here debating these issues for years to come Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2005, 01:21:14 PM »

All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.

Not yet. Those documents were approved to be discussed in the IV All-Diaspora Council, to be convened in San Francisco in the first semester of 2006. Then they may be accepted or rejected by the Bishops, Clergy and Laity deputies.

It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it. Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Even if ROCOR joins MP in the future and a given person remains in this new ROCOR under MP, there will be still reasons enough to this person outspokenly denounce sergianism, ecumenism and all kinds of modernism and worldliness in the Church. The reasons are the same that lead the best voices in New Calendarist and WWC members jurisdictions to protest against these evils. It does not matter if a wrong is to be made or if it was already made; one should protest against it because it is a wrong. Simply, those ROCOR members who oppose sergianism (the documents clearly show that no longer everybody in ROCOR does really oppose) will became "resisters from within" if they put themselves under the proposed ROCOR/MP jurisdiction -- much as many members of EP, OCA, Antiochian etc. The fact that you are in the jurisdiction "X" does not make you necessarily a yes-man for the views sustained by such jurisdiction. There is no such a thing as a "ROCOR Orthodox Christian", a "MP Orthodox Christian", an "OCA Orthodox Christian". You are an Orthodox Christian, period. Your ultimate commitment is with the Christian Orthodox Faith and Tradition that provides the grounds for all past, present and future jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 01:24:32 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2005, 01:25:04 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Hear, hear!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2005, 01:26:06 PM »

This is the way you talk about the (at least) twenty million Holy New Martyrs of the Communist Yoke in Russia...

No, this is how I talk of those who died to profess a political opinion, rather than died refusing to renounce the faith. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with political martyrdom under the right circumstances, it can even be quite virtuous, but it's not religious martyrdom and people should not expect the Church to risk its very existance to support these political Ideologies.

Quote
This is the way you justify all the lies, all the denunciations, all the ecclesiastical facilitation to such mass-murdering. As a part of the "weeding out" that would assure the "survival" of the Church.

The Church wasn't killing anyone, though they were doing their best to distance themselves from some.

Quote
Am I talking with a Christian? Is such an effort of providing apologies for mass-murderers and their collaborators worthy of a decent man imbued with basic and generally accepted morality, whatever may be his religion?

You're talking to someone who, though he has not experienced it himself, has a general idea and understanding of what the Church in Russia was going through, and accordingly supports the difficult decisions of the Synod of that Church that were necessary for the Church in Russia to Survive, and more than Survive to try to continue ministering to the Needs of their Faithful. Idealists may attack the Church based on a lack of perfection, but in the Real world no situation is Perfect and sometimes difficult courses of action must be taken for the greater good.

Quote
Nevertheless there still remains a good point in your answers: they show, with irresistible clearness, the ultimate logical and moral consequences of the justification of sergianism. They are the best warning I know to those ROCOR members who are being tempted by the weak grounds of the recent process of reconciliation.

If one doesn't like the actions of the ROCOR synod, they can always go off and join the True Orthodox Church or Genuine Orthodox Church or Pastor Bob's Fundamentalist Bible-Believing Independent Baptist Church...but the Orthodox Church is, in very large part, about Communion, and I think the ROCOR Bishops realize this and want to do what they need to to enter back into Communion with the Rest of Orthodoxy.

Quote
The "what-is-not-seen falacy" simply re-hashed. I have described what was seen, your answer is a speculation about what was not seen (and can never be seen). This kind of reasoning is simply not a satisfactory answer; but it may provide a comfort to a guilty conscience.

We may not know for certain what history would have brought (though from the Study of History we can often get a pretty good Idea...government authorities can seriously undermine Christianity when they try (look at the Middle East)); however, it's also the case that the Synod of Moscow at the time had a better Idea of what they were up against than ROCOR or Constantinople, then or Now...Constantinople did and does realize this which is why they yielded the Decisions on these matters to Moscow.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2005, 05:20:01 PM »

Even if ROCOR joins MP in the future and a given person remains in this new ROCOR under MP, there will be still reasons enough to this person outspokenly denounce sergianism, ecumenism and all kinds of modernism and worldliness in the Church.

Sure they can.  But it's as frivolous as denouncing Nestorianism and Iconoclasm when your bishop and synod agrees that the Patriarch in the mother jurisdiction is not guilty of such heresies.  If you're going to continue insisting that the bishops in your jurisdiction are KGB stooges, or are closet Iconoclasts or what heresy have you, then go ahead and live a miserable life full of anger against the world.  That's pretty much my impression of those sorts.

The reasons are the same that lead the best voices in New Calendarist and WWC members jurisdictions to protest against these evils.

It's not the voicing against the evils that's problematic, but the single-handedness in someone personally convicting others guilty of such evils, even though your bishops and synods have decided otherwise.

The fact that you are in the jurisdiction "X" does not make you necessarily a yes-man for the views sustained by such jurisdiction. There is no such a thing as a "ROCOR Orthodox Christian", a "MP Orthodox Christian", an "OCA Orthodox Christian". You are an Orthodox Christian, period. Your ultimate commitment is with the Christian Orthodox Faith and Tradition that provides the grounds for all past, present and future jurisdictions.

Oh, let's take it one step further and say that you're a Christian, period.  You have the right as an autonomous judging individual, outside the mind of the community of all believing Orthodox Christians, to determine who's following the Bible or the letter of canon law and if others don't agree with your interpretations, then start your own "walled off" Church within the Church.  That is the essence of the argument put forward, yes?  Those who don't agree with the personal interpretations of True O Joe Blow aren't True Christians, and thusly their thinking as part of the mind of universal Church doesn't count.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2005, 07:40:47 PM »

What I take issue with, and you keep dodging, GreekisChristian, is you seem to imply that the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on any given topic, particularly ecumenism.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually rather small and very unrepresentative of Orthodoxy - a few thousand Christians in Turkey and then a few places in the diaspora. 

Also your claim that the anti-ecumenists I mentioned were simply monks - that is also false.  While the vast majority of Orthodox monasticism is anti-ecumenistic, I also pointed out several bishops that are well respected - Metr. Amfilohije, Patr. Pavle, Archbp. Artemije, Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, et al.  Note that those are all bishops with real flocks as well.

The fact that you would also disregard modern saints as unimportant in "policy" is very disturbing.  I would encourage you to look at the teachings of Saints Nektarios, Savvas the new, Justin Popovich et al.  Since they are ones in our era that have lived theosis, I'd be very cautious to dismiss them. 

I agree with Saint John Chrysostomos that schism is a very dangerous issue - if only the Phanar did as well!  The ambitions for power within the phanar in the past 80 years have led the church very close to the brink of large internal schisms.  Saint John Maximovitch wrote an excellent paper on the issue of the EP's decline in recent times.  From ambitions in the Czech lands, to Estonia to "excommunicating" Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem there is seemingly no end to what the Phanar will do in its grab for power - even to the point of threatning schism. 
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2005, 09:29:08 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

And give us a Russian Orthodox Church Outside the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? (ROCOROCOR if you want the acronym)
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2005, 09:40:05 PM »

But the ROCOR Council of Bishops has signed nothing, and it is the supreme legislative body of the ROCOR. They have to approve it in an up or down vote (I think they will but let's just make the process clear).

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2005, 09:59:55 PM »

The discussion is moving in circles... Your point, Strelets, was already addressed many posts ago. If you are to simply consider those Bishops, Elders and Saints mentioned by Silouan as "single-handed" or any other thing like that, well, let us agree in disagree. There is a lot of disputation in the Church regarding these subjects, many Bishops hold quite opposite views about them and it is not possible that all of them are right at the same time. I have an understanding about which side does correctly represent Orthodox Tradition. If it is right, so those Elders and Hierarchs who resist against modernism are not alone or even minoritary, no matter how "single-handed" they may appear, but have the whole host of Saints and Angels backing them. By the other hand, if my understanding is wrong, so I am in a terrible spiritual delusion. Please pray for me so I can realize it and change my mind, if it is the case. (I am being quite serious.)

You seem to suggest that a common layman may not legitimately think or opine about such questions but rather should blindly accept the decision of the Synod of Bishops he happens to find himself under, whatever may be such a decision. These argument imply a kind of "infalibility of Local Churches" that certainly is not part of Orthodox Tradition. And I do not think that Orthodoxy comprises such a deep and utter submission of the individual conscience to the outward ecclesiastical authority as you perhaps suggest. The common clergymen and laity of Constantinople seemed not to think like that in the XV Century and strongly protested against the false Union of Florence, proposed by virtually all of their Hierarchs, together with the First Hierarchs of all the other local Churches -- Saint Mark of Ephesus was the only Asian Hierarch who refused to endorse it. The Orthodox people of Constantinople made really disgusting things, like spitting in the Hierarchs' hands when taking their blessing. Yet they (and St. Mark) were right, all the other Hierarchs (who seemingly represented the "consensual mind of the Universal Orthodoxy") were wrong, and the Church eventually acknowledged it. This case must mean something.

Nevertheless the essence of your post is about an important and interesting problem -- while not enterely connected with the original theme of this thread. Most of us, specially Western converts, are too used to think in terms either of a Roman Catholic submission to outward manifestations of ecclesiastical authority or a Protestant individualism that makes each Christian his own ultimate master. More and more I think this is a false dichotomy and that Orthodoxy copes with the problem of freedom in a different way, neither authoritarian nor individualistic, but I must confess that my own thoughts about this issue are still too sketchy and it is better to keep them to myself for now.

All I suppose I can and must say for now is that we may never think that active and deliberate cooperation with enemies of the Church -- either by means of providing sensible information to them, or by means of lying and denying the existence of persecution and accepting to play a role in the enemy's propaganda strategy, or by any other means -- is acceptable or justifiable in any circumstances, whatever may be its apparent results. Frankly, I thinked like that even when I still was a Roman Catholic; this seems to me as basic morality, not specifically Orthodox; I simply cannot imagine a good reason to change my mind now about this subject. I will rejoice with a union among ROCOR and MP based in a utter and unequivocal rejection of sergianism; but I deem it as a false and merely outward reconciliation that one which is based in a justification of sergianism, blatant or veiled -- like the one that is being advanced now. Much like the seemengly unity of each one of the Local Churches corroded by ecumenism is just an outward and formal unity, instead of being grounded on actual oneness of mind. This purely outward unity is at least as scandalous as the schisms we could see in the recent past -- nevertheless it receives much less attention. Or did the Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople and Saint Nicholas Planas, members of Synods nominally in communion with each other, really confess the same Orthodox faith -- the major prerequisite for communion in the same Eucharistic Cup?... Isn't it embarrassing for all of us that, so many decades after both have reposed, no Conciliar decision had put an end to such ambiguity, to such disorder?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 10:01:10 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2005, 10:23:57 PM »

What I take issue with, and you keep dodging, GreekisChristian, is you seem to imply that the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on any given topic, particularly ecumenism.ÂÂ  The Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually rather small and very unrepresentative of Orthodoxy - a few thousand Christians in Turkey and then a few places in the diaspora.ÂÂ  

The posistion of the Oecumenical Throne is of far greater significance than you would like to believe, when the Oecumenical Throne declares a Posistion, Alexandria and Cyprus nearly always back her up, as well as either Antioch or Jerusalem (usually both...depending on the issue), that is 4 if not all 5 of the Five ancient Eastern Churches as laid forth in the Oecumenical Synods. Furthermore, even amongst the newer autocephalous Churches in Athens and the Slavic Lands, Nearly all of them (with the Possible Exception of Moscow) will follow the lead of Constantinople. The Archbishop of Constantinople is truly the Oecumenical Patriarch, it is the First see of Orthodox and receives the honour due to her by most the Other Churches. Assults on the Oecumenical Throne (if they don't come from Moscow for other Political Reasons) nearly always come from Schismatic Organizations, trying to improve their posistion by attacking the Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical Throne.

Quote
Also your claim that the anti-ecumenists I mentioned were simply monks - that is also false.ÂÂ  While the vast majority of Orthodox monasticism is anti-ecumenistic, I also pointed out several bishops that are well respected - Metr. Amfilohije, Patr. Pavle, Archbp. Artemije, Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, et al.ÂÂ  Note that those are all bishops with real flocks as well.

Actually I said that the conference was organized by ONE Monastery that happened to be anti-oecumenist, and they invited who they wanted to hear speak according to their agenda. It is true that many monasteries tend to be fundamentalist and unreasonable to the demands of the Secular world, but this is by no means universally the case, there are also monastics who work in the Oecumenical Movement.

Quote
The fact that you would also disregard modern saints as unimportant in "policy" is very disturbing.ÂÂ  I would encourage you to look at the teachings of Saints Nektarios, Savvas the new, Justin Popovich et al.ÂÂ  Since they are ones in our era that have lived theosis, I'd be very cautious to dismiss them.ÂÂ  

While these local saints may be spiritually edifying to the community from which they come and hence serve an important purpose in the Church. They are not authorities on these matters Church Discipline and Order and should not be treated as such, such matters are rather the concern of the standing Synods of the Orthodox Church. Each of which are free to pursue these matters in the manner they deign best until an endimousa synod address the issue.

Quote
I agree with Saint John Chrysostomos that schism is a very dangerous issue - if only the Phanar did as well!ÂÂ  The ambitions for power within the phanar in the past 80 years have led the church very close to the brink of large internal schisms.ÂÂ  Saint John Maximovitch wrote an excellent paper on the issue of the EP's decline in recent times.ÂÂ  From ambitions in the Czech lands, to Estonia to "excommunicating" Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem there is seemingly no end to what the Phanar will do in its grab for power - even to the point of threatning schism.ÂÂ  

My first instinct would be to answer you with the statement that the Oecumenical Throne is the Standard of Orthodoxy, and those in Communion with her are Orthodox and those out of Communion are Heterodox, thus the Oecumenical Throne does not enter into Schism but those who break communion with her do, and then argue this from the Historical Roles of the Oecumenical Throne. But as I've already put for this argument much to the dismay of some here, and it seems to end in circular arguments, I shall answer your question differently.

