Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly

4,952 bytes removed, 19:51, March 22, 2011
no edit summary
: I also agree with your observations on the POV sentence. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 16:53, May 18, 2008 (UTC)
== Church Formal Position ==In hopes that this may provide a bit of focus in this discussion:No matter how much you all discuss these matters, you MUST follow the churches *Remember that article titles are not to make some sort of statement or represent anyone'''formal''' terminologies otherwise (a) You DO NOT represent s official position.*Article titles should use the Chalcedonean Church most common term in English-speaking Orthodoxy (as your core objectives statewith some allowance made for extremely common usages outside Orthodoxy in certain cases) and (b) you are .*The point in breach of the formal approach of titling articles is to help the reader find what he'''church''' - and who are all of you s looking for. An article with an obscure but "technically correct" title is less likely even to change what the church has as official? Be carefull that you all do not end up creating your OWN religion without the approvals of the church read. [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 05:00, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
== Territorial Jurisdiction According All that being said, I honestly don't think there's a single term which groups the churches in question in this article (EP, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem & Greece) all together in a way which is technically correct and yet also meaningful in terms of what they have in common (something which Fr. John Romanides terms ''Romanity'', which is a lovely term but meaningless to Orthodox Canon Lawmost readers). ''Byzantine'' is the best I can come up with, but I acknowledge that it's not accurate in all possible ways. The Phenomenon Just how '''does''' one describe with a single term those multi-ethnic, multi-national churches which share a heritage arising from a shared history in the Eastern Roman Empire and the strong liturgical influence of Ethnophyletism the typikon of the Great Church? "Mediterranean Orthodox" might work, but it's altogether a bit too fanciful and not remotely clear in Recent Years ==what it refers to.
In the ancient Church, each city had its own bishop, who What does seem to be clear is that there was the president of the eucharistic assembly and its shepherd, responsible for pastoral service in all its guises and the person who “rightly divided the word of truth”. Even small towns or places were the seats of bishops, each of whom exercised a certain episcopal jurisdiction independently of the bishop of the city. Because of the persecutions, the problematical conditions and the awkwardness of the situation for united front which opposed the Church, OCA's autocephaly when it was difficult to deftne the boundaries of each of the episcopal regions over which the bishops were to exercise thetr jurisdiction. As a result of this, confusion declared and conflict often arose within the administration of the Church, over the ordination of clerics or the dependence of presbyters on two bishops, given that there were often two bishops that front has a great deal in common. How one and describes what it is they have in common in a single term which is recognizable to the same placenon-specialist (i. When the persecution e., 99% of encyclopedia readers) is the Christian Church by question for the Roman state ceased, the legislative authority titling of the Church was able to define the boundaries within which the bishop could exercise his episcopal authority. In this way, the canonical provincial administration was formedarticle.
In the fourth and fifth centuriesPlease, the metropolitans/bishops of the Roman Empirefolks, of make sure you read the capitals of the Dioceses[[OW:SM|Style Manual]], acquired even greater power, and important ecclesiastical matters were handled in these major cities. The metropolitans of the five because it addresses most important cities of the Christian world were called Patriarchs, while the metropolitans of the smaller cities, over time, lost their complete independence, (though they retained their former title, “metropolitan”, and also their sees. The most important matters not all) of the geographical eccle-siastical region were now handled by the Patriarchal Synodarguments put forward here thus far, by which metropolitans were now elected and consecrated, and then installed by the Patriarchit does represent official OrthodoxWiki policy. The Patriarchal Synods, under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, were at first made up Policy is of the metropolitanscourse always negotiable, then later also but you'll have a lot of the bishops convincing to do of the patriarchal geographical region. The provincial metropolitan/episcopal synods under the chairmanship of the metropolitan were retained, and dealt with local provincial matters. They remained, however, under canonical dependence upon the patriarchs and their synods, in which they also participatedentire administration.
