| Author |
 Topic  |
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2010 : 09:36:21
|
quote:
If we are to be strictly canonical about this, we must immediately submit ourselves to Moscow, since it was Moscow that had canonical authority over the Americas, despite the Greeks' arrogant refusal to recognize this. Only after the Bolshevik Revolution did the Patriarchate of Constantinople try to claim exclusive authority over the Americas.
This is actually not entirely the whole picture. It is true that the Russian Church had bishops in the Americas presiding over churches, and had cannonical authority to do so, but there where in fact many other Orthodox churches being set up around the same time, and ever since, in the United states of different jurisdictions that where not Russian or under Russian authority. These parishes simply did not have Bishops in this country. It's not accurate to say that any jurisdiction has a true claim. There has never been true jurisdictional unity in this country.
In any case we are not going to progress in this issue with a Greek vs Russian type discussion. I'm also not going to tollerate whole jurisdictions being insulted. No one created this situation by any type of conspiracy or anything. It just happened because a whole bunch of people where coming to this country and setting up Churches at the same time.
One could easily argue that the political issues are contributing to the inability of anyone to solve the problems. We really have to deal with the situation we have now instead of engaging in some sort of fantasy about who has a "right" to the US
|
 |
|
|
mainecooncrazy
Starting Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 09:43:37
|
| I hope that doesn't cause division, I hope everyone can just work together for unity... I have been through too many church splits in evangelicalism in my life, it's part of what attracts me to Orthodox. The earth is the LORD'S, and the fullness... no need to fight over territory that is not really ours. |
|
|
|
grengliman
Senior Member
USA
1053 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 11:50:24
|
Yes, but the situation must be dealt with. The way the US stands now violates multiple Orthodox Canons. How much longer can we (American Orthodox) exist under the veil of holy economy?
SCOBA does not have the authority to deal with the multiple problems stemming from the un-canonical situation--for example a person being excommunicated from one Jurisdiction and being received in good standing by another down the road (this does happen).
Either new canons to regulate the situation must be created to continue multiple ethnic Patriarchate's administrations or unity under one Patriarchate. I prefer the former, I believe the latter will hurt the Church and hinder the salvation of many of its members. |
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 19:25:34
|
| It isn't going to cause further division. The status quo would be better than division so I wouldn't worry about it. I think there are many possible solutions, we should be open to all of them in any kind of discussion. Then we can rule out the worst of the idea or the idea that cause the most conflict. Then we see what's left on the table. |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 08:10:02
|
On reflection, I think that we need to understand that even though there is jurisdictional irregularity (and this not just an American problem, but a problem in all the "new worlds" where ethnic minorities have migrated to), this has not in anyway divided the sacramental unity of the Church. And before all the Old Calendarists or the ultra-purists jump on me (!  ), realise this, that at the very core (irrespective of calendars) the Orthodox Church maintains unity sacramentally through Holy Communion which is celebrated at each Divine Liturgy throughout the whole world.
Shawn is right. The earth (and the whole of creation - including the Church) is God's.
We shouldn't be fighting over this or that. Perhaps, within the fullness of time a solution will be provided by God in accordance with his Divine Providence. What we need to do is be patient and stay faithful until all issues are worked out for us. In time, God will illumine us as to what to do, that is for sure. |
Edited by - Yiorgos75 on 03/02/2010 08:13:52 |
|
|
|
alexey
Junior Member
Russia
104 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 11:18:08
|
| Old calendarists, ultra-purists you say? George, all these canonical Konstantinopol's innovations were allowed to please God or to please a man, say human weaknesses, human passions? Why, for instance, the Jerusalem Church did not do the same, eh? One may ask, can anyone guarantee that Holy Fire will come down again if they change anything in canons? |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 18:56:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexey
Old calendarists, ultra-purists you say? George, all these canonical Konstantinopol's innovations were allowed to please God or to please a man, say human weaknesses, human passions? Why, for instance, the Jerusalem Church did not do the same, eh? One may ask, can anyone guarantee that Holy Fire will come down again if they change anything in canons?
Alexey, was man made for the Sabbath or the Sabbath made for man?
Can anyone deny the holiness of such recent luminaries of the Orthodox Church such as Father Porphyrios, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria, Father Ioannichie, Father Iakovos Tsalikis, Father Philotheos Zervakos of Paros, Mother Gavrilia...and the list goes on. Do you know what all of these people had in common? They all worshipped under the NEW CALENDAR.
Time and calendars (in some way) are irrelevant to God. Time is a contruct for man's benefit which sets for him the cycle of worship of God. For example, was our Lord really born on 25 December? Did the Annunciation really occur on 25 March? I think we can say that the answer is, probably not. But what is important is that those days, through Divine Providence were revealed to us through Holy Tradition and are venerated as the appropriate days of worship. Let's not forget that for at least the first 4 centuries of Orthodoxy, the Church worshipped the Birth and Baptism of our Lord on the same day. The Calendar, however, was changed for Providential reasons and now we have two separate days of veneration and worship.
I don't think that we can say that things are rigidly static. Whether we like it or not, Tradition changes (ever so slowly) over time. What mustn't change is the Dogma and the Truth and the worship.
For example, it matters little whether (like in the old days) people received communion by the priest dipping the Body into the Blood and communing people directly into the mouth or whether they (like today) give us communion with the Spoon. What matters is that we receive communion. If we take the "ultra-purist" view of the world, then even the smallest departure from tradition is to be condemned and given the ancient tradition of the church communion typikon (as noted above) this would mean that no modern Orthodoxy person is receiving communion correctly. Surely, that cannot be the case. If it is, then we are no better than Jews who bind themselves under ritual observance and the vagaries of the Law.