As I have said before when Constantinople Speaks, most of Orthodoxy Follows, Constantinople does not enter into Schism if for no other reason than the various Churches do not break Communion with her, rather they support her. Constantinople's claims of authority in the lands north of her are canonically solid, it is not the actions of Constantinople that are Unacceptable but rather the conduct of those who oppose her maternal attempts to establish justice and order and see to the well-being of the Church. The Rights of Constantinople are far greater than those she chooses to execute, always with the best interest of the Church in mind, instead she restrains herself and often denies herself her rights, power, authority, and honour inorder to allow for what is in the best interest of the Church and Orthodox Faithful. You accuse the Oecumenical Throne of threatening Schism, but she has not done this, these situations of which you speak are either cases of the Holy and Oecumenical Throne attempting to preempt or fight schism or to bring Order and Discipline where her Daughter Churches have failed and have allowed Chaos and Disorder to reign.

Concerning Bishop John Maximovitch, perhaps these libelous attacks are amongst the reasons why he has not been entered into the Synaxarion of the Great Church of Christ.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2005, 11:33:38 PM »

"Concerning Bishop John Maximovitch"

St John of Shanghai and San Francisco is an Orthodox saint and he should be referred to as such on this forum.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2005, 11:41:40 PM »

GisC:

First, I really think you should do a MTh at St Vladimir's Seminary instead of going to Greece right away so you can get a better understanding of the Slavic positions on canon law...you should be more broad in your understanding, because you are simply coming accross as a Greek apologist.  At St Vladimir's, while the Russian positions on canon law are taken as normative (Professor Erickson for instance regularly wrote against economia as espoused by St Nikodemos the Haghiorite as an innovation and not consistent with patristic thought), the Greek positions are brought forth and discussed.  Are Russian positions ever discussed in detail from primary sources at Holy Cross?

Secondly, it would seem that communion with the Church--and not the see of Constantinople--is what makes one Orthodox; in 1996, for instance, when Moscow and Constantinople broke communion, no one in their right mind would argue that Moscow ceased to be Orthodox for those 3 weeks in February, especially given that a) Constantinople was clearly exceeding its jurisdiction in Estonia and b) the rest of the Orthodox world maintained communion with Moscow and Constantinople jointly.

For all his canonical knoweldge (obviously the EP knows canon law, I admit this), we have to acknowledge that sometimes the EP puts power above principle, such as the 1993 anti-canonical attempt to "excommunicate" Patriarch Diodoros of blessed memory (as if a bishop can be excommunicated without first being deposed, and as we know from St Basil, one cannot be deposed and excommunicated for the same offense!), especially given that Pat Diodoros was not subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople and only the Synod of Jerusalem or a pan-Orthodox synod could depose/excommunicate Patriarch Diodoros...but here, canonical proceedure was obviously not followed.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #46 on: June 28, 2005, 11:44:48 PM »

I would love to see GreekisChristian make ONE post without the phrase "the Oecumenical Throne".  Or I may start referring to OCA as "the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset" in response.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 28, 2005, 11:57:24 PM »

I would love to see GreekisChristian make ONE post without the phrase "the Oecumenical Throne".ÂÂ  Or I may start referring to OCA as "the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset" in response.

You may; I give my archadministratorial blessing Wink  In fact, I would encourage us all to do so with our respective groups... for instance I could write:

"Today I visited the Cathedral of St Markella's, the Metropolitan Throne of North and South America, GOC, and then returned to my home at St Vladimir's, the Stavropeghial Seminary of the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset.  Tomorrow I will be visiting Englewood, NJ, the Autonomous Throne of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese..." Wink
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2005, 12:19:34 AM »

Quote
You seem to suggest that a common layman may not legitimately think or opine about such questions but rather should blindly accept the decision of the Synod of Bishops he happens to find himself under, whatever may be such a decision.

I don't suggest that at all.  What I suggest is that one tempers one's judgements and actually read the other side's words rather than the caricatures found on polemical web sites.  Claiming that the whole host of saints and angels are behind you and against everyone else is extremely subjective and unwarranted on one's part, and shouldn't be taken as fact when the other side says the same for themselves.  (If that's your sober belief, then I'd like substantive evidence -- a video recorded statement from St. Michael the Archangel would be sufficient.)  We're not talking about one group of rocket scientists versus another group of theologically ignorant dimwits, though that's the caricature propped up in many of the polemical works one finds pretty much only online.  The theologically astute on the "world" Orthodox side, which would apparently include most of their theologians, don't agree with the reasoning and readings of the True O faction.  Numerical superiority alone doesn't establish truth, but it's not something to be summarily dismissed when as Orthodox we're taught to adopt the mind of the Church as a whole, especially when dealing with issues of a much much lesser nature than the Filioque or Arianism.  Referring to Saint Mark as justification for breaking communion and proof that one person against everyone else can be correct is a repeated and yet highly exaggerated desciption of events in the Council Florence; it wasn't St. Mark alone, but St. Mark plus the clergy and laity back home.  The majority didn't support the false union, but were on the side of St. Mark.  This isn't the case today, where most Orthodox disagree (including Patr. Pavle et al) with the breakaway groups in whether the calendar or the WCC are valid reasons for breaking communions.  It's fascinating that communion with the Serbian or Jerusalem Churches is cited as evidence for the validity of a particular breakaway group, yet the SP/JP's membership in the WCC is ignored.  Where's the consistency?  Or is it really only the calendar that matters?

Many theologically astute have heard the True O arguments, they're reading the same material -- and yet they're not buying the interpretations.  Either you can try to honestly understand the other point of view (without gravitating to the words of the occasional crank who might express outlandish things and thusly misrepresent this as the norm of the other side) or dismiss their arguments as a super-ecumenical Masonic conspiracy.  The former would be the sober approach.  The latter is nutty of Lyndon Larouchian proportions.  Sorry, but that's how it appears.

A final note...  The folks in the ol' country have heard all the "KGB in cossacks" arguments and they're not going for it.  The Patriarch and the MP remain the most trusted public figures in Russia today.  They're doing much social good, which is appreciated by the locals who witness this first hand, while this good is probably lost on the outside world who often don't speak the language.  The Russian people lived under the same oppression of the Church and have a deeper empathy of the complicated social and psychological pressures put upon the Church during the tragic Soviet period.  A few Americans hiding behind St. John of San Francisco, claiming to be the true Russian Church, telling the ol' country folks what to do (yet again!) isn't convincing in the slightest.  The MP isn't going to resign, nor are they going to grovel before extremist demands.  Short of that, it's a given that these more extreme elements will split away upon the upcoming formal reconciliation and create yet more jurisdictions of questionable canonicity.  Unfortunately, this isn't new in the history of the Church, and there will always be these groups on the periphery claiming holy purity for themselves.

[P.S.  I'm not defending the current EP.  I'm not a fan of his, nor do I support his Papal adventures.]
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 12:21:34 AM by Strelets » Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2005, 12:46:13 AM »

Well said, Strelets.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2005, 03:22:25 AM »

GreekisChristian, your ecclesiology is papism.  To you the sine qua non of Orthodoxy is submission to the Phanar, as submission to the Papacy is to being Roman Catholic.  You say the support of the three other ancient patriarchates justifies this - yet in total they amount to an handful of actual Orthodox believers - a mere drop in the bucket compared to Russia or even Serbia.  You call the Phanar the "Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy" - which is a very dangerous statement as many Patriarchs in the past have been heretics and schimatics.  The only true "Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy" is the Orthodox faith itself.  Constantinople has her position because she adhears to the Orthdox faith, but at any moment she could become heterodox. 

Quote
Actually I said that the conference was organized by ONE Monastery that happened to be anti-oecumenist, and they invited who they wanted to hear speak according to their agenda.

You are missing the point of the matter in this entirely.  Since I have actually been the monastery you mention and have actually spoken with their abbot and many of their fathers, I am well aware of their agenda.  There was no intention of this being a synod producing any binding sort of power; the purpose was to gather various speakers on the ecumenical movement.  The point I was making by bringing it up was to show that there are many within the church (including bishops, theologians, clergy, laity and monastics) opposed to the ecumenical movement.  My point still stands that there are many bishops throughout the church staunchly opposed to the ecumenical movement, and assuming the position of the EP is the pan Orthodox view is both wrong and deceitful. 

Quote
While these local saints may be spiritually edifying to the community from which they come and hence serve an important purpose in the Church. They are not authorities on these matters Church Discipline and Order and should not be treated as such, such matters are rather the concern of the standing Synods of the Orthodox Church. Each of which are free to pursue these matters in the manner they deign best until an endimousa synod address the issue.

I don't know if you are familar with the liturgical practice of the Church of Constantinople or not - but of those I mentioned Saint Nektarios is listed under the "εν αγίοις πατέρων ημών, μεγάλων Ιεραχών καί οικουμενικών διδασκάλων..." (Among the saints, our fathers the great hierarchs and universal teachers - for our non Greek reading friends).  Thus I would venture to say Saint Nektarios' teaching carries a little more than just weight than just "spiritually edifying to the community from which [he] come." 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last statement regarding Saint John Maximovitch but it either shows incredible arrogance or again ignorance of the practice of Conastinople -  If by Great Church of Christ you mean Constaninople, then yes you are ignorant of common practices within that church; if you meant the entire Orthodox Church (with the implication that the ROCOR is OUTside the Church) you are simply shockingly arrogant. 

Approach 1, ignorance of the practice of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - The vast majority of non Greek saints do not appear in the EP's synaxarion.  Saint Seraphim of Sarov, Saint John the Russian and few others are the only Russian saints celebrated in Greece / under the EP.  Does that mean that hordes of Romanian and Slavic saints aren't saints?

Approach 2, utter arrogance and contempt at one of Christ's saints - Without touching on the issue of the ROCOR (since that IS a whole other can of worms)... Other Orthodox Jurisdictions accept the glorification of Saint John Maximovitch including the OCA (at least the OCA can put politics aside between them and ROCOR and rejoice in celebrating a great saint).  So to question the scantity of a Saint venerated by many Orthodox is highly unOrthodox, and also not representive of the "Oecumenical Throne."  It might shock and horrify you but I do know of people baptized under the omniphoron of the EP taking Saint John Maximovitch as their patron saint.  I know of places in Greece and even Patriarchial territory that celebrate the service to him on his feastday and his paraklesis throughout the year.  And in the GOA I haven't met anyone who would so haughtily speak of "Bishop John Maximovitch."

Regarding being libelious to the Patriarchate (of which I would like to start another thread regarding the the paper of Saint John) Bishop Artemije of Kosovo said it best "There is NO ONE in the world today who has so much harmed the reputation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Patriarch Bartholomew HIMSELF, together with the members of his Hierarchy, by their ecumenical activities and statements, which are well-known all over the world."

As an aside, the standard English usage is ecumencial, not Oecumenical.  It really just makes you look like a wannabe Greek American when you keep using it.  Remember it is ok to still be American, Australian, Brittish, German etc. and still be Orthodox.

Logged
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 532


May I become Thy Tabernacle through Communion.


« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2005, 03:34:16 AM »

St Vladimir's, the Stavropeghial Seminary of the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset

LOL I love it!!!!!!!!  How important sounding that is! My that just sounds impressive! Wink
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2005, 05:17:22 AM »

Silouan,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank goodness most Orthodox completely reject GiC's arguments, or we'd all be bowing to Pope Bartholomew of Constantinople. If we follow GiC's argument that the EP can't go into Schism to its logical conclusion we'd have to conclude that the Orthodox and not the Roman Catholics are the schismatics, as at the time of the Great Schism, Rome had the primacy that the EP now enjoys. I wonder if he realises this? Primacy of honour is no guarantee of purity of doctrine and I'd actually argue that the EP is one of the least Orthodox churches in all the Church. In my opinion ROCOR was never schismatic because it was recognised by and in communion with the Church. If the pro-Greeks here or Patriarch Bartholomew can't accept that then tough luck.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2005, 12:20:09 PM »

First, I really think you should do a MTh at St Vladimir's Seminary instead of going to Greece right away so you can get a better understanding of the Slavic positions on canon law...you should be more broad in your understanding, because you are simply coming accross as a Greek apologist.ÂÂ  At St Vladimir's, while the Russian positions on canon law are taken as normative (Professor Erickson for instance regularly wrote against economia as espoused by St Nikodemos the Haghiorite as an innovation and not consistent with patristic thought), the Greek positions are brought forth and discussed.ÂÂ  Are Russian positions ever discussed in detail from primary sources at Holy Cross?

I am familiar with the Russian Posistions on Canon Law and economia; however, I often find them to be less than pastoral. With that said, what holy cross (and I assume st. vladamir's) does lack is sufficient attention to the interpretations and methodology of Balsamon, Zonaras and Aristenus, especially the former.

Quote
Secondly, it would seem that communion with the Church--and not the see of Constantinople--is what makes one Orthodox; in 1996, for instance, when Moscow and Constantinople broke communion, no one in their right mind would argue that Moscow ceased to be Orthodox for those 3 weeks in February, especially given that a) Constantinople was clearly exceeding its jurisdiction in Estonia and b) the rest of the Orthodox world maintained communion with Moscow and Constantinople jointly.

Though I would have to look it up to know for certain, I presume that Constantinople Excommunicated the Patriarch of Moscow rather than breaking Communion with the Church of Russia, though I could be wrong on that. Furthermore, I have already argued elsewhere that Estonia is Canonically within the Jurisdiction of Constantinople.

Quote
For all his canonical knoweldge (obviously the EP knows canon law, I admit this), we have to acknowledge that sometimes the EP puts power above principle, such as the 1993 anti-canonical attempt to "excommunicate" Patriarch Diodoros of blessed memory (as if a bishop can be excommunicated without first being deposed, and as we know from St Basil, one cannot be deposed and excommunicated for the same offense!), especially given that Pat Diodoros was not subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople and only the Synod of Jerusalem or a pan-Orthodox synod could depose/excommunicate Patriarch Diodoros...but here, canonical proceedure was obviously not followed.

I do not see this desire for power above principle in Constantinople; rather it seems to me that the Oecumenical Throne has the best interst of the Church as a whole in mind, and acts accordingly, regardless of the popularity of her actions. Concerning excommunicating a Clergyman without deposing him, there is canonical precedent for it. It is regarded as a lesser punishment than deposing, usually intended for a short amount of time, for upon their re-entry into communion they retain their former rank.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2005, 12:20:52 PM »

I would love to see GreekisChristian make ONE post without the phrase "the Oecumenical Throne".ÂÂ  Or I may start referring to OCA as "the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset" in response.