The boundaries of the patriarchates are geographical and nothing more. They are not ethnophyletic, cultural, liturgical or anything else of the sort, and were defined by Ecumenical Synods through sacred canons and ecclesiastical regulations in accordance with Christian teaching against racial discrimination, with Orthodox ecclesiology and with canon law and pastoral requirements.
Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Synod says “Let the old customs prevail as well as the later canons”, and goes on to confirm the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. “Let the ancient custom prevail which obtained in Egypt, Lybia and PentapolisAnyway, I'd be willing to allow the bishop of Alexandria settle for ''Response to have authority over all these parts, since this is also usually accorded OCA autocephaly'' with redirects from ''Byzantine response to the bishop in Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch and the other provinces, let seniority be preserved in the churches”. Thus “the bishop of Alexandria precedes those in Egypt, Lybia and the.province of Pentapolis, Africa; Antioch similarly heads Syria, Coele or Hollow Syria, Mesopotamia '' and both Cilicias''Greek Orthodox response to...” i. e. '' I don't think it's the best option—since it leaves out entirely the diocese very '''something''' ("Romanity?") which these churches share, and it also then necessitates a major reworking of the Eastarticle to include the positive responses, as well— “and but if it's the bishop of Rome is senior in the western provinces”[1]consensus favorite, I'd be willing to run with it.
The bishop of Jerusalem, because of the sacred nature of the city “through the redemptive passion of Christ”[2], was declared patriarch by the 4th Ecumenical Synod, with his jurisdiction extended to include the three provinces of Palestine, known as the “Three Palestines”[3]. So Jerusalem was senior to “the provinces in Palestine, in Arabia and in Phoenicia.. .”[4].
As PatriarchateAnd, Jerusalem occupied by the fifth placeway, ''refute'' can mean "to prove wrong by argument or evidence, after Antioch" but it also can mean "to deny the truth or accuracy of." Just because one offers a refutation does not necessarily mean one is correct. ''Rebut'' may well be better, though. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]<font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, while since the schism between East and West it has taken the fourth place in the Orthodox Church. In the case of JerusalemGaramond, tooGeorgia, the criteria applied by the 4th Ecumenical Synod for canonical jurisdictionTimes New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki- “ground” — were geographical and no more.philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 01:26, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
The Ecumenical Patriarch[6], : Really ... proving one has the Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome, occupies the first place, the primacy of honour in the canonical structure of the Orthodox Churchbiggest dictionary ... boys will be boys ... This position, as well as his canonical jurisdiction — the “ground” — have been defined by the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods, in other words by irreversible ecumenical decisions[7[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]]06:21, and their application is binding for all Orthodox.May 20, 2008 (UTC)
As regards the primacy of honour of Constantinople, this has been legislated for by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (Canon 3), the 4th (Canon 28) and the Quinisext (Canon 36). Thus: “the Throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal seniority with the throne of Older Rome, and in matters of the == Church shall be magnified as the latter, coming second after it...”[8]. Since the schism Constantinople has held the primacy of honour and of διακονια in the Orthodox Church.Formal Position == By a decision (Canon 28) which is of universal status and validity, the 4th Ecumenical Synod confirmed a long tradition and action of the Church as regards the canonical jurisdiction and the territory of the Ecumenical Throne. The geographical extent of its own ground was extended to the then administrations of the Roman Empire in Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as to the “barbarian” lands, i. e. those which were outside the boundaries of the then Roman Empire: “... only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the aforesaid Most Holy Throne of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople and likewise the bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands...”. The adjective “barbarian” defines the noun “nations”, which is omitted from the text of the canon, but which is to be inferred, as Zonaras interprets it[9]. Barbarian nations or countries are, as has been said, those provinces which lay beyond the Roman Empire at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Synod: “While it called bishoprics of the barbarians those of Alania, Russia and others”[10]. The other barbarian lands, apart from Alania and Russia, are, in general, “the Barbarians”, according to the interpretation of Aristenos of Canon 28: “... the (bishops ) of Pontus and Thrace and Asia, as well as the Barbarians, are consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople...”