OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 06:49:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate  (Read 17906 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


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!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tikhon29605
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


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: 10,487


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!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 2,831



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: 542


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: 4,464


« 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: 4,464


« 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: 30,538


« 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

Large Marge sent me...
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: 3,443



« 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: 3,443



« 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
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 0.157 seconds with 71 queries.