I have my literary style, you're more than welcome to yours.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
emmanuelmelo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


OC.net


« Reply #55 on: June 29, 2005, 12:35:58 PM »

GreekisChristian,

I too, am 100% Greek and in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.  I am surprised by your comments however.  They do not seem to reflect the mindset of someone who has visited the patriarchate in recent years.  I went this past year (over the summer).

The conditions for Orthodoxy are abysmal.  Even the patriarchal church is falling into complete ruin.  Many of the nuns in Constantinople are from Russia or Romania.  What is more disturbing than the muslim violence toward Christians is the present Patriarch's attitude toward ecumenism- recognizing baptism of Lutherans!?!??!?!?!?!

 Face it, Halki probably won't be reopened- and this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Due to persecution the see of Constantinople is no longer viable.  This is incredibly unfortunate, but it is true.

In addition, I find it unorthodox that patriarchs should be chosen according to their citizenship rather than their holiness and character.  This could be avoided by moving the Patriarchate to Thessaloniki, which is technically EP territory- but is very conservative and more in line with World Orthodoxy.

As far as a "Secret Agent for the Phanar" what the Patriarchate needs now are non-secret agents to witness Orthodoxy to the world in a form that is both true to tradition and to our Holy Fathers

-Emmanuel
Logged

NULL
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #56 on: June 29, 2005, 12:49:02 PM »

GreekisChristian, your ecclesiology is papism.ÂÂ  To you the sine qua non of Orthodoxy is submission to the Phanar, as submission to the Papacy is to being Roman Catholic.ÂÂ  You say the support of the three other ancient patriarchates justifies this - yet in total they amount to an handful of actual Orthodox believers - a mere drop in the bucket compared to Russia or even Serbia.ÂÂ  You call the Phanar the "Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy" - which is a very dangerous statement as many Patriarchs in the past have been heretics and schimatics.ÂÂ  The only true "Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy" is the Orthodox faith itself.ÂÂ  Constantinople has her position because she adhears to the Orthdox faith, but at any moment she could become heterodox.ÂÂ  

Constantinople has her Posistion because it was given to her at Chalcedon. The posistion is not papist, first of all it is the Synod, not the Patriarch in and of himself, who holds the Authority of the Oecumenical Throne. Secondly, it is not an absolute or infallible authority, it is simply a primacy of honour and dignity amongst the Ancient Patriarchates and a primacy of honour and authority amongst the Slavic lands which Canonically falll under Constantinople. Furthermore, this honour and authority is strengthened by the fact that traditionally all the patriarchates follow the lead of Constantinople, and in general continue to to this very day. The Role of the 'Standard of Orthodoxy' is not a new innovation, this was the Case throughout the Empire and through the Turkokratia; because of her historical posistion, and her posistion in the eyes of the world, she has continued this role; only receiving notable objections from Moscow.

Quote
You are missing the point of the matter in this entirely.ÂÂ  Since I have actually been the monastery you mention and have actually spoken with their abbot and many of their fathers, I am well aware of their agenda.ÂÂ  There was no intention of this being a synod producing any binding sort of power; the purpose was to gather various speakers on the ecumenical movement.ÂÂ  The point I was making by bringing it up was to show that there are many within the church (including bishops, theologians, clergy, laity and monastics) opposed to the ecumenical movement.ÂÂ  My point still stands that there are many bishops throughout the church staunchly opposed to the ecumenical movement, and assuming the position of the EP is the pan Orthodox view is both wrong and deceitful.ÂÂ  

You're misunderstaning what I'm saying, and taking it much farther than I intended. I simply stated that the Conference was anti-Oecumenical because of who funded it. Had it been organized and funded by say the University of Athens or even the Patriarchate of Constantinople there would have been an entirely different tone.

Quote
I am not exactly sure what you mean by your last statement regarding Saint John Maximovitch but it either shows incredible arrogance or again ignorance of the practice of Conastinople -ÂÂ  If by Great Church of Christ you mean Constaninople, then yes you are ignorant of common practices within that church; if you meant the entire Orthodox Church (with the implication that the ROCOR is OUTside the Church) you are simply shockingly arrogant...

As questioning the Sainthood of 20th Century Bishops seems to be even more disturbing to members of this Board than Questioning the Sainthood of such fathers of the Church as St. Leo the Great, I do not believe that we should continue too much further down that line. So I will leave the issue with my fundamental point: that the aforementioned libelous attacks against the Oecumenical Throne are unbecomming of the Episcopal Dignity, not to even mention Saintly dignity. And this is to say nothing about the issues of Schism (which was really the point of this forum at first).

Quote
Regarding being libelious to the Patriarchate (of which I would like to start another thread regarding the the paper of Saint John) Bishop Artemije of Kosovo said it best "There is NO ONE in the world today who has so much harmed the reputation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Patriarch Bartholomew HIMSELF, together with the members of his Hierarchy, by their ecumenical activities and statements, which are well-known all over the world."

Somebody has to take the posistion of doing what is best for the Church. Being a zelot and and fundamentalist, trying to condemn the world and isolate the Church, may be popular at times, but is rarely benificial.

Quote
As an aside, the standard English usage is ecumencial, not Oecumenical.ÂÂ  It really just makes you look like a wannabe Greek American when you keep using it.ÂÂ  Remember it is ok to still be American, Australian, Brittish, German etc. and still be Orthodox.

Actually 'ecumenical' would be french, universal or worldwide would be the more appropriate english. Oecumenical is actually closer to the latin oecumenicus than the greek oikoumenikos. The real difference is that Oecumenical tends to be more popular in the UK and Ecumenical in the United States (though these are by no means definitive lines).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #57 on: June 29, 2005, 12:53:29 PM »

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank goodness most Orthodox completely reject GiC's arguments, or we'd all be bowing to Pope Bartholomew of Constantinople. If we follow GiC's argument that the EP can't go into Schism to its logical conclusion we'd have to conclude that the Orthodox and not the Roman Catholics are the schismatics, as at the time of the Great Schism, Rome had the primacy that the EP now enjoys. I wonder if he realises this? Primacy of honour is no guarantee of purity of doctrine and I'd actually argue that the EP is one of the least Orthodox churches in all the Church. In my opinion ROCOR was never schismatic because it was recognised by and in communion with the Church. If the pro-Greeks here or Patriarch Bartholomew can't accept that then tough luck.

Actually the Authority of Constantinople and Rome were, in theory, equal according to Canon 28 of Chalcedon...but in practice, Contantinople held considerably greater Administrative, including eventually (starting at Chalcedon) the right to Preside over Oecumenical Synods. Rome did not Enjoy the Primacy that Constantinople now enjoys anytime after the late fourth century.

Concerning ROCOR, canonically it's fairly simple when their bishops were summoned by the Synod of Moscow to return to the said synod and they refused, that was clearly an act of Schism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: June 29, 2005, 01:02:00 PM »

The conditions for Orthodoxy are abysmal.ÂÂ  Even the patriarchal church is falling into complete ruin.ÂÂ  Many of the nuns in Constantinople are from Russia or Romania.ÂÂ  What is more disturbing than the muslim violence toward Christians is the present Patriarch's attitude toward ecumenism- recognizing baptism of Lutherans!?!??!?!?!?!

The physical conditions are difficult, but even worse are the restrictions on His All-Holiness' travel...but in spite of this Constantinople has maintained her leadership role and continues to be the voice of Orthodoxy to the World, as well as administering her flock throughout the world. Though it could be problematic for other reasons, however, an entry of Turkey into the EU would solve nearly all the Oecumenical Throne's current problems, including Halki.

Concerning the recognition of Lutherian baptisms, Constantinople is not the only Orthodox Church to have done so...and though I would probably prefer to rebaptize lutherans, recognizing their baptism surely is not any worse of a canonical/sacramental theological infringment than the Recognation of Arian Baptisms and Chrismations by the First Oecumenical Synod.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 29, 2005, 01:15:42 PM »

GreekisChristian

While I respect your learning on this and many topics, I'm shocked and even scandalized that you can reduce everything to an appeal an appeal to authority.  Indeed, you seem to be taking away the logical basis for the Orthodox Church's rejection of Papism - or is it only the Italian variety that we are to be weary of?

History has demonstrated, however, that such appeals to authority are not final - particularly when there is a question of faith involved.  There simply have been too many Patriarchs of Constantinople who have ended up in heresy, with one having a heresy named after him.

As for the ROCOR issue...I'm very sad about your take on this, and hope this view is not representative of what your teachers and pastors actually believe.  Even the MP has come to be far more irenic than this, understanding that at the very least, subjective to their (ROCOR's) understanding and the facts of Orthodox ecclessiology which everyone (at least it would seem, almost everyone) accepts, that their (ROCOR's) position was an understandable and unblameworthy one.  And I highly doubt that the reduction of Orthodox ecclessiology to "are you in communion with the EP?" ever entered into the minds of either party during their dialogues.

Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #60 on: June 29, 2005, 01:51:55 PM »

...and though I would probably prefer to rebaptize lutherans...
I corrected your typo.

Though it could be problematic for other reasons, however, an entry of Turkey into the EU would solve nearly all the Oecumenical Throne's current problems, including Halki.
This is utter wishful thinking.ÂÂ  The Turkish Foreign/Prime/Finance/whatever Minister just said they won't reopen Halki.ÂÂ  There is no reason for them to change their mind unless serious sanctions or political pressure is applied to Turkey...and that just hasn't happened yet.


Quote from: Sliouan
Bishop Artemije of Kosovo said it best "There is NO ONE in the world today who has so much harmed the reputation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Patriarch Bartholomew HIMSELF, together with the members of his Hierarchy, by their ecumenical activities and statements, which are well-known all over the world."
Silouan,
Actually, from the quotes I saw posted of Pat. Athenagoras, I'd put Pat. Bartholomew at #2 and the prior at #1
« Last Edit: June 29, 2005, 02:04:47 PM by Elisha » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #61 on: June 29, 2005, 08:27:04 PM »

This is utter wishful thinking.ÂÂ  The Turkish Foreign/Prime/Finance/whatever Minister just said they won't reopen Halki.ÂÂ  There is no reason for them to change their mind unless serious sanctions or political pressure is applied to Turkey...and that just hasn't happened yet.

If turkey entered the EU the Oecumenical Patriarch could sue in European Court, which would undoubtedly allow them to open up a theological school on their own property. Once you're a member of the EU, you loose a reasonable degree of national authority.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #62 on: June 29, 2005, 09:32:19 PM »

If turkey entered the EU the Oecumenical Patriarch could sue in European Court, which would undoubtedly allow them to open up a theological school on their own property. Once you're a member of the EU, you loose a reasonable degree of national authority.

I'm sure as a so called expert in canon law (and maybe by extension secular as well) this sounds logical, but I think you are being WAY too presumptuous.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2005, 03:06:22 AM »

To me this all boils down to this....

The view GreekisChristian has of Orthodoxy is one of legalism, power, authority and temporal glory (or in the case of the current status of the Phanar nostalgia for temporal glory).  That is why he is unable to accept that large numbers, perhaps even a majority, of Orthodox Christians are anti - ecumenist, including the overwhelming majority of monastic and many prominent bishops.  He would love for the "Oecumenical Throne" to strike down these fundamentalists with one swift papal stroke.  That is why he is willing to not only ignore but even disparge those who in our times have seen and lived in the uncreated light - he dismisses the saints as nothing more than models for the pious (read dumb) lay people.  He points out (and correctly) that no saint is infallible as a justification to ignore thier opposition to ecumenism.  Yet it means nothing to him that every single modern saint was not an ecumenist, that every single modern saint is wrong and he is right.  All that matters is worship of hellenism and submission to the Phanar.     
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2005, 05:47:30 AM »

Oecumenical is actually closer to the latin oecumenicus than the greek oikoumenikos. The real difference is that Oecumenical tends to be more popular in the UK and Ecumenical in the United States (though these are by no means definitive lines).

In reference to the emboldened text, where? I've lived in Britain almost all my life and I never saw anybody, Orthodox or not, write Oecumenical until I saw you do it on this forum. It certainly isn't standard British English and we all write Ecumenical Patriarch. What you write looks wannabe Greek to me and I'm sure it does to everyone else, but then you appear to be a wannabe Greek also, and have pretty much admitted as much before. I don't really care, you can wish you were whatever you like, but please don't try to pass off your linguistic idiosyncracies as something they aren't.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #65 on: July 01, 2005, 12:31:06 PM »

After Vespers last night, the priest told us to pray for the health of Metr. LAURUS.  Apparently he's very sick and near death.  Can anyone corroborate this report?

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
ania
Life according to Abe Simpson:
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,097



« Reply #66 on: July 01, 2005, 01:19:00 PM »

After Vespers last night, the priest told us to pray for the health of Metr. LAURUS. Apparently he's very sick and near death. Can anyone corroborate this report?

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip

After reading this, I became rather confused.  If he was ill, I thought I'd know about it...

So I just called up my dad a few minutes ago, who told me that despite the rumors that he is dead or dying, Met. Lavr is right around now finishing up his lunch in the brotherhood's dinning room at Holy Trinity Monastery, and probably heading to his skite to take his afternoon nap.  (The monastery has "myortviy chas" after lunch, where the brotherhood rests or takes care of their personal business before heading off again to their obediences). 
If he's dead, or dying, he doesn't know about it yet.

This whole thing was started by some wishful thinking of some nasty groups of people I need not mention, on their internet sites.
Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
ExOrienteLux
Waning: Spoilers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 183



« Reply #67 on: July 01, 2005, 01:20:55 PM »

OK.  Thanks much, Ania.  I'll forward this to my priest, because he was (and had me) very concerned last night.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.
Logged

Arise, O God! Judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations!
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,584



« Reply #68 on: July 02, 2005, 12:23:58 AM »

Quote
ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate ...