As far as innovations by Constantinople are concerned, I must confess that I am ignorant of such "innovations", nor am I aware of any such amendments to the canons or significant departure. Can anyone tell me when and where the Greek Church has preached a Christ or Dogma other than what is professed by the whole Orthodox Church?
Your comment about the Holy Fire is irrelevant. It has nothing to do about Calendars. |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2010 : 19:09:26
|
Does anyone need these passions during Lent?
|
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 01:45:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by macacic
Does anyone need these passions during Lent?
Michael, completely agreed. In truth, I have tried not to respond in a manner which would come across as angered or offensive. I suppose that the most dangerous thing about the internet is that when you write, you cannot convey the texture of what you are trying to say as readily as if you were speaking those words.
In all honesty, I ask forgiveness from anyone who may have been offended by what I may have written, it was certainly not written with the intention of offense but rather, frank and open discussion. |
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 08:28:36
|
| Yiorgos I found your post helpful on a couple of points. I agree that calendar discussions are largely not productive. |
|
|
|
Aristokles
Average Member
USA
931 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 13:38:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by parascheva1014
Yiorgos I found your post helpful on a couple of points. I agree that calendar discussions are largely not productive.
Indeed! In fact, if I continue to follow alexey's anti-Constantinople diatribe I will be forced to become an Old Believer Russian myself! <wink> |
|
|
|
alexey
Junior Member
Russia
104 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 17:51:33
|
Well, and I am giving up right away! ;-)
At the same time let me disagree that these cases are comparable somehow. The reform you are talking about was a reverence from Patriarch-philohellenist Nikon to conform with the contemporary (in those days) Greek Orthodox Charter. In contrast, calendar distortion is a reverence to whom? and what for? What is that secret motivation?
List of Ecumenical Patriarchs of Konstantinople who explicitly decried the Roman (new) calendar as hostile to the Orthodox East.
Cyril I Lucaris (1612, 1620-1623, 1623-1633, 1634-1635)
Parthenius I (1639-1644)
Callinicus II ( 1688-1693, 1694-1702;)
Paisius II (1726-1732)
Cyril V (1748-1757)
Agathangelus I (1826-1830)
Gregory VI (1835-1840)
Anthimus VI (1845-1848, 1855)
Just as an example, words from the anti-new-calendarist Epistle (year 1756) of Patriarch Cyril V:
"Would it be priest or layman, let him be excommunicated from God, cursed after his death, not decomposed and shell he abide in eternal torment..."
Don't get me wrong, of course I don't think that new-calendarist should be burned by the fire, not at all, this information is just for your knowledge. |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 20:25:41
|
Alexey, I completely agree with the list of Patriarchs that you have quoted and am fully aware of what was written. And trust me when I say (and as if I have to prove myself!) that I am probably more anti-ecumenist that you can possibly think. Being pro-ecumenism has nothing to with calendars and everything to do with mindset. I have met Russian priests in a Russian church who active commune Oriental Orthodox. I have never seen such a thing in a G.O.A of Australia church...but that is beside the point.
Surely, to make wholesale amendments to the Calendar is a grievous matter however, let it also be remembered howver that "there where the Bishop is, so is the Church". We fail to recognise that each and every Bishop within the Orthodox world has immense power. For example, if it is a fasting day, however a local Bishop (say of Chicago!) decides that for some great reason (for example, because God has saved that City from a particular danger miraculously) the Bishop decides that the particular day is to be a day of celebration and honour and no fasting is to occur on that day, then the Canons specifically allow the Bishop to do this. Now, on the face of it, such an action on the part of the Bsihop is anti-Tradition and on a strict reading the Bishop should be excommunicated, yet the Canons allow such a thing to occur. Why would the Church Fathers allow such flexibility? Please note that I am not advocating wholsesale change! Heaven forbid!
The other strange thing is this, do you go to Church on the Sunday of the the new calendar? If so, do you realise that it is actually not a Sunday worship that you are engaged in ecclesiatiscally but a Saturday worship? The Julian Calendar is out by 13 days, so if you really wanted to worship on a Sunday you'd have to go to Church on Monday...and then the cycle would eventually degenerate until you were having Sunday services on everyday of the week. To me, this just doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 20:31:27
|
| Sometimes I wish I could toss a bucket of cold water right across the Internet. |
|
|
|
ICXCNIKA
Starting Member
27 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 20:57:12
|
| All I can say it that we must agree to disagree. I personally will never be under the EP. I know many others that feel the same way. That's not to say others are not being taken care in Dioceses under its Jurisdiction. I just have real differences with it on many points. Also saying that the russian Patriarchate is just for russians is ok but the EP is only the EP because they say so. The universal church never gave the Archbishop of Constantinople that Title in fact St john the Faster was rebuked by the Orthodox Pope of Rome for using it and he repented and never used it again in his life. And the Russian Church as I believe almost all the slavic churches only recognize it as a historical title having more to do with the Turkocratia than anything. No one denies that he is the first among EQUALS but the idea that he has jurisdiction over the diaspora or that there is even such a thing as a diaspora is a contested point. As to whether we should wait to have autocephaly (which is a moot point since the OCA already has it and it cannot be taken away)When constantinople received autocephaly it was in much the same shape. A young church and yes there were still pagans at that time within its patriarchate. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Orthodox Unity...