. According to the “Notitiae episcopatuum” (Συνταγμάτιον) bearing the name of Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912), but actually dating more or less to the llth century[11], the eparchies of South Italy, i. e. Calabria and Sicily, are also under' the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. Besides, according to the “Exposition” of Emperor Andronikos II Palaeologos (1282-1328), which was generally valid until the 19th century, No matter how much you all discuss these eparchies were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. With the passage of time, howevermatters, this dependence in fact weakened away because of you MUST follow the propinquity of these provinces to Rome and because of the impossibility of Constantinople maintaining communications with them, situated as it was within the Ottoman Empire. In the Order “of the Thrones of the Orthodox Eastern Church”, i.e. the (Συνταγμάτιον)of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the year 1855, there is no reference to these eparchies[12]. Moreover, from the 8th century, all the provinces of Eastern Illyricum, i. e. the Balkan region from the borderş of Thrace to the Adriatic, were removed from the jurisdiction of Rome and placed under the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople. churches '''The newer lands of North and South America, of Australia, the Far East and so on, and also those in general that are outside the boundaries of the local Churches as defined by the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, as well as by the Patriairchal and Synodical Tomes, are included in theory, and hence in practice, in the “other” barbarian lands, according to the general terminology of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and of the other synods. This has nothing to do with an ethnological or any other modern cultural definition, but is geographical, since they were not included, at the time of this synod, within the bounds of the then Roman Empire and were not named in the canonical sources, as were Alania or Russiaformal'''[13]. The Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople thus has canonical jurisdiction over the Orthodox in all the “barbarian” countries which constitute its geographical area and “ground”, while the exercise of its canonical rights over all the Orthodox in these countries should not in any way be considered as being“beyond the boundaries” terminologies otherwise (of its “ground”a), i. e. “υπερόριος”[14].Through Patriarchal Synodical Tomes or Acts, specific metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics which were part of the geographical area of the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople have been ceded to the newer autocephalous local Churches, in Russia, in the Balkans and beyond. After autocephaly, these autocephalous Churches acquired canonical, administrative and pastoral jurisdiction over them. Any exercise of administration or pastoral tasks by these autocephalous Churches over Orthodox outside and beyond their own defined geographical boundaries, on the basis of national, racial, linguistic or “cultural” criteria, constitutes, according to canonical exactitude, an action “beyond the boundaries” (υπερόριον) and an intrusion (εισπήδησιν) into another province, thus violating the fundamental principles of canonical jurisdiction and the tradition of You DO NOT represent the Chalcedonean Church. The history of the transmission of Christianity from Constantmople to Russia, Great and Little, (10th centuryas your core objectives state), is well known, as is the entry of this eparchy into the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. According to the “Notitiae episcopatuum”, i. e. the constitutional record of metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics subject “to the Patriarch of Constantinople”, referred to commonly by the name of Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912b), though in fact dating from the llth century, the Metropolis of Russia (Kiev) occupied the 61st position[15]. Twelve bishops you are subject to this Metropolis in Great Russia (Novgorod, Chernigov, Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir, Chmelniskii, Byelgorod the Great, close to Kiev, Yurief, Polotsk, Riazan, Tver, and Sarai). Likewise, under the Metropolitan of Kiev there are seven bishops in Little Russia (Western Region) (Galicia, Volynia, Peremysl, Putsk, Turof, Cholm and Smolensk). The Metropolis of Kiev (Russia), under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, had geographical boundaries which cover Great and Little Russia, in accordance with the canonical order, so that, without distinction, the people living in this area could be served evangelically, administratively and pastorally. Historical developments and events brought changes as regards the seat breach of this metropolis and its geographical boundaries until the political and ecclesiastical centre was stabilized at Moscow. When Moscow became the dominant power in the region, its bishop was recognized as the Metropolitan formal approach of Russia. In the year 1459, because of the difficultieş in communication between Moscow and Constantinople following the capture of the latter by the Ottomans (1453), the Metropolitan of Russia was made independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch as regards his election, while the see was divided into two: the Metropolis of Moscow and that of Kiev. In the year 1588, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II, went to Moscow, where he agreed to elevate the Metropolis of Moscow to the rank of Patriarchate and, under pressure, ordained (sic) Job, the Metropolitan of Moscow, as Patriarch on 26 January, 1589. An Endemousa Synod was called in Constantinople by Jeremiah to ratify what had taken place in Moscow. This was called again, in 1593, at the wish of the Tzar, so that one of its participants could be Meletios Pegas, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had reacted against these developments. The synod ratified the elevation of the Metropolis of Moscow to the status of Patriarchate, which was to occupy the fifth position in the Diptychs, i. e. after the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Moscow was to be elected by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Moscow. According to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act of this Endemousa Synod: “the throne of the most venerable and Orthodox city of Moscow is and shall be called Patriarchate' ... and all Russia and the Far''church''' -NorthernTerritories shall be subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and who are all Russia... It has its place after His Beatitude of Jerusalem in the sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical gatherings, and so we have firmly retained the canons previously formulated by the holy Fathers.. .it is the head of this region of Moscow and all Russia and the Far-Northern territories and shall be recognized as such in accordance with canon 34 of the holy and all-praised Apostles...”[16]. Thus, according you to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act founding the Patriarchate of Moscow, ratifying change what had taken place in Moscow (1589) under Patriarch Jeremiah II, the Patriarch of Moscow, fifth in rank in the Diptychs after Jerusalem, church has canonical jurisdiction over Moscow, as its bishop, and as the first in all Russia and the Far-Northern Territories of Moscow within the Russian realm. Ţhe Patriarchate of Moscow, as a local Church, and according to the official ecclesiastical Acts regarding its foundation, also has canonical jurisdiction, with geographical boundaries and geographical limits, and thus conforms to the canonical teaching and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Its canonical jurisdiction- its “ground”- extends to “the whole of Russia”, i. e. as was mentioned earlier, within the boundaries of the Russian realm, not beyond it. It follows ? Be carefull that its “missionary ground” also extends to the boundaries of its officially-defined expanse and lies within the boundaries of the Russian realm, you all do not outside it. Missionary work conducted outside end up creating your OWN religion without the geographical boundaries approvals of the canonical jurisdiction of local Churches by their members or in their name is uncanonical and ecclesiologically unacceptablechurch . It can be regarded as canonical and ecclesiologically acceptable only if preceded by an invitation from a local Church to specific missionaries from other local Churches, who would, without fail, come under the local canonical bishop during the course of their mission. They would commemorate only the name of the local bishop during services and would carry out their missionary and pastoral work solely in the name of the local bishop, so that this work would be canonical, pure and beyond reproach. Otherwise it is an intervention “beyond the borders” (“υπερόριος”) and an “intrusion” (“εισπήδησις”) into another province, which is specifically forbidden by the sacred canons and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 05: “Let no bishop dare confer ordinations outside his own boundaries00, in cities and territories not subject to him. If he be proved to have done so against the wishes of those having possession of those cities or territories, let him be deposed, as well as those whom he has ordained”[17]. “Let no bishop dare to go from one province to another and ordain anyone in church... unless invited to come by letter from the metropolitan and other bishops of the territory into which he is going. Should anyone so go without invitation and irregularly ordain someone in violation of the order of the things in the church... anything performed by him is invalid. He himself shall incur a suitable punishment for his irregular behaviour and his unreasonable enterpriseMay 19, having already been deposed from office by the holy Synod” 2008 (Canon 13 of the Synod in AntiochUTC)[18].
Thus: With all respect, according Vasiliki, what are you talking about? Do you really believe that trying to come up with useful titles for encyclopedia articles which may happen to Orthodox canonical teaching and ecclesiology, “each differ from official nomenclature is a betrayal of Orthodoxy? A different religion? (Not to mention that the patriarchs should be content with his own privileges and not seize any official names of those of another eparchy, since from various churches have changed over the beginning it is not under his hand. For this is conceit in secular power...”[19].centuries!)