As to the article, I think this is putting the cart before the horse to an extent, since the ROCOR Clergy-Laity Conference has not yet taken place (not that I expect anything to happen there that will upset plans for communion/concelebration). People have been speaking of a reunion for like 30 years now (I believe Vladimir Moss was the first to do it in the mid-70's). Yeah, this time it really does look like it will happen sooner rather than later; but this "soon" is at least 11 months away, and the ROCOR bishops have been purposefully slow in this process, so I think we should respect that and not jump the gun. I think that when ROCOR "joins" the Moscow Patriarchate, the ROCOR bishops will say so, and I believe it is our duty to wait until they say so before we go about talking about it as though it is an already-established fact. Smiley
Logged

I'm not quite sure what to make of the common argument for Christianity that might be rephrased as: "Well, it's better than suicide, right?"
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #69 on: July 02, 2005, 12:25:01 AM »

In reference to the emboldened text, where? I've lived in Britain almost all my life and I never saw anybody, Orthodox or not, write Oecumenical until I saw you do it on this forum. It certainly isn't standard British English and we all write Ecumenical Patriarch. What you write looks wannabe Greek to me and I'm sure it does to everyone else, but then you appear to be a wannabe Greek also, and have pretty much admitted as much before. I don't really care, you can wish you were whatever you like, but please don't try to pass off your linguistic idiosyncracies as something they aren't.

I've been reading through this thread over the past few days, and I must take issue with this because it is simply not true.  While it appears that greekischristian may be rightly accused of many things, passing off his linguistic style as standard is not one of them.

[Professional hat]

Speaking as a copy-editor and proofreader, it is quite true that in general terms, with words of Latin or Greek origin, where Americans will, for some unexplained reason, omit the 'a' in 'ae' (Latin) and the 'o' in 'oe' (Greek), the English will retain them.  A few examples of this are anaemia, paediatrician, encyclopaedia, diarrhoea and onomatopoeia.  In all of these cases, the general American usage is to leave out the 'a' or the 'o'.  In British usage (I cannot speak for elsewhere), oecumenical is a special case with its own trends: when speaking of the "ecumenical movement" (the co-operation of different Christian groups based on an acceptance of the idea of branch theory), then it is customary to omit the 'o', whereas when speaking of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, it is customary to retain it.  Whereas, occasionally, I have seen the 'o' omitted when referring to the latter example, it is by no means the norm in British usage.  Certainly, if a text were to be sent to me for editing, in which there were a reference to the Oecumenical Patrarchate without the 'o', I would change it - not because it would be incorrect, for it is perfectly acceptable spelling - but we have a trend in the language whereby the two uses of the word are distinguished from one another, and it aids clarity of meaning if we adhere to that trend.

[/Professional hat]

Greekischristian has certainly not made it up. 

Michael
(who is glad to be able to contribute something to this thread, having been confused by much of the rest of it).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2005, 12:26:38 AM by Michael » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: July 02, 2005, 12:41:36 AM »

where Americans will, for some unexplained reason, omit the 'a' in 'ae' (Latin) and the 'o' in 'oe' (Greek), the English will retain them.ÂÂ  

Thanks Michael,
from George who lives among Australia's beautiful florae and faunae. And I am still conviced that "zee" instead of "zed" is a plot to take over the world through the alleged "innocent" medium of Sesame StreetWink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #71 on: July 02, 2005, 12:50:06 AM »

 Grin

I agree entirely, and couldn't have put it better myself.

Having partly grown up in a former British colony that received all of its TV broadcasting from the USA, I fought this war for many a year at school.  There is now a small group of Kittitians who are aware that aluminium has five syllables.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #72 on: July 02, 2005, 03:29:51 AM »

Speaking as a copy-editor and proofreader, it is quite true that in general terms, with words of Latin or Greek origin, where Americans will, for some unexplained reason, omit the 'a' in 'ae' (Latin) and the 'o' in 'oe' (Greek), the English will retain them.ÂÂ  A few examples of this are anaemia, paediatrician, encyclopaedia, diarrhoea and onomatopoeia.ÂÂ  In all of these cases, the general American usage is to leave out the 'a' or the 'o'.ÂÂ  In British usage (I cannot speak for elsewhere), oecumenical is a special case with its own trends: when speaking of the "ecumenical movement" (the co-operation of different Christian groups based on an acceptance of the idea of branch theory), then it is customary to omit the 'o', whereas when speaking of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, it is customary to retain it.ÂÂ  Whereas, occasionally, I have seen the 'o' omitted when referring to the latter example, it is by no means the norm in British usage.ÂÂ  Certainly, if a text were to be sent to me for editing, in which there were a reference to the Oecumenical Patrarchate without the 'o', I would change it - not because it would be incorrect, for it is perfectly acceptable spelling - but we have a trend in the language whereby the two uses of the word are distinguished from one another, and it aids clarity of meaning if we adhere to that trend.

Thank you, though I have used the term 'Oecumenical Movement' many times in the past, it never seemed to look as right as 'Oecumenical Patriarch' or 'Oecumenical Throne' though I never knew why and contributed this to my seeing linguistic patterns where none exist. But after what you said, it must be because I rarely, if ever, see 'Oecumenical Movement' in print, it's always 'Ecumenical Movement,' this explains a few things and I may try to adjust my usage accordingly, though I'm still curious as to how this trend and distinction evolved...though like many things in the history of language we may unfortunately never know for certain (if for no other reason because the answer to the question is probably not worth the time, money, and effort that would be required to research it Wink ).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #73 on: July 03, 2005, 12:57:14 AM »

Hey everyone,

I was wondering....so if I am in the GOC (New Calendar) can we now partake in sacraments at ROCOR churches and monmasteries?Or because it is so new do people still have to get used to it?

Also, I asked this before but I got a really complicated answer: Is ROCOR the same durisdiction as ROCA??


Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #74 on: July 03, 2005, 01:31:16 AM »

ROCOR and ROCA are the same.... different translation of the same Russian title as I understand it (although ROAC, ROCiE, FROC etc are NOT the same).

And much to the dismay of the extremists in the GOA and the ROCOR I know people that regularly recieve the mysteries in both jurisdictions.  IME most ROCOR priests just want to make sure you have confessed and prepared properly.  Perhaps what I find most bizarre in all this, is that the more negative side tends to be the GOA, i.e don't go near this schismatics... but both sides have their extremists. 
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #75 on: July 03, 2005, 01:33:21 AM »

Timos,

They haven't officially rejoined yet--the paper is drawn up, the signature needs to happen. Check with your priest.

ROCOR and ROCA are one group (dont know why they dont just pick one name!)
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #76 on: July 03, 2005, 02:43:08 AM »

And much to the dismay of the extremists in the GOA and the ROCOR I know people that regularly recieve the mysteries in both jurisdictions.

And I know of people who regularly receive communion in the Greek Church and Latin Church...that doesn't mean that it's either Canonical or Acceptable.

Quote
IME most ROCOR priests just want to make sure you have confessed and prepared properly.ÂÂ  Perhaps what I find most bizarre in all this, is that the more negative side tends to be the GOA, i.e don't go near this schismatics... but both sides have their extremists.ÂÂ  

I tend to be fairly moderate (even liberal) at times, but I still dont see how it's extremist to oppose laity taking communion in Schismatic churches. I know this is a problem that arises because of overlapping jurisdictions, but it's the Episcopacy, not laity, who get to decide if two churches are in communion or not.

To answer your question Timos...we (the Greek Orthodox Church) will not be in communion with ROCOR until they are officially under the Synod of Moscow again. Until then, you should probably refrain from taking communion in their churches.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #77 on: July 03, 2005, 08:09:20 AM »

You may; I give my archadministratorial blessing Wink  In fact, I would encourage us all to do so with our respective groups... for instance I could write:

"Today I visited the Cathedral of St Markella's, the Metropolitan Throne of North and South America, GOC, and then returned to my home at St Vladimir's, the Stavropeghial Seminary of the Autocephalous Throne of Syosset.  Tomorrow I will be visiting Englewood, NJ, the Autonomous Throne of the Self-Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese..." Wink

Man, if I started listing all the thrones of Washington DC, it would sound like Pharoah's titles. We even have one building with two episcopal thrones in it!

You know, I think I'm going to revert to English practice and refer to Alexis Moskva and Batholomew Constantinople. And when itcomes to that, it seems to me that Constantinople has less actual power to determine who is Orthodox than Cantuar has to determine who is Anglican.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #78 on: July 03, 2005, 09:08:37 AM »

Except in consenting to the consecration [of Robinson] they seem to be creating a Schism within the Global Anglican Communion. We'll see at the next Lambeth Conference, is it in 2008?

Well, as I hinted in the just-previous message, there is a difference. Well, two differences actually. The first is that Cantuar actually does have the power which you tend to ascribe to Constantinople, and which the latter does not actually have. The bishops of the Anglican communion are called into synod by the archbishop every decade; the patriarch does no such thing, and if he did, I have to imagine that many would not heed the call. Furthermore, the communion is dealing with the current crisis, albeit not at a pace which satisfies the hotheads.

At the moment there are two jurisdictional anomalies in the communion (not counting the Robinson crisis, which deserves a label both bigger and smaller than "anomaly"). One is new: the AMiA. Short explanation: when things started to get hot in ECUSA, a group of bishops from outside the USA started consecrating "missionary bishops" for the United States. This has been heavily criticized and teh jurisdiction (and therefore authority) of these "bishops" is widely disparaged. On the other hand, if ECUSA breaks up, and part of it remains in the communion, there will be no possible legitimate need for this structure and it is expected simply to disappear.

The other discrepancy is old and was really only "straightened" out in 1980. There are in fact several Anglican churches sprinkled over continental Europe. These do not constitute patriarchates and are sort of treated as chaplaincies on a large scale. Those in Spain and "Lusitania" belong to the CofE, while those in France and Germany form a diocese within ECUSA. Another oddity is the Falklands, which have been handed back and forth between Cantuar and the Southern Cone (i.e., Chile and Argentina) according to the progress of the Falkland conflict.

From my point of view, Constantinople's position should be that of someone living next door to a fractious marriage: he ought to be grateful when they make up and the yelling stops, but he ought to resist the urge to intervene personally.
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #79 on: July 03, 2005, 09:22:38 AM »

Thanks everyone for clearing that up for me. I don't plan on going to a ROCOR church anytime soon but I travel sometimes and I love visiting the surrounding Orthodox, and sometimes Catholic sites (I wouldn't take communion in the catholic ones tho).

I know that its wrong to take the mysteries in these non-canonical churches because they are separate from the mother churches but they are still orthodox in belief and practise.

 I think they have a point when the Old Calendarists wanted to keep the Julian Calendar alive because our church has been using it for a loong time. The only thing I have against them is that they think they are soo holy and the only orthodox ppl ever and they are always on the verge of finding out a new heresy...

Also, take note that on the Julian Easter, the holy light is brought out, NOT on the Western Easter. Would it still work on the Western Easter? I dunno and frankly I don't really care which calendar is used in church. As long as we got a darn calendar to figure out whats goin on and who's being celebrated this day thats all I care about. It's just a shame we got to be separated like this.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #80 on: July 03, 2005, 11:53:54 PM »

Quote
And I know of people who regularly receive communion in the Greek Church and Latin Church...that doesn't mean that it's either Canonical or Acceptable.

For that matter concelebrating with Latins isn't canonical nor acceptable, yet clergy in the ecumenical patriarchate do just that.  The fact that you would compare the Latins to ROCOR though is absurd.  The situation of the ROCOR obviously isn't normnative, but it is definetly not schismatic.  For example Patriarch Pavle could easily concelebrate with Metr. Laurus today and then Patriarch Vartholomaios tomorrow. 

In fact that basicly is the case http://www.rocor.org.au/official/patrpavelphoto_en.html
Then with Archbishop Christodoulos http://www.ecclesia.gr/English/EnArchbishop/EnPhotos/newphoto7.jpg

And we all know that the EP and SP are in communion.... so by extension....

And for some nice reading from Elder Ephraim Philotheitis: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ephraim_roca.aspx
Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #81 on: July 04, 2005, 12:30:23 AM »

Quote
I know that its wrong to take the mysteries in these non-canonical churches because they are separate from the mother churches but they are still orthodox in belief and practise.

It's not wrong. Ignore what GiC says. ROCOR is fully Orthodox. Laity from other jurisdictions are free to commune in ROCOR's parishes, and it's not unknown for clergy to do so as well. Heck, a priest who has newly joined my parish just a few weeks ago received a canonical release from his Antiochian bishop to join the ROCOR, so obviously that bishop doesn't have a problem with us.

Quote
I think they have a point when the Old Calendarists wanted to keep the Julian Calendar alive because our church has been using it for a loong time.

ROCOR isn't an Old Calendarist church. It's true that all of our parishes, to my knowledge, are currently on the old calendar, but that's just because of happenstance; at one point we had entire dioceses that were on the new calendar.
Logged
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #82 on: July 04, 2005, 01:30:07 AM »

Probably Strelets or somebody else has indeed prayed for me, because after I've wrote my last posts my attention has been drawn to some things that made me think again -- this talk here was particularly meaningful.

It made me know less than I knew before reading it. Much to my profit, I think.

Please keep your prayers for this cold-hearted, overzealous guy. May God reward you.
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #83 on: July 04, 2005, 01:46:03 AM »

Quote
ROCOR isn't an Old Calendarist church. It's true that all of our parishes, to my knowledge, are currently on the old calendar, but that's just because of happenstance; at one point we had entire dioceses that were on the new calendar.

You hit on an important point.  There is a vast difference from the old calendar (which the VAST majority of Orthodox Christians still use) and old calendarism[/].  The most extreme example of old calendarism would be the Matthewite mentality.  The ROCOR has never officially had that mentality. 
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #84 on: July 04, 2005, 10:01:25 AM »

O, and all this time I was thinking ROCOR was Old Calendarist central! lol.

Last year I was invited to go to Hellenic College Holy Cross to experience "Cross Roads". It's on their website...and it was soo amazing. Anyhow, we asked if we could go to Holy Transfiguration (Old Calendar) Monastery nearby. Of course we were told by the Hellenic College Faculty that Holy Transfiguration was non-canonical.

Well, on their website they have a warning that says no boys under 14 years old are allowed to spend the night there...which I found quite strange until I stumbled upon this equally strange and horrifying account:
]]http://www.pokrov.org/controversial/htmmamas.htmlhttp://.

