Regarding the writting style: ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am well aware of the capitalization found within documents from the 1700s. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The point though is that this style is hardly normal in modern English is quite strange and looks quite forced. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully you don't try speaking in a fake English accent. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Try speaking only Koine Greek when you go to Thessaloniki.
I dont know how the Koine would go over in Thessaloniki, but I hear it is fairly well received in the Phanar.
Who? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I know of two frequent posters that belong to schismatic old calendarist groups.... so where does the "many" come from? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š There are of course some anti-chaldeans here, but they mostly stay out of this debate as it is an inter-Eastern Orthodox.
There may only be a few who belong to these groups, but there are many more who sympathize with them. And someone who sympathizes with the So-Called Genuine Orthodox Church or ROCOR is obviously going to have a less than honest and positive view of His All-Holiness.
There are a few from ROCOR here - but they are in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem and the MP doesn't consider them schismatics... and the vast majority here belong to SCOBA jurisdictions.
Well, I guess what I've been saying hasn't gotten through. Serbia and Jerusalem should not, on their own, recognize ROCOR, it improper and a Canonical Violation. But because of Economy and concern for the Church as a whole, the Patriarchate has not pushed the Issue.
Re: Old Rome vs. New Rome... they had equal authority - which doesn't give Saint Photios justification for severing communion with legitimate Papal authority (assuming your ecclesiology is the ecclesiology of the Church).
Actually, I would submit that that was within the rights of St. Photios as Oecumenical Patriarch. New Rome was the Imperial See, New Rome was Oecumenical Patriarch and the President of the Oecumenical Synods. Old Rome had a priority of honour because she was the First of the Imperial Sees, but Administratively, Constantinople had and has Primacy of Authority, because she has been Recognized as the Imperial See by Chalcedon.
ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š That being said St. Mark of Ephesus should have signed the union documents out of obedience to his Patriarch, Saint Maximos should have remained in union with Constaninople's heretics and the Orthodox should have remained in communion with the icon smashers - yet these were all glorified saints precisely because they did the exaxt opposite.
You believe the Oecumenical Throne to be in Heresy? If she is in Heresy then she can be corrected. I have made this point before, BUT if your posistion is not supported by an authoritive synod, and if the Patriarch is not Anathematized by either an Oecumenical Synod or the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, it is you who shall justly be condemned for the crime of which you falsely accused the Oecumenical Throne...it is you who are subject to anathema. If the Patriarch is not Convicted of Heresy (and even if one does not support her actions, to make the step from actions being unhelpful, damaging, or even unorthodox to being heretical and hence making the Patriarch subject to Anathema, is a significant step), those who oppose her and break communion with her, are either Schismatics or Heretics, in both cases diserving of Anathema, though out of mercy and by economy such a severe justice can be withheld.
So basicly you have a few relatively recent commentaries on a canon to justify an extreme papal positions for Constantinople, and you think that should outweigh the numerous saints whose lives contradict that? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The many that you consider schismatics (the monastic elders that I name for instance) have been luminaries of the Church in this era, leading many people to scantity. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully when you go to Thessaloniki you will have the chance to spend some time on the Holy Mountain to appreciate the role of monasticism in the Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Or better yet since Souroti is on the city bus system you can go to the monastery of Saint John and tell the nuns there that Elder Paisios was a schismatic. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I'm sure they'll appreciate it - maybe you could even go to the relics of Saint John the Russian and tell him that he is a schismatic for turning away when Patriarch Meletios tried to venerate him!
No one's perfect, perhaps these Elders would have done well to learn Humility and Obedience as well as Piety and Rhetoric.
Being this site is pan-Orthodox it would probably not be a good idea as an administrator to allow people to keep calling Old Calendarists schismatic without comment but since I am an Old Calendarist sympathizer any action I would actually take in this direction would just likely look like I am pushing my own agenda so be nice
I have a hard time understanding how someone who breaks with their Bishop or how a Bishop who Breaks with their Metropolitan is not a Schismatic. Perhaps I am harder on them than many are, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople hardly receives a great deal of respect either; and all of Orthodoxy Recognizes his Canonicity (apart from teh aforementioned fringe groups).
On a personal note, I find it interesting that GisC believes the Phanar is right and so is obedient to it, and I believe the Pharar is wrong and believe that I should NOT be obedient to it, whereas Silouan is stuck beleiving the Phanar has authority that he must submit to even though he completely disagrees with it. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š While each of us has decided his course, I wonder in 20 years who will still be on the same course and who won't, purely from a human interest. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Will I be able to maintain my ecclesiastical allegiance given its difficulty? Will Silouan be able to stay submissive to the Ecumenist patriarch of Constantinople? And will GisC still be happy with the Phanar or eventually become disillusioned if things don't go his way and his high ideals prove unworkable? Who knows. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe in 20 years we can rehash this thread
We are all fairly young, and with age generally comes moderation...I'm sure we'll all gravitate closer to each other, yet still remain decidedly apart (unless one or more of us undergoes a significant conversion
Out of curiosity are the academic standards of Holy Cross so low that you could turn in a paper that violates most the rules of modern English capitalization?
Yes, mind you I also got away with that in Undergraduate School, though I had extended debates on the Issue with various Professors. With that said, there are some Professors who insist on my using Modern gramatical styles, for them I generally oblige, but these professors are few and far between. Others believe me to be strange and eccentric, but most tend to ignore it as it is not a significant issue if it is not an English Writing course.