: In any event, I cannot see how it would be even remotely useful to have an article entitled '''This canonical order Response of the ChurchEcumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, based on ecclesiological dogmatic conditions''', i.e. on ţhe teaching concerning New Rome; the Church, its structures, its bishops, its work, its jurisdiction Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and so on '''is its official All Africa; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and unshakable position. It is based on Holy Scripture, All the sacred canons and East; the decisions Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Ecumenical Synods, which''', as expressions the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine; and the infallibility Orthodox Church of Greece to the Church, '''are obligatory for all autocephaly of the local Orthodox Churches'Church in America (sic)''. Besides Heck, the Orthodox Catholic Churchwhy stop there? Shouldn't we be giving those titles in Katherevousa and Arabic, despite its administrative decentralization is still, oneif we want to be really accurate? Forgive my somewhat exaggerated and incredulous language here, with common faith and dogma. The same sacraments sanctify within but it, seems to be the only appropriate way to answer a near-accusation of heresy being tossed out for the same synodical canons regulate matters heinous sin of its life and order within it.titling articles!
The Church was revealed by God : All that aside, it is [[OrthodoxWiki:Frequently_Asked_Questions#This_article_is_wrong.21_Fix_it.21|explicitly ''against'' OrthodoxWiki policy]] for editorial control of the wiki to be placed in the world through Jesus Christ for the salvation of all people and hands of ecclesiastical authorities, mainly because they sometimes differ from one another or even from the world truth itself! Please, regardless of raceVasiliki,and not let us use common sense. Full ecclesiastical titles are too unwieldy to serve political or personal ambitions or other secular pursuits use as article titles in many cases, and opportunistic goalsthis is one of them. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3. The Church is not Russian or Greek, Serbian or Rumanian and so on, but the Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, in RussiaGaramond, in SerbiaGeorgia, in Rumania and so onTimes New Roman">Fr. The boundaries of the local Churches are geographical and were defined not with national and racial criteria, but with administrative onesAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, followingGaramond, in generalGeorgia, the civil administrative divisions of the Times New Roman Empire ">(Saint Photios'''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 01:08, in order to provide the best pastoral care for the people of GodMay 20, irrespective of race, to bring them to salvation in Christ.2008 (UTC)
[[Ethnophyletism]] is a phenomenon which arose at Dont jump down my throat and assume that I am asking for you to use the end of term Greek Orthodox or to use LONG extensive titles but cant you all keep it simple and perhaps rephrase the 18th and entire sentence to keep the 19th centuries, a product conflict out of the Enlightenment article and the French revolution. It was the new political theory, on the basis endless pages of discussions which were created the nation states of Europe, end up being confusing in themselves? Byzantine is not a correct term to use (full stop) and, in particular, those of the Balkan peninsula. This theory OCA is, alas, still being applied in now within the Balkans today, with its familiar disastrous consequences on church so why you guys have endless pages of discussion is beyond my understanding ... perpaps give it a date? Something like "Response to the lives of OCA 1200-1500" (I dont know what the people period of the region time that you guys are referring to ... and on peace.I am more than happy for you to call me an idiot one more time! Foolishness is a great quality! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:37, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
The idea of “the nation” in the historical sources, You are also wrong in the lives of ordinary people and in the formation of states before the 18th century, i.e. before the French revolution, did not assuming that I have the ethnophyletic meaning which is attributed asked you to it today. In antiquity and until the 18th/19th centuries, “the nation” was defined by religion and culture, not by race. This was the politico-religious theory of the Persians, of the Ancient Greeks, of the pagan Romans and also of the Christian Romans (Byzantines), as well as of the Jews (as it still is give control to this day), and of the Muslims. When the latter, Arabs first and then later the Ottomans, conquered Roman (“Byzantine”) countries and territories, they applied an administration “by nations” (millet), i. eEcclesiastical body. by religious communitiesHowever, not by race. The religious leaders of since this site is representing the communities within the Muslim states were also ethnarchs of these communities. So church I am suggesting that we should still observe the Ecumenical Patriarch formalities of Constantinople was also the ethnarch of the Orthodox Christian “nation” within the Ottoman Empire, irrespective of race or language, as were the other patriarchs, metro-politans and other bishops locallychurch. The Sultan/Caliph was the ethnarch of the Muslims, irrespective of the particular race, and so on[20[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]. The ideas of the French revolution (1789) and of the Enlightenment created, as has been said, a new political theory, which ignored religion or culture as elements shaping communities and administrative units. States were now formed according to this dominant theory, on the basis of ethnophyletic criteria — either those already in existence or, mainly, those invented by means of politics or propaganda — with all the melancholy consequences we know today (ethnic cleansing and so on). Of course, for Christ and His Church, “there is neither Jew nor Greek... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3, 28).