Apparently their "elder" Panteleimon is up to no good. I was just wondering if anyone thought this could be true because Pokrov.org puts a lot of nasty stuff against our hierarchy....some true but I doubt a lot of it.



Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #85 on: July 04, 2005, 10:03:00 AM »

BTW, Holy Transfiguration (which sells really nice orthodox stuff:) are under HOCNA.
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #86 on: July 04, 2005, 10:17:06 AM »

also check out:

http://www.hocna.info/
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #87 on: July 06, 2005, 12:19:58 AM »

Hi, alright, so now ROCOR/ROCA, and the OCA are the only official "Russian" churches right?

OK, I got that..wut I'm confused about are the myriad of other Russian churches:

1. ROAC

2. ACROD -they are canonical too right? Under the Ecumenical Patriarchate...but why are some Russian churches under the EP?? I know the EP has first amongst equal status but wouldn't it be easier if all the russian churches were in the OCA or ROCOR??

3. The Old Believers--who exactly are they? I tried numerous searches but I got sooo many conflicting answers.

4.The Old Calendarists--the "Genuine/True" Orthodox churches

5. The "priestles Orthodox" churches---I don't get it? How can you NOT have a pappa to do the services? So like any guy goes up to the altar and pretends to be the priest? or maybe there is a communal meal type of thing...sorry folks- this is my mind trying to figure out the wacky possibilities  Shocked

6. If there are any other types of Russian Orthodox churches such as HOCNA.

Wow, being Russian Orthodox must be confusing! BTW, I'd love to visit the Red Square where Stalin is buried there and these scientists injected some type of preserving wax into his veins to stop his body from decomposing. I saw it in a documentary.

Anyways, a while back I visited a Russian church in the States and I took communion. Now I am afraid to visit any at all--with so many different types you never know which one is which unless they got a sign saying "ROCOR/OCA/ROAC/HOCNA" and I was so excited to visit another Russian parish  Sad
Logged
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #88 on: July 06, 2005, 01:26:11 AM »

Hi, alright, so now ROCOR/ROCA, and the OCA are the only official "Russian" churches right?

OK, I got that..wut I'm confused about are the myriad of other Russian churches:

1. ROAC

2. ACROD -they are canonical too right? Under the Ecumenical Patriarchate...but why are some Russian churches under the EP?? I know the EP has first amongst equal status but wouldn't it be easier if all the russian churches were in the OCA or ROCOR??

3. The Old Believers--who exactly are they? I tried numerous searches but I got sooo many conflicting answers.

4.The Old Calendarists--the "Genuine/True" Orthodox churches

5. The "priestles Orthodox" churches---I don't get it? How can you NOT have a pappa to do the services? So like any guy goes up to the altar and pretends to be the priest? or maybe there is a communal meal type of thing...sorry folks- this is my mind trying to figure out the wacky possibilitiesÂÂ  Shocked

6. If there are any other types of Russian Orthodox churches such as HOCNA.

Wow, being Russian Orthodox must be confusing! BTW, I'd love to visit the Red Square where Stalin is buried there and these scientists injected some type of preserving wax into his veins to stop his body from decomposing. I saw it in a documentary.

Anyways, a while back I visited a Russian church in the States and I took communion. Now I am afraid to visit any at all--with so many different types you never know which one is which unless they got a sign saying "ROCOR/OCA/ROAC/HOCNA" and I was so excited to visit another Russian parishÂÂ  Sad


Timos,

1. ROAC is schismatic and not considered Orthodox by many outside their group.

2. ACROD is canonical and yes, under the EP. They are not Russian, but Carpatho-Russian - having nothing to do with Russia at all. Carpatho Russians come from areas of southeastern Poland, southwestern Ukraine and eastern Slovakia.

3. Old Believers are Russian Orthodox who rejected the Nikonian reforms, and are now preistless Old Believers - except for legit ones like these, under the ROCOR http://www.churchofthenativity.net/ who have priests.

4. Genuine/True Old Calendar churches are not a "Russian-only" problem, I think it's more widespread in Greek Orthodox communities than Russian.

5. Priestless are the same as the Old Believers. They do not have priests, correct. The members of these groups hold reader's services, and their iconostais is set up against a wall, because they have no priests to enter an altar area and have a liturgy.

6. HOCNA is a non-canonical Greek Old Calendarist group. Examples in the Russian church would be the ROCiE and ROAC.

I am sure that other more knowledagle than I will be sure to elaborate on this and also post corrections to any mistakes I have made. Hope this helps you out in the meanwhile!

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2005, 03:08:49 PM »

Arystarcus, ooo now I get it-thanks for your reply. That made things a lot less complicated.
Whichever bishop said that "the Orthodox church is a jurisdictional hazard in North America" really knew what he was talking about.
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 864



« Reply #90 on: August 12, 2011, 11:06:30 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #91 on: August 12, 2011, 11:20:59 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2011, 08:57:08 PM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

Holy resurrected threads, Batman!
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #93 on: August 12, 2011, 09:00:05 PM »

LOL at "Greek Apologist" for GiC, I'm curious how he became an atheist would be a good story.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #94 on: August 12, 2011, 09:30:57 PM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,007


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2011, 09:32:28 PM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 09:36:37 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2011, 09:48:23 PM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,007


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2011, 10:03:18 PM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad

We must keep this confidential .... some OCA bishops would be upset to hear us voice this opinion. Sad
Didn't this possibility of a reunion of the OCA with the ROCOR and the MP get Met. JONAH in trouble in the first place?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 10:05:05 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2011, 11:52:36 PM »

ROCOR is international; somehow merging with the OCA just doesn't, hypothetically and in retrospect, make sense.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #99 on: August 13, 2011, 12:13:59 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad
Alaska is old calender, though.

ROCOR is international; somehow merging with the OCA just doesn't, hypothetically and in retrospect, make sense.
The churches in the US could all just rebrand as "Russian Orthodox Church, American Archdiocese," or something. Then again, I don't know if the bishops of OCA would want to go back under the MP.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2011, 12:17:22 AM by Volnutt » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,584



« Reply #100 on: August 13, 2011, 03:14:39 AM »

LOL at "Greek Apologist" for GiC, I'm curious how he became an atheist would be a good story.

This has come up before, but GiC didn't chime in, so fwiw... while GiC, Entscheidungsproblem and I are all quite different, I think we have at least one thing in common: we sincerely tried to pursue Orthodoxy, and realised that it just wasn't working, so we were honest enough to take a step back*. None of us were sitting around reading Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., and then had an "aha!" moment where we suddenly thought Orthodoxy was a delusion or whatever. Rather, we read the Church's literature--the Bible, the Fathers, etc--we did Orthodox things like go to liturgy, an so forth, and we decided that the reality didn't match the picture on the brochure.


*though over the years I have stepped forward, and back, and forward, and back, and...
Logged

I'm not quite sure what to make of the common argument for Christianity that might be rephrased as: "Well, it's better than suicide, right?"
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #101 on: August 14, 2011, 03:13:23 AM »

"The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately."

I don't see why. It could easily be changed back in the OCA - it's not like our hierarchs haven't made unilateral decisions on such things before!
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #102 on: August 14, 2011, 03:32:40 AM »

LOL at "Greek Apologist" for GiC, I'm curious how he became an atheist would be a good story.

This has come up before, but GiC didn't chime in, so fwiw... while GiC, Entscheidungsproblem and I are all quite different, I think we have at least one thing in common: we sincerely tried to pursue Orthodoxy, and realised that it just wasn't working, so we were honest enough to take a step back*. None of us were sitting around reading Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., and then had an "aha!" moment where we suddenly thought Orthodoxy was a delusion or whatever. Rather, we read the Church's literature--the Bible, the Fathers, etc--we did Orthodox things like go to liturgy, an so forth, and we decided that the reality didn't match the picture on the brochure.


*though over the years I have stepped forward, and back, and forward, and back, and...

And all three of you are awesome.

. . . *on edge of seat*
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,483



« Reply #103 on: August 14, 2011, 07:37:45 AM »

LOL at "Greek Apologist" for GiC, I'm curious how he became an atheist would be a good story.

This has come up before, but GiC didn't chime in, so fwiw... while GiC, Entscheidungsproblem and I are all quite different, I think we have at least one thing in common: we sincerely tried to pursue Orthodoxy, and realised that it just wasn't working, so we were honest enough to take a step back*. None of us were sitting around reading Dawkins, Hitchens, et al., and then had an "aha!" moment where we suddenly thought Orthodoxy was a delusion or whatever. Rather, we read the Church's literature--the Bible, the Fathers, etc--
off the top of my head I can't recall what entsculdigen's problem was, but Greeky's most definitely and yours perhaps was from reading the canons, the Pedalion, etc.  burn out.  Ecclesiastes 12:12.
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
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #104 on: August 14, 2011, 07:49:41 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad

We must keep this confidential .... some OCA bishops would be upset to hear us voice this opinion. Sad
Didn't this possibility of a reunion of the OCA with the ROCOR and the MP get Met. JONAH in trouble in the first place?
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
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: 37,483



« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2011, 08:00:17 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad

We must keep this confidential .... some OCA bishops would be upset to hear us voice this opinion. Sad
Didn't this possibility of a reunion of the OCA with the ROCOR and the MP get Met. JONAH in trouble in the first place?
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same,
It did the same. That's how it became autocephalous.
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
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2011, 08:06:38 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)
Such autocephaly may well have been premature if history and drama is anything to go by.  The OCA would be enriched returning to the Moscow Patriarchate.  The problems that it is riven with would be much less consequential by being part of a bigger whole.  ROCOR has retained autonomy while remaining an integral part of the Russian Church.  The OCA could retain many of the same elements that it has now, but get a major injection of sanctity and inspiring leadership from the Patriarchate, supported fraternally by ROCOR whose worldwide presence also has for it helped detract from local issues of one country.
There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad

We must keep this confidential .... some OCA bishops would be upset to hear us voice this opinion. Sad
Didn't this possibility of a reunion of the OCA with the ROCOR and the MP get Met. JONAH in trouble in the first place?
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same,
It did the same. That's how it became autocephalous.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
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: 37,483



« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2011, 08:07:52 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)
Such autocephaly may well have been premature if history and drama is anything to go by.  The OCA would be enriched returning to the Moscow Patriarchate.  The problems that it is riven with would be much less consequential by being part of a bigger whole.  ROCOR has retained autonomy while remaining an integral part of the Russian Church.  The OCA could retain many of the same elements that it has now, but get a major injection of sanctity and inspiring leadership from the Patriarchate, supported fraternally by ROCOR whose worldwide presence also has for it helped detract from local issues of one country.
There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

I think the OCA was in a mess at that time, and frankly is still in a mess.
Good thing the ROCOR united with the MP.

I too hope that the OCA unites with the ROCOR and thus gains more stability. However, the issue of old vs new calendar might be a drawback.


Oh, as a proud member of the OCA, I agree we have been and are a mess, and they would help us gain stability. The calendar would be a problem, though, unfortunately.  Sad

We must keep this confidential .... some OCA bishops would be upset to hear us voice this opinion. Sad
Didn't this possibility of a reunion of the OCA with the ROCOR and the MP get Met. JONAH in trouble in the first place?
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same,
It did the same. That's how it became autocephalous.
Was there a comment?
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
IreneOlinyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2011, 11:31:00 AM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 14, 2011, 12:22:21 PM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.
Logged
IreneOlinyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #110 on: August 14, 2011, 02:00:41 PM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.


I was thinking more in terms of the OCA on the world stage of Orthodoxy.  Let's face it: most Orthodox do not even know of its exsistence in Orthodox countries.  adn even over here the Greek Orthodox Archdioces is the largest jurisdiction in both the USA & Canada.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #111 on: August 14, 2011, 02:16:45 PM »

I was thinking more in terms of the OCA on the world stage of Orthodoxy.  Let's face it: most Orthodox do not even know of its exsistence in Orthodox countries.  adn even over here the Greek Orthodox Archdioces is the largest jurisdiction in both the USA & Canada.

Well, no. I'd say much more people know about the OCA than about the GOA.

BTW the GOA does not contain Canada and the largest jurisdiction there is the UCC.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 02:17:29 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #112 on: August 14, 2011, 03:22:24 PM »

BTW the GOA does not contain Canada and the largest jurisdiction there is the UCC.

The UOCC may have the most temples, but I am fairly sure the Greeks have the numbers in terms of people.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2011, 04:22:03 PM »

I still find it incredibly hard to believe that more Greek-Americans (and Greek-Canadians) consistently attend services than members of other jurisdictions in North America...
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,007


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2011, 04:54:41 PM »

I still find it incredibly hard to believe that more Greek-Americans (and Greek-Canadians) consistently attend services than members of other jurisdictions in North America...

And I found that members of the Greek Orthodox community have a wonderful devotion to the Theotokos as well.
On all of her feast days, the church is packed and the attendance at Paraklesis and the Akathist hymn is excellent.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
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: 37,483



« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2011, 05:47:07 PM »

I still find it incredibly hard to believe that more Greek-Americans (and Greek-Canadians) consistently attend services than members of other jurisdictions in North America...
...better than them going to the Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians.
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
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #116 on: August 14, 2011, 05:54:21 PM »

"On all of her feast days, the church is packed and the attendance at Paraklesis and the Akathist hymn is excellent."
I'm not arguing that they never go to church - just that parish memberships are inflated compared to who's actually in church most Sundays.

"Better than them going to the Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians."
My impression is that more of them are at Bedside Baptist than any of those denominations ;-), but whatevs...
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
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: 37,483



« Reply #117 on: August 14, 2011, 05:55:22 PM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.


I was thinking more in terms of the OCA on the world stage of Orthodoxy.  Let's face it: most Orthodox do not even know of its exsistence in Orthodox countries.  adn even over here the Greek Orthodox Archdioces is the largest jurisdiction in both the USA & Canada.
In Syria at Church bookstores I saw a number of Fr. Hopko's works, Schmemann, Meyendorff and other products of the OCA available, translated into Arabic, and I've seen works in Arabic that reference the same, in Syria and Egypt.  In Romania (the second largest EO Church, after Russia) the OCA was well enough known (the dispute over the Romanian Archdiocese may have a hand in that, but in the 90s, when I was there, it was aid being given to the Church to recover from communism-Biserica Ortodoxa din America:that's how I learned that Latin "in" hadn't survived bare in Romanian.  In Russia, I am told that there is quite a devotion rising to St. Herman of Alaska, and SS. Met. Innocent and Patriarch Tikhon, and with that comes familiarity with the fruit of their work, i.e. the OCA.

It may not be so well known in Greece, but many Greeks are barely aware of any other Orthodox as it is.  Including us who precede Constantinople.
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
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,007


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #118 on: August 14, 2011, 06:06:52 PM »


It may not be so well known in Greece, but many Greeks are barely aware of any other Orthodox as it is.  Including us who precede Constantinople.

That is so true. My Greek inlaws believe that they are the only Orthodox around and that the Russians are still atheist communists and that the Antiochians are Nestorians. Sheesh.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,584



« Reply #119 on: August 14, 2011, 06:34:19 PM »

I still find it incredibly hard to believe that more Greek-Americans (and Greek-Canadians) consistently attend services than members of other jurisdictions in North America...

They don't. Actually they're pretty much the worst.

GOA - 23%
OCA - 40%
AOA - 37%
SOC - 22%
ROCOR - 32%

And so forth...

The schismatics (HOCNA) have the best attendance, of course.
Logged

I'm not quite sure what to make of the common argument for Christianity that might be rephrased as: "Well, it's better than suicide, right?"
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,348


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #120 on: August 15, 2011, 01:57:20 AM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

  I would like to caution all of you that Met. Jonah is a hierarch of the church and should be treated that way. This is a general warning to everyone to tread carefully & watch what you post & how you post it. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #121 on: August 15, 2011, 07:53:46 AM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah is a man of principle.  Firstly he is the most senior Orthodox bishop in the US to attend right to life rallies, to unequivocally condemn gay marriages.  Secondly as a monastic abbott he sought blessing to create a monastery that observed the Church's Julian Calendar rather than the New/Revised calendar, despite some pretty clear political implications in insisting on the Julian.  Third, he has considered the merits in a prayerful way of the relationship of the OCA to both ROCOR and the Mother Church in Russia, and in both instances he has shown leadership and humility, which has been reciprocated by the First Hierarch of ROCOR and Patriarch.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #122 on: August 15, 2011, 07:57:51 AM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.


I was thinking more in terms of the OCA on the world stage of Orthodoxy.  Let's face it: most Orthodox do not even know of its exsistence in Orthodox countries.  adn even over here the Greek Orthodox Archdioces is the largest jurisdiction in both the USA & Canada.
In Syria at Church bookstores I saw a number of Fr. Hopko's works, Schmemann, Meyendorff and other products of the OCA available, translated into Arabic, and I've seen works in Arabic that reference the same, in Syria and Egypt.  In Romania (the second largest EO Church, after Russia) the OCA was well enough known (the dispute over the Romanian Archdiocese may have a hand in that, but in the 90s, when I was there, it was aid being given to the Church to recover from communism-Biserica Ortodoxa din America:that's how I learned that Latin "in" hadn't survived bare in Romanian.  In Russia, I am told that there is quite a devotion rising to St. Herman of Alaska, and SS. Met. Innocent and Patriarch Tikhon, and with that comes familiarity with the fruit of their work, i.e. the OCA.

It may not be so well known in Greece, but many Greeks are barely aware of any other Orthodox as it is.  Including us who precede Constantinople.
ROCOR has also pushed the merits of Ss Herman of Alaska, Metropolitan Innocent and Patriarch Tikhon because those saints belong as much to ROCOR as they do to the OCA or MP.  One might say that the devotion to the Imperial and New Martyrs in Russia was given impetus by the canonization by ROCOR, followed later by the MP and the OCA.  The fruit of the saints of the Revolution - thousands of hierarchs, priests, monastics and millions of laity belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate, who sheltered them as best they could, and to ROCOR who honoured them first.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #123 on: August 15, 2011, 08:19:52 AM »

I don't know Metropolitan Jonah but Subdeacon David said a few things that merit a comment.

First, Metropolitan Jonah was NOT the first or only Orthodox hierarch to be a part of the Right to Life rallies or movements. His predecessor, Metropolitan Herman, first as Bishop and then as Metropolitan established the Orthodox presence at the Washington rallies starting in the mid-1980's. Together with the late Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD, the two of them were regular participants bringing with them busloads of the faithful each January. Metropolitan Nicholas was there through 2009 when his declining health precluded his participation.

In ACROD, our two most recent hierarchs, the late Bishop John (Martin) and Metropolitan Nicholas have preached about, written annual pastoral messages and steadfastly reminded their flock regarding the Church's position on homosexuality and abortion. Some of you out there act as if this position is new or somehow we Orthodox didn't 'get' it until Metropolitan Jonah appeared on the scene several years ago.
On both our website and in our annual publications, teaching material has been posted and updated going back to my college days in the 1970's on these issues. They are summarized and linked here. http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/ethics

As to the calendar, to many of us it is a non-issue - one way or the other.

Finally, for many of us not within the OCA,  we have been concerned about Metropolitan Jonah since his ill-tempered remarks in Texas given at the start of Great Lent shortly after his election as Metropolitan. While he has taken steps to distance himself from the harshest aspects of that address it is an old saying that deeds speak larger than words and only time will tell.


Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #124 on: August 15, 2011, 08:58:34 AM »

My comments are not a criticism of ACROD or of any other US Orthodox hierarch.  My comments were in the context of 2010-2011, and not in any way critical of responses of earlier Church leaders to such issues.  That ACROD has unequivocally defended Christian marriage etc is laudable.  My own ROCOR has also done so, with much less publicity or fanfare than Metropolitan Jonah.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #125 on: August 15, 2011, 09:03:12 AM »

"...despite some pretty clear political implications in insisting on the Julian."

Political? Did the Californian government not like it? Was there something unusual about yet another old style community being established in the Diocese of San Francisco?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #126 on: August 15, 2011, 09:53:14 AM »

Quote
It would be interesting to know the will of Metropolitan Jonah, who is a truly worthy archpastor.  His defence of traditional Christian values and ethics is notable in the whole Orthodox world.  There was a time when people would have thought that ROCOR would never humble herself to come under the omphor of HH Patriarch Kirill, and that the split was irreversible.  Sensible men of God in ROCOR and the MP realised the time had come to ask forgiveness of offences and to come together.  I think that the OCA could do the same, and that it would enrich ROCOR and the MP for its many gifts, just as the MP has been enriched by the fidelity of ROCOR to Slavic tradition and to the faith.

Subdeacon David:
How on earth did you come to this conclusion that the whole Orthodox world thinks Metropolitan Jonah is "notable".  I don't see any evidence that the rest of the OCA does not abide by Orthodoxy.
Maybe you can help me.  By the way please feel free to quote some Russian sources to the world reknown of Metr. Jonah.   I read Russian.

At the risk of sounding 'snarky', he indeed may be 'notable' to all, but not necessarily in a good way.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah is a man of principle.  Firstly he is the most senior Orthodox bishop in the US to attend right to life rallies, to unequivocally condemn gay marriages.  Secondly as a monastic abbott he sought blessing to create a monastery that observed the Church's Julian Calendar rather than the New/Revised calendar, despite some pretty clear political implications in insisting on the Julian.  Third, he has considered the merits in a prayerful way of the relationship of the OCA to both ROCOR and the Mother Church in Russia, and in both instances he has shown leadership and humility, which has been reciprocated by the First Hierarch of ROCOR and Patriarch.

I can see how your first example would back up your claim that Metropolitan Jonah is a man of principle (BTW, I also agree with his position on abortion and gay marriages--Orthodoxy 101 that he is publicly confirming). I am not so sure of the second and third examples; they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,660


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #127 on: August 15, 2011, 10:18:30 AM »

IMO, the union of ROCOR and the MP was at a politically inopportune time (undue State influence on the MP).
ROCOR churches in America should have joined to the OCA (One bishop, one city/diocese rule)

There would have been too much of an ideological conflict for that to have taken place.

It's true, unfortunately. However, I do hope that the OCA and ROCOR (along with the Patriarchial parishes) eventually unite as one jurisdiction. It's more likely to happen between those three first, all having their origins in the MP. Especially now that the OCA and ROCOR are on much better terms.

Having been in both the OCA and now in ROCOR, let me say this. Rocor needed to regain communion with Moscow to have legitimacy with the OCA. Only after that point could real exchange and interaction between the two begin with the happy addition of Moscow Patriarchal parishes.

On the other hand, the OCA needed to emerge from it's financial scandal in order for Rocor to get any nearer than a 10 foot pole would allow.

Both have now happened. The OCA has a very good man, Met Jonah at the helam now and there is no jurisdictions incombrance now for both (all three) to serve together.

On a local level we now see growing interaction between all three. There have been any number of Liturgies served by Priests from all three Jurisdictions con-celebrating. Parishioners now attended all kinds of special events together.

This sort of bottom up convergence is much healthier than some sort of dictum coming down from the top prematurely IMHO.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,651



« Reply #128 on: August 15, 2011, 10:24:38 AM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: August 15, 2011, 10:28:56 AM »


... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.


But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.
Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #130 on: August 15, 2011, 10:33:29 AM »

"Parishioners now attended all kinds of special events together."

They always did :-). My godmother was a member of an OCA parish and a ROCOR parish for ages and it was never a big deal.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
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: 37,483



« Reply #131 on: August 15, 2011, 10:36:11 AM »

I don't know Metropolitan Jonah but Subdeacon David said a few things that merit a comment.

First, Metropolitan Jonah was NOT the first or only Orthodox hierarch to be a part of the Right to Life rallies or movements. His predecessor, Metropolitan Herman, first as Bishop and then as Metropolitan established the Orthodox presence at the Washington rallies starting in the mid-1980's. Together with the late Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD, the two of them were regular participants bringing with them busloads of the faithful each January. Metropolitan Nicholas was there through 2009 when his declining health precluded his participation.
I could swear that Met. Theodosius was involved in the Right to Life March.  I only made it once, and I wasn't Orthodox at the time.

In ACROD, our two most recent hierarchs, the late Bishop John (Martin) and Metropolitan Nicholas have preached about, written annual pastoral messages and steadfastly reminded their flock regarding the Church's position on homosexuality and abortion. Some of you out there act as if this position is new or somehow we Orthodox didn't 'get' it until Metropolitan Jonah appeared on the scene several years ago.
On both our website and in our annual publications, teaching material has been posted and updated going back to my college days in the 1970's on these issues. They are summarized and linked here. http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/ethics

As to the calendar, to many of us it is a non-issue - one way or the other.
Amen.

Finally, for many of us not within the OCA,  we have been concerned about Metropolitan Jonah since his ill-tempered remarks in Texas given at the start of Great Lent shortly after his election as Metropolitan. While he has taken steps to distance himself from the harshest aspects of that address it is an old saying that deeds speak larger than words and only time will tell.
Given the shot across the bow at Holy Cross, the sudden mad dash to implement the Chambesy accords and the spin being put on them by the Phanar's chief mouthpiece (now Metropolitan of Bursa/Proussa), I thought his remarks were quite tempered given the circumstances.  But then I have that even Arab temperment.
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 #132 on: August 15, 2011, 10:45:21 AM »

/\  Interesting that Bp Tikhon Emeritus Bishop pf San Francisco just wote:

"Hieromonk Ambrose is quite right there, I believe
St. Tikhon, then the head of the Liturgical Commission for the 1917
Council of the Russian Church, has been recorded as not approving ANY 
liturgical measures for the Council  SAVE the calendar change.
After he became Patriarch, the Saint introduced the calendar change
twice by directive, but it failed, largely, it is believed, because many
of the Faithful associated the measure with renovators and foreigners."

http://tinyurl.com/3d74k6o

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: 37,483



« Reply #133 on: August 15, 2011, 10:51:43 AM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #134 on: August 15, 2011, 11:28:23 AM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

I think that the main differences stem from the influence of the Paris School theologians on the Metropolia/OCA (and its life in North America) and the strong dislike of ROCOR of any "innovation." Both ROCOR and the OCA had good reasons for the way they developed. Praise God that they are becoming more understanding and accepting of each other's attitudes and practices.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #135 on: August 15, 2011, 11:32:47 AM »


... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.


But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Indeed, I think that it is one of those proxy indicators of orthodoxy rather than an essential element. Thanks for pointing this out. On a related note, I think that the Paris School was inspired mostly by the pre-revolution reform movement in the Church of Russia. Thus, it may be that both the OCA and ROCOR are true heirs to the Church of Russia.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #136 on: August 15, 2011, 12:03:12 PM »

The schismatics (HOCNA) have the best attendance, of course.

I would doubt the accuracy of this statement.  HOCNA does not have many parishes in the US, and many of its parishioners do not live in close proximity to the parish.  I'm sure they have a high attendance rate of those parishioners who live within close proximity to a parish, but I have known a number of people who live several hours away from a parish and only attend once a year or a few times per year.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #137 on: August 15, 2011, 12:23:02 PM »


... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.


But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271

Quote
1) The question of the Calendar was brought up at the All-Russian Sobor
only as a result of the Bolshevik Decree mandating the introduction of the
Western European Calendar for civil use in Russia, The Decree of the
Council of People's Commissars was dated January 24, 1918, and indicated
that the day after January 31, 1918 would be February 14--not February 1.

The Sobor addressed the issue three days after the Decree was signed, at
its 71st Session on January 27, 1918. The need for a prompt decision by the
Church on how to relate to the civil calendar change was clear--the change
was to take place four days later.

It was decided to send the issue to a Joint Session of two separate
Sections of the Sobor--the Section on Divine Services and the Section on
the Relationship of the Church to the State.

This Joint Session of the two Sections met two days later, on January 29,
1918 and heard two major reports, one by Professor S.S. Glagolev, entitled
"A Comparative Evaluation of the Julian and Gregorian Styles," and one by
Prof. I. I. Sokolov, entitled, "The Attitude of the Orthodox East to the
Question of the Reform of the Calendar."

Neither of these presentations in any way supported the introduction into
Church life of the Gregorian Calendar--quite the contrary. Prof. Glagolev
concluded, "The Gregorian Calendar, in addition to being historically
harmful, is also astronomically useless."