To I also want to point out that I am not a great extent, then, the politics of nationality which was dominant political person who has certain 'bias' towards any particular church and even though I am Greek please do not go assuming everytime I post an opinion that I am a pro-Nationalist Greek and respond in the 19th century created the nation states of Europe, and particularly those of the Balkan Peninsulaa manner that clearly shows that that is what you think I am thinking. I dont have agendas I am not smart enough for that ... An immediate consequence of this was the dissection I just am interested in South-Eastern Europe reminding people of the Orthodox Catholic Church, the unified task of which underwent considerable external transformationhumility and humility includes not going overboard on certain topics that are not within our right to 'define'. The most significant points of evolution were[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 02:03, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
:1. the creation of national Churches And here, I thought it was my own throat whichhad ''your'' boot-tread firmly planted within it, for a certain time were alienated from each other, andwhat with that near-accusation of heresy! :)
:2Anyway, I don't make any of those assumptions. I assume that you are editing in good faith and trying to do what you believe is best for the gradual entry into wiki. Me, too! I try my best not to let my own ecclesiastical loyalties dominate my editing. I do have a fierce loyalty to the East English language, though, which I think is probably a useful thing in writing an encyclopedia in English. In the case of an encyclopedia in English about Orthodoxy, one of a secular English's most useful traits (profaneIMO) spirit andis its longstanding tradition of assimilating terms from multiple languages. This makes finding the best terminology a somewhat more complicated task, particularlythough, of individual Liberalism, based on intellectual currents imported from especially since Orthodoxy hasn't been in English (in the West[21]modern era) for very long.
Those who were informed with this spirit of ethnophyletism collaborated with foreign political powers and were moved : Anyway, please try not to declare be disturbed by the arbitrary autocephaly lengthy wrangling over terminology. Writing an encyclopedia is much like writing a dictionary&mdash;figuring out the best terminology is going to be one of churches in Greece its main occupations. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">(1833'''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:49, Rumania (1865)May 20, Bulgaria 2008 (1870UTC) and Albania (1922-1928-1937). The Church of Serbia displayed a different and more peaceful spirit.
It Hi Father, I do not accuse you of heresy ... no way, it is a fact that the then Great Powers had planned the dissolution common in christian history for good christian's to have different points of the ailing Ottoman Empire view without either party actually being heretical ... I dont feel you are heretical and its restriction I know I am not heretical ... My point was not against you personally, all I did was post a long article to Asia, remind everyone in this forum that though it is a good thing to be creating an Encyclopedia ... we should be '''careful''' when adopting or changing terminology that is not approved by the restoration of formal church. The internet has the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which could have proved power to over-ride reality and each Wiki Editor '''must''' take care to remind themselves that once something is documented it becomes a competitor '''pseudo-reality''' to their economic and political interests in the Balkans and people who read the information ... we therefore must be loyal to what our paternal fathers have passed down in the Eastern Mediterraneantradition. On I therefore agree with Seminarist in the basis of sence that the prevailing political theory of ethnophyletism, they preferred the creation of small, weak states which would be dependent upon them. In order orthodox church has been referred to for these ambitions centuries as '''Greek Orthodox''' but that not as a reference to succeed, the spiritualNation of Greece (although, cultural and ecclesiastical unity what is wrong with Greek people? I am one of the region also had to be shattered, them and local autocephalous Churches established, subservient to the states created, which were, in their turn I am a lovely and depending on circumstances, subservient to one or the other Great Powerwarm person!). LOL.