Prof. Sokolov went into great detail about the 1902-1904 discussions among
the Local Orthodox Churches regarding the question of the Reform of the
Calendar. In 1902, (actually on July 12, 1902--which is just about exactly
one hunderd years ago) Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and his Synod
addressed a Patriarchal and Synodal Epistle to the Heads of all of the
autocephalous Churches (except Antioch, with which at that time
Constantinople had to communion) in which he asked them to express their
opinions on the possibility of reforming the Calendar (note: this was a
generation before Meletios Metaxakis). He received very well-thought out
responses from the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia,
and Montenegro.

Not one of these Churches supported the introduction of the Gregorian
calendar or change in the Julian calendar

These responses were transmitted to a special Theological Commission of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which analyzed them and proposed an
Encyclical that was approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his
Synod, and proclaimed on May 12, 1904. This Encyclical called the idea of
dropping 13 days from the Julian claendar to bring it into conformance with
the civil calendar "useless and fruitless." It concluded "from an
ecclesiastical point of view we have no need for a change in the calendar. . ."

Professor Sokolov concluded: "Therefore, the controlling voice of the
Orthodox East, both Greek and Slavic, is expressed as being not only
against the Gregorian calendar, as a creature of the inimical to it [the
Orthodox East] Catholic West, but also against a neutral or corrected
calendar, because such a reform would deleteriously affect the
ecclesiastical life of the Orthodox peoples."

Finally, the Joint Session of the two Sections prepared a Resolution on the
issue of calendar reform.

It decreed that the Church must stay with the Julian Calendar, basing this
decision on the following:

1) There is no reason for the Church not to have a separate ecclesiastical
calendar different from the civil calendar.

2) The Church not only is able to preserve the Old calendar, -- at the
present time it would be impossible for it to move to the New calendar.

3) The introduction of the New Calendar by the Russian Church would cause
it to break unity with all of the other Orthodox Churches. Any change in
the calendar can only be done by mutual agreement of all of the Orthodox
Churches.

4) It is impossible to correlate the Orthodox Paschalion with the Gregorian
Calendar without causing grave disruption in the Typikon.

5) It is recognized that the Julian Calendar is astronomically inaccurate.
This was noted already at the Council of Constantinople in 1583. However,
it is incorrect to believe that the Gregorian calendar is better suited for
ecclesiastical use.

In conclusion, the Joint Session resolved to maintain the Julian Calendar.

The Council, in its full session, approved this Resolution of the Joint
Session.
 
« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 12:24:15 PM by jah777 » 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: 37,483



« Reply #138 on: August 15, 2011, 12:50:44 PM »


... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.


But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271

Quote
1) The question of the Calendar was brought up at the All-Russian Sobor
only as a result of the Bolshevik Decree mandating the introduction of the
Western European Calendar for civil use in Russia, The Decree of the
Council of People's Commissars was dated January 24, 1918, and indicated
that the day after January 31, 1918 would be February 14--not February 1.

The Sobor addressed the issue three days after the Decree was signed, at
its 71st Session on January 27, 1918. The need for a prompt decision by the
Church on how to relate to the civil calendar change was clear--the change
was to take place four days later.

It was decided to send the issue to a Joint Session of two separate
Sections of the Sobor--the Section on Divine Services and the Section on
the Relationship of the Church to the State.

This Joint Session of the two Sections met two days later, on January 29,
1918 and heard two major reports, one by Professor S.S. Glagolev, entitled
"A Comparative Evaluation of the Julian and Gregorian Styles," and one by
Prof. I. I. Sokolov, entitled, "The Attitude of the Orthodox East to the
Question of the Reform of the Calendar."

Neither of these presentations in any way supported the introduction into
Church life of the Gregorian Calendar--quite the contrary. Prof. Glagolev
concluded, "The Gregorian Calendar, in addition to being historically
harmful, is also astronomically useless."

Prof. Sokolov went into great detail about the 1902-1904 discussions among
the Local Orthodox Churches regarding the question of the Reform of the
Calendar. In 1902, (actually on July 12, 1902--which is just about exactly
one hunderd years ago) Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople and his Synod
addressed a Patriarchal and Synodal Epistle to the Heads of all of the
autocephalous Churches (except Antioch, with which at that time
Constantinople had to communion) in which he asked them to express their
opinions on the possibility of reforming the Calendar (note: this was a
generation before Meletios Metaxakis). He received very well-thought out
responses from the Churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Greece, Romania, Serbia,
and Montenegro.

Not one of these Churches supported the introduction of the Gregorian
calendar or change in the Julian calendar

These responses were transmitted to a special Theological Commission of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople, which analyzed them and proposed an
Encyclical that was approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople and his
Synod, and proclaimed on May 12, 1904. This Encyclical called the idea of
dropping 13 days from the Julian claendar to bring it into conformance with
the civil calendar "useless and fruitless." It concluded "from an
ecclesiastical point of view we have no need for a change in the calendar. . ."

Professor Sokolov concluded: "Therefore, the controlling voice of the
Orthodox East, both Greek and Slavic, is expressed as being not only
against the Gregorian calendar, as a creature of the inimical to it [the
Orthodox East] Catholic West, but also against a neutral or corrected
calendar, because such a reform would deleteriously affect the
ecclesiastical life of the Orthodox peoples."

Finally, the Joint Session of the two Sections prepared a Resolution on the
issue of calendar reform.

It decreed that the Church must stay with the Julian Calendar, basing this
decision on the following:

1) There is no reason for the Church not to have a separate ecclesiastical
calendar different from the civil calendar.

2) The Church not only is able to preserve the Old calendar, -- at the
present time it would be impossible for it to move to the New calendar.

3) The introduction of the New Calendar by the Russian Church would cause
it to break unity with all of the other Orthodox Churches. Any change in
the calendar can only be done by mutual agreement of all of the Orthodox
Churches.

4) It is impossible to correlate the Orthodox Paschalion with the Gregorian
Calendar without causing grave disruption in the Typikon.

5) It is recognized that the Julian Calendar is astronomically inaccurate.
This was noted already at the Council of Constantinople in 1583. However,
it is incorrect to believe that the Gregorian calendar is better suited for
ecclesiastical use.

In conclusion, the Joint Session resolved to maintain the Julian Calendar.

The Council, in its full session, approved this Resolution of the Joint
Session.
 
The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

on a summary of the lead up to the Sobor "Russian Bishops and Church Reform in 1905" by Fr. John Meyendorff of blessed memory.
http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/russian_bishops_and_church_reform.htm


There is a book on this, whose title escapes me "A forelorn/unfilled hope" or some such thing.
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
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #139 on: August 15, 2011, 12:51:40 PM »

This is exactly the way I heard it years ago when I was discussing the issue with a ROCOR priest.  

/\  Interesting that Bp Tikhon Emeritus Bishop pf San Francisco just wote:

"Hieromonk Ambrose is quite right there, I believe
St. Tikhon, then the head of the Liturgical Commission for the 1917
Council of the Russian Church, has been recorded as not approving ANY 
liturgical measures for the Council  SAVE the calendar change.
After he became Patriarch, the Saint introduced the calendar change
twice by directive, but it failed, largely, it is believed, because many
of the Faithful associated the measure with renovators and foreigners."

http://tinyurl.com/3d74k6o


Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #140 on: August 15, 2011, 03:52:29 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.       
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: 37,483



« Reply #141 on: August 15, 2011, 04:13:48 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.
Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

The Fathers at Nicea I chose the Julian calendar for its accuracy. Any later local council that tried to overturn that landmark which the Fathers set up sets no standard we need respect.  "...nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar..."-just following the Fathers of Nicea.

"...discussed this only because the Bolsheviks..." please.  Anyone who deals with documents of the past century of the empire see that even in Church documents, cognissance of the real date was taken note of: even in private correspondance they indicated two dates.
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
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #142 on: August 15, 2011, 04:20:33 PM »

I always heard that the devil does not war against those that are already his.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.

Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #143 on: August 15, 2011, 04:26:56 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.
Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.


Wherever the New Calendar has been introduced, schisms have resulted which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature of the innovation and the fact that this decision was contrary to the Orthodox Church’s position on the matter for nearly 400 yrs.  The liturgical disunity that has resulted is tragic and is a barrier to inter-Orthodox unity.  It is a barrier that many of us have come to live with, just as we can learn to cope with any physical ailment that has not yet deprived us of life, but this disunity is nevertheless real and tragic.  And what good has come of adopting the New Calendar?  Are you claiming that Russia would not have been through such an intense persecution if they had adopted the New Calendar?  Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  
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: 37,483



« Reply #144 on: August 15, 2011, 04:46:20 PM »

I always heard that the devil does not war against those that are already his.

Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.
So was it Czar Satan?
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
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: 37,483



« Reply #145 on: August 15, 2011, 04:56:04 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.
Yes, we have seen this assertion often made, but never demonstrated.  The only Churches who were not decimated by the XXth century (the EP in the New Lands, Romania, Greece, Cyprus etc). were on the New Calendar.  The Old Calendar, in constrast, didn't erect a wall between the Church of Moscow and the Bolshevik state.


Wherever the New Calendar has been introduced, schisms have resulted
We managed in Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians, and in Alexandria, the only Patriarchate erected by an Evangelist-the preaching of St. Mark-witout a problem.

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.
of the innovation
a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

and the fact that this decision was contrary to the Orthodox Church’s position on the matter for nearly 400 yrs.
if it were, then they contradicted the Church the millenium before.

The liturgical disunity that has resulted is tragic and is a barrier to inter-Orthodox unity.
that can always be remedied by taking "equinox" to mean "equinox."

It is a barrier that many of us have come to live with, just as we can learn to cope with any physical ailment that has not yet deprived us of life, but this disunity is nevertheless real and tragic.  And what good has come of adopting the New Calendar?
 
Conformity with the Fathers of Nicea.

Are you claiming that Russia would not have been through such an intense persecution if they had adopted the New Calendar?
 
I'm saying the Old Calendar isn't what you are making it out to be.

Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  
IIRC, you're the one who brought it up and made it an issue.
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #146 on: August 15, 2011, 05:37:46 PM »

I don't know Metropolitan Jonah but Subdeacon David said a few things that merit a comment.

First, Metropolitan Jonah was NOT the first or only Orthodox hierarch to be a part of the Right to Life rallies or movements. His predecessor, Metropolitan Herman, first as Bishop and then as Metropolitan established the Orthodox presence at the Washington rallies starting in the mid-1980's. Together with the late Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD, the two of them were regular participants bringing with them busloads of the faithful each January. Metropolitan Nicholas was there through 2009 when his declining health precluded his participation.
I could swear that Met. Theodosius was involved in the Right to Life March.  I only made it once, and I wasn't Orthodox at the time.

In ACROD, our two most recent hierarchs, the late Bishop John (Martin) and Metropolitan Nicholas have preached about, written annual pastoral messages and steadfastly reminded their flock regarding the Church's position on homosexuality and abortion. Some of you out there act as if this position is new or somehow we Orthodox didn't 'get' it until Metropolitan Jonah appeared on the scene several years ago.
On both our website and in our annual publications, teaching material has been posted and updated going back to my college days in the 1970's on these issues. They are summarized and linked here. http://www.acrod.org/readingroom/ethics

As to the calendar, to many of us it is a non-issue - one way or the other.
Amen.

Finally, for many of us not within the OCA,  we have been concerned about Metropolitan Jonah since his ill-tempered remarks in Texas given at the start of Great Lent shortly after his election as Metropolitan. While he has taken steps to distance himself from the harshest aspects of that address it is an old saying that deeds speak larger than words and only time will tell.
Given the shot across the bow at Holy Cross, the sudden mad dash to implement the Chambesy accords and the spin being put on them by the Phanar's chief mouthpiece (now Metropolitan of Bursa/Proussa), I thought his remarks were quite tempered given the circumstances.  But then I have that even Arab temperment.


I believe that you are correct about Met. Theodosius and yes, the Holy Cross remarks you allude to probably 'goaded' Met. Jonah at the time, but a more seasoned hierarch probably would have been more diplomatic.  "Tit for tat" is not really a great basis for an exchange of thoughts or ideas......
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: 37,483



« Reply #147 on: August 15, 2011, 06:56:01 PM »

Are you claiming that Romania, Greece, Cyprus, etc. were not “decimated by the XXth century” because they were on the New Calendar?  If so, I would have to say that your New Calendarist zeal is greater than the Old Calendarist zeal that I have seen among many schismatics.  
IIRC, you're the one who brought it up and made it an issue.
my bad. it seems it was SubdeaconDavid.
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
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: 37,483



« Reply #148 on: August 15, 2011, 07:11:33 PM »

yes, the Holy Cross remarks you allude to probably 'goaded' Met. Jonah at the time, but a more seasoned hierarch probably would have been more diplomatic.
  Met. Jonah wasn't and isn't yet a more seasoned hierarch.  Not a criticism, just a fact. That said, I'm not sure some "good cop/bad cop" or "good patriarch-bad metropolitan" wasn't going on.

"Tit for tat" is not really a great basis for an exchange of thoughts or ideas......
At the moment, I don't think an exchange of ideas was what was needed.  The point having been made, things worked out in the follow up.  Hopefully we won't have/need a repeat.  If Abp. Demetrios had been sacked as was rumored, that would have triggered another round.
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 #149 on: August 15, 2011, 08:49:05 PM »


... they may be more indicative of your desires and predilections than anything else--I don't think that anyone is surprised at your fondness for all things Russian and particularly for the Julian calendar.


But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It was 7 years after the Russian Church Council that the pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople deliberated on a Calendar change, in 1923.

The Russian Church is by no means irrevocably committed to maintaining the Julian Calendar.

Father, I believe the Russian Church only considered the Gregorian at the 1917-1918 Council because of pressure from the Bolsheviks to adopt the Gregorian.  Despite such pressure, however, the Council decided to maintain the Julian.

See the following two posts on the subject by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, from which I have taken the below quote:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6077

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0207B&L=ORTHODOX&P=R6271


As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.

One thing which is upsetting - what Fr Alexander has revealed does undercut our previous belief in Saint Tikhon's staunch witness in the face of the Bolshevik power.  These new documents reveal that he seems to have conceded in some areas.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #150 on: August 15, 2011, 09:00:15 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.        


As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar was actually out of whack with astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 09:08:18 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #151 on: August 15, 2011, 09:03:00 PM »

One of the problems that Julius Caesar wanted to solve, was that of the calendar. The old republican calendar had twelve months that were supposed to be more or less as long as  the moon cycles. However, twelve lunar months were 355 days; the deficiency was made up by the random additions of 'intercalary' months. In Caesar's days, the calendar was seriously out of pace with the seasons. Following an advice of Cleopatra's court astronomer, he added 67 days to the year 45 BCE and introduced the modern European calendar with twelve months of 30 and 31 days. The reform is described by Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-c.120)  in chapter 59 of his Life of Julius Caesar. The translation below was made by Robin Seager.

Please go to
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t17.html
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: 37,483



« Reply #152 on: August 15, 2011, 09:03:50 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.       


As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar had actually run ahead of astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.


They both, however, are irrevocably committed to the Fathers of Nicea.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,703



« Reply #153 on: August 15, 2011, 10:26:10 PM »

The problem is that even here it indicates that there was no need for Bolsheviks to have the issue come up, as it plainly admits that the issude had come up amongst the Orthodox for decades (at least over half a century).

Often Church councils discuss issues that are of contemporary relevance due to certain teachings, movements, initiatives, and phenomena in the Church at those times.  The 16th century Councils acknowledged the inaccuracy of the Julian calendar at that time and determined to remain on the traditional Julian at that time, but the issue was only discussed because of pressure coming from the calendar reform of Pope Gregory.  The Church has for centuries understood that the traditional calendar is inaccurate astronomically, but has continued to affirm that it is nevertheless perfect liturgically, and nothing can be gained by changing the Church calendar.  The 1917-1918 Council discussed this only because the Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian as the civil calendar and pressured the Church to adopt the Gregorian as well.  The Church discussed the issue again, surveyed the previous statements made by the Orthodox Church on the subject, and again affirmed that nothing good could come from the adoption of the Gregorian.  And, alas, nothing good has come from the adoption of the New Calendar wherever this change has been made.        


As the verse from the funeral service says:  "Nothing stands immutable upon
the earth."

The Julian Calendar is itself a reform of an older calendar.  Julius Caesar
was concerned that the calendar was actually out of whack with astronomical time
by about 2 months.  So he called in a chap Sosigenes in Alexandria and,
behold, a reform took place and the "Julian" Calendar came into being.

Patriarch Saint Tikhon and the Russian Synod had calendar reform on the
agenda of the 1917 Council but the Revolution intervened.   Serbia had the
calendar proposed in 1924 by Milutin Milankovic but I think they did not
have the necessary groundswell of support to implement it.   So neither of
these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.



It seems that there was indeed an effort to reform the calendar, with the biggest impediment being posssible loss of communion with other local churches. What any switch over to a new calendard (Gregorian or Revised Julian) would require was the revision of the Churh calendar--a difficult but not impossible task. These considerations had been on the table since long before the Bolshevik Revolution and apparently Saint Tikhon was in favor. I really do not think that Father Lebedeff's argument disprove Father Ambrose's main point, that the Russian Orthodox Church was not "irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #154 on: August 16, 2011, 10:32:56 AM »

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.

I’m glad that you agree that the *unilateral* nature of the New Calendar introduction by some local churches is problematic, or not ideal.

of the innovation
a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

One definition of “innovation” is “something new or different”.  I’m sure you can agree that the New Calendar was different from the traditional Julian which had been used in the preceding centuries.  What I find most problematic about the New Calendar, though, is not its method of calculation or the shift by a certain number of days, but the unilateral nature of the change and the liturgical disunity that has resulted.  The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then, and my contention is that it is foolish to claim that New Calendar churches are being faithful to the Fathers of Nicea by celebrating the same feast on one day every year, while celebrating different feasts every other day of the year (at least aside from the few major feasts on the Paschal cycle).  I would not have a major problem with a Pan-Orthodox Council being convened and the New Calendar adopted by all local Orthodox Churches.  I just think that, as the Orthodox Church has said from the 16th century through the 19th century, such a change is just not necessary.  Post-1924, we can say that the change is not only unnecessary, it was also harmful in the schisms that resulted and have persisted to our day. 

As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.

So neither of these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.

I agree that we can’t say that the Church in Russia, or in Serbia for that matter, is “irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle.”  What I thought Fr. Alexander’s posts contradicted was the statement:

But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")

This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.

It seemed from these words that the Church in Russia was seriously considering changing to the Gregorian but the Council was cut short and a decision was not made.  I had the impression from this that the Church in Russia may have adopted the Gregorian if the Council had not been cut short.  Fr. Alexander’s account does not suggest that the Church in Russia was freely considering such a change, but rather that they were somewhat pressured by the Bolsheviks to consider such a change, and that they made a decision and the decision was not to change the calendar.  I agree that this does not mean the New Calendar will never be adopted in Russia or Serbia or elsewhere, though from the response of Jerusalem to the 1923 Congress, it seemed that Jerusalem may be irrevocably committed to the traditional Julian because a calendar change would throw a monkey wrench in the long standing arrangements made with the Roman Catholics and Armenians regarding who uses what churches when.  I think that if even one local church cannot adopt the New Calendar for serious reasons, then all should return to the Old. 
 

Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #155 on: August 16, 2011, 10:38:46 AM »

^I can live with the status quo on the calendar issue. I have always believed that the old calendarists' main arguments are best successful on an emotional level, while the new calendar proponents present the more reasoned, intellectual argument. To hold out hope that the new calendar churches will return to the old is to hope for the impossible. Not going to happen. We just have to live with it and move on to more serious issues.
Logged
Marc1152
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,660


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #156 on: August 16, 2011, 03:07:10 PM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,313



« Reply #157 on: August 16, 2011, 03:09:37 PM »

The Old Believer Plain Chant does not make the service any longer. 

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
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: 37,483



« Reply #158 on: August 16, 2011, 04:18:09 PM »

which, while not canonically justifiable, are nevertheless understandable considering the unilateral nature

not crazy about that myself.

I’m glad that you agree that the *unilateral* nature of the New Calendar introduction by some local churches is problematic, or not ideal.

of the innovation
a return to the Fathers is never an innovation.

One definition of “innovation” is “something new or different”.  I’m sure you can agree that the New Calendar was different from the traditional Julian which had been used in the preceding centuries.

Not really.  When the Julian calendar was instituted, it was based on the most accurate astronomical calculations available, and when the Church adopted the Paschalion of Alexandria-the Julian calendar was not adopted, nor was it in common use in Alexandria and much less in the rest of Egypt-she did so for the same reasons. So it was different from the "traditional Julian" calendar as the "traditional Julian" calendar had deviated from its foundations.

What I find most problematic about the New Calendar, though, is not its method of calculation or the shift by a certain number of days, but the unilateral nature of the change and the liturgical disunity that has resulted.

I'm more worried about the high handed enforcement in some areas-guns should have never been involved, for instance.  As to liturgical disunity, I'm less worried about that as it is something that had been around in the early centuries-Theophany and Christmas were on different dates in different Churches, it seems into the eve of the conquests of the caliphs. Indeed, Armenian still retains the older system.  Of course, that can always be remedied.

The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then, and my contention is that it is foolish to claim that New Calendar churches are being faithful to the Fathers of Nicea by celebrating the same feast on one day every year, while celebrating different feasts every other day of the year (at least aside from the few major feasts on the Paschal cycle).
 
The New Calendar calculates the equinox on the equinox, as did the Fathers at Nicea.

I would not have a major problem with a Pan-Orthodox Council being convened and the New Calendar adopted by all local Orthodox Churches.
The majority of which have already adopted the New Calendar.
I just think that, as the Orthodox Church has said from the 16th century through the 19th century, such a change is just not necessary. 
I'll go with the Orthodox Church of the 4th century.

Post-1924, we can say that the change is not only unnecessary, it was also harmful in the schisms that resulted and have persisted to our day.
Not in Alexandria and Antioch it hasn't.

As Bishop Tikhon has noted nothing of what Fr Alexander has written contradicts what either he or I have said.
So neither of these Old Calendar Churches could be said to be irrevocably committed to the
Old Calendar on principle.
I agree that we can’t say that the Church in Russia, or in Serbia for that matter, is “irrevocably committed to the Old Calendar on principle.”  What I thought Fr. Alexander’s posts contradicted was the statement:
But we might remember that it was the Russian Orthodox Church which was the first Orthodox Church to seriously consider changing to the Gregorian Calendar (at that time there was no thought of a "Revised Julian.")
This topic was on the agenda of the Russian Great Council of 1917.   The Council was cut short by the Revolution and the Calendar topic (as well as deaconesses) had no time for deliberation.
It seemed from these words that the Church in Russia was seriously considering changing to the Gregorian but the Council was cut short and a decision was not made.  I had the impression from this that the Church in Russia may have adopted the Gregorian if the Council had not been cut short.  Fr. Alexander’s account does not suggest that the Church in Russia was freely considering such a change, but rather that they were somewhat pressured by the Bolsheviks to consider such a change, and that they made a decision and the decision was not to change the calendar.  I agree that this does not mean the New Calendar will never be adopted in Russia or Serbia or elsewhere, though from the response of Jerusalem to the 1923 Congress, it seemed that Jerusalem may be irrevocably committed to the traditional Julian because a calendar change would throw a monkey wrench in the long standing arrangements made with the Roman Catholics and Armenians regarding who uses what churches when.  I think that if even one local church cannot adopt the New Calendar for serious reasons, then all should return to the Old. 
Like the Quartodecimanists?

Jerusalem keeps up its present policies, there will be nothing left of it to hold to the Old Calendar.

As I posted before, the Russian Church desiring to reform the calendar precedes the Bolsheviks, e.g. 1900:
Just came across this. Since the Mother of All Calendar Threads is closed, I opened this one.
Quote
PROPOSED REFORMATION OF THE CALENDAR BY THE RUSSIAN ASTRONOMERS.

IN a late issue of the Russian Orthodox American Messenger we find the following:

"The revision of the Julian Calendar. (A report by Professor Glasenapp, published in the 'Novoye Vremia'.)"

The Russian Astronomical Society appointed a special commission, containing representatives of the different state departments and scientific societies, to examine into the question of the revision of the Julian calendar. This commission appointed Professor Glasenapp to make a report of the results of their conferences. The professor in his report gives the following reasons for a reformation: First. "The Julian calendar in use in Russia is a heathen one. The light of Christianity never touched it at all."

Second. That its intercalation is incorrect to the extent of one day in 128 years.

Third. That the Gregorian calendar is also imperfect in allowing three days in 400 years for the accumulated error in the Julian, instead of three days in 384 years (3 x 128).

Fourth. That the dates of the calendar should be so changed as to have the date of the vernal equinox conform to the date on which it fell at the birth of Christ, namely, the 23d of March....
....http://books.google.com/books?id=T0EQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA757&dq=Russian+American+Orthodox++messenger&hl=en&ei=qneLTe3lKIPVgAfUrP27DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Russian%20American%20Orthodox%20%20messenger&f=false

The Russian American Orthodox Messenger was the offiicial organ of the Archdiocese of North America under Abp. (then Patriarch of Moscow) St. Tikhon, edited by St. Alexander Hotovitsky, and approved by the Russian Censor (which, it appears, was St. Alexis Toth).
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
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 958


« Reply #159 on: August 16, 2011, 04:49:55 PM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.
No, Prostopinje chant has nothing to do with Russia & it does not make the services longer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #160 on: August 16, 2011, 10:57:45 PM »

.....the liturgical disunity that has resulted.  The whole purpose of coming to an agreement at the Council of Nicea regarding the calculation of Pascha was that all churches would celebrate this Feast of Feasts together on the same day.  It was this liturgical unity that was most important then,

I do not find this argument from liturgical disunity very solid.

We think back to the chaos and liturgical disunity which resulted from the time of the schism with Rome.    There were several centuries when some Churches counted Rome as being in schism while other Churches continued to be in  liturgical unity with Rome and even the last Liturgy in Agia Sophia was concelebrated by Greek and Latin priests!! . This was 400 years (!!!) after what we consider the official date of the great Schism.   This odd situation was transient - some Churches in liturgical unity with Rome and some in schism-  and it did not destroy the liturgical unity among the Eastern Churches.

In the same way the calendrical disunity has not destroyed the liturgical unity among the Eastern Churches. The three Churches which have not moved to the New Calendar, Jerusalem, Russia and Serbia, still enjoy a common liturgical life with all the New Calendar Churches.

Just as the major break with Rome took centuries to percolate through the Churches, so too the major break with the Julian Calendar will take a little time.  And after all, we are speaking only of a short period so far, of 80 years.  In the life of the Church that is a blink of an eye and the Church will have no problem living with it for decades, or even centuries. to come.




Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 808

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #161 on: August 16, 2011, 11:00:53 PM »

"Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use?"

No, the Old Believers and Old Ritualist parishes use the Znamenny chant that was common in most of Russia before the reforms.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,245


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #162 on: August 17, 2011, 09:52:00 AM »

Btw, are there any liturgical differences between ROCOR and OCA. I guess ROCOR has more Slavonic but is there anything else?
The type of Slavonic for one: ROCOR it is Russian/Moscow recension, the OCA Carpatho-Russian.

ROCOR sort of takes as its model Russia as they remember (or nostralgize) it.  The OCA takes an idealized Russia too, but coming at it from what is looked down as provincial practice.  ACROD arose from those who refused to give up their "provincial" practice and be Russified.  I don't know, for instance, if plain Prostopinje chant is heard in ROCOR, but it is heard (and in some areas, regaining popularity) in the OCA.

Isnt the "plain chant" what the Old Believers use? Doesnt it make the service much longer.. Oh good let's do that.

It doesn't make the services longer and there are a few common points with the Old Believer style of znamenny. This makes sense given the history of the east Slavs and the geographic and political isolation of many sub-groups. Here is a brief history, http://www.acrod.org/ministries/music/plainchant/pchistorypt1
Logged
Tags:
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 0.575 seconds with 189 queries.