Cognizant of its responsibilities towards OrthodoxyHowever, as the First Throne of the Churchthough I say that, I do not agree that this article should portray either the Ecumenical Patriarchate, independently of the conditions prevailing at the time, adopted a position against this most significant phenomenon. Initially, name Byzantine nor should it censured the Greeks have Greek Orthodox because basically (1833-1850as editors) we should be smarter than that and then, at the Great adapt a more neutral choice (Μείζωνsee my vote below) Local Synod in Constantinople . [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:00, May 20, 2008 (1872UTC), went on to condemn ethnophyletism, which was not merely a deviation from the healthy love of one's nation and state, but constitutes a real impediment to cooperation between local Orthodox Churches in the world and is the greatest enemy to the unity of the Church.
This Great Synod published a “Resolution” condemning ethnophyletism in the Church==Common Sense, a resolution which was based on general principles formulated by a special committee of the Synod[22].or Anti-Greek Madness??==
In briefFr Andrew, these general principles are as follows:I can't accept this POV hostility towards Greek Orthodoxy.
Let's look at the issue:“... in the Christian Church, a society which is spiritual and charged by its Head and Founder to include these Churches are all nations in one Christian brotherhood, phyletism is foreign and completely unthinkable. And, indeed, phyletism, i. e. the formation of special national Greek Orthodox Churches in the same place, which accept - '''they all those of call themselves "Greek Orthodox"'''. Even the same race, but exclude all those of other races and which are administered solely by those Patriarchate of Antioch is the same race, are unheard ''Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of and unprecedented , though they are what the adherents of phyletism aspire Antioch''. This is really simple - I can't believe that that you're wriggling toavoid this with bogus objections.
All Let's be clear on the Christian Churches, founded in all places, were, from the beginning, local, containing the faithful of a particular city, or a particular local region, without racial discrimination. And thus, they were usually named after the city or territory, but not the racial provenance, of the members.facts:
In the first place, the # It is not 'obscure' to call a Church of Jerusalem consisted, as by its own name.# The title 'Greek Orthodox' is not a 'specialist' title - it is well known, of Jews and proselytes of various nations. In the same way, the title these Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesusput on press-releases, Rome and all it is the others were made up of Jews and Gentiles. Each of these Churches constituted title they are routinely accorded in itself something compact and indivisible; each recognized as its apostles the apostles of Christ, all of whom were Jews by race; each had a bishop ordained by these apostles, without any regard to race, as the history of the first Churches of Christ
This way Look at the rationality of establishing the position you're maintaining: you are saying that these Churches in various localities also obtained after should not be called 'Greek Orthodox Churches' - even though (a) they call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'; and even though (b) the apostolic agemedia calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. You're saying that, i. e. in whilst the title 'Greek Orthodox' is good enough for the regional or Diocese Churchesthemselves, which were defined in accordance with and whilst it's good enough for the prevailing civil divisions or other historical reasons. The congregation of the faithful in each of these churches consisted of Christians of every race and, it's not good enough for Orthodoxwiki!
Thus, the Churches of the Patriarchal Thrones of Tell me you'''Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and the Archbishopric of Cyprus''', which have, by God's grace, been preserved to this day, are '''local Churches''', in the sense that they are contained within geographical boundaries. They are ve not national. This is why they are named after the capital city rather than after the various nations of which they consisted: Greeks, for example, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Wallachians, Moldavians, Serbs, Bulgarians and others among those who usually live in concourse in the regions of these a POV agenda!
Such, also, were I don't agree with changing the boundaries scope of the archbishoprics of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo: i. e. Churches within drawn boundaries. They were neither constituted by reason of phyletism nor were their members of the same race and languagearticle. The later expressions “Latinarticle just needs to be given a proper name, Greek, Armenian Church” and so on, do not, in general, express discrimination by nation, but differences in dogmarewritten. In It's obvious that the same way, the Church of Greece, of Russia, of Serbia, of Wallachia, of Moldova, or, article is about Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly; it's obvious that there is no more improperly, suitable collective title for these Churches than 'Greek Orthodox'; and therefore it's obvious that the Russian, title should be 'Greek, Serbian etcOrthodox responses to OCA autocephaly'.. Church, mean autocephalous or semi-independent Churches in autonomous or semi-independent realms and with definite boundaries: those of the political realm, beyond which they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It follows Surely we can finally agree on that they exist not because of nationality?? [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 06:21, but because of the political situationMay 20, and that their members are not all of one race and language...2008 (UTC)
The Fathers of the Holy Synods- partial or general, local or ecumenical- did : I've not present themselves in an ethnic capacity, either their own or that of their flocks, but as representing the Church of which they were the head. And if, in the acts of the first synods and in Church history we do find bishops designated not by city or territory, but by nation, such as bishop of the Saracens, of the Goths or of the Scythians, this was so because of the ill-defined and badly constituted political and social conditions within some nations. Such titles can therefore easily be understood, since only got a few people within these nations had accepted the Christian faith and had not yet gathered together in towns.POV agenda! :)
And if we have recourse to these very sacred canons, on which the structure : The irony of being accused of the Church "Anti-Greek Madness" here is founded, we shall find not a trace of phyletism. The canons dealing with the election and consecration of bishops, metropolitans and patriarchsthat while at seminary, as well as of the other functionaries I was accused of the Church nowhere define the racial characteristic as being a qualification of eligibility. They mention only the moral and religious qualities which were laid down by the Apostle of the Gentiles Hellenophile! I even recall my strident campaign in his epistles to Timothy and Titus. In the same way, the sacred canons favor of local Churches, ''Orthros'' here on OW over ''Matins'' (which were aimed at the constitution, unification, or division of eparchies and parishes, projected ecclesiastical or political necessity, never ethnophyletic aspirations.I lost). I can't seem to win. :)
: All I'''But m really after is a term which makes the principle most sense in terms of phyletism also overturns the sacred structure of the Orthodox Church'''. The structure of the Orthodox Church, referential resonance (i.e. its administrative organization as a visible communion, what is apparent in the sum total of its legislation, which first thing a searcher is made likely to look up of the divine ?) and sacred canons of the holy Apostles and of the Holy Synods, both ecumenical and localaccuracy (i.e. Any action referring to the Church and tending towards the infringement of these canons in whole or in part, essentially violates what is the very structure of best term to represent what we're talking about?). If the Church... Canon 8, consensus is for instance''Greek Orthodox'', of the 1st Ecumenical Synod legislates then I'm honestly fine with that: “there be not two bishops in the city”. But As you know, according to the principle of phyletism, two, three, or more bishops of the same faith can have their seats in the same city; in other words, as many as there are races living there. Canon 12 of the 4th Ecumenical Synod states: “Let there not be two metropolitans in the same eparchy”. But, according to phyletismmy vote is for ''Byzantine'' (I researched, two or more metropolitans can have one wrote and the same province as their see, depending on the number of races there[23]titled this article originally).
Stricture against abrogation : I've repeated this a few times, but I'll at least say that my main objection to the term ''Greek Orthodox'' for this article is that at least for a major segment of those being represented (i.e., the Church politeuma[24] (Antiochians, represented by phyletismtheir patriarch, but not limited to him) , this is even clearer not the term that most English speakers would use. My other objection to the use of this term for this article is that in the Churches minds of most English speakers, it is more limited than the Dioceses scope of the article itself (Patriarchates and autocephalous Churchesi.e., it mainly conjures up images of Greece). '''Canon 2 In both cases, there are major parties to the content of this article which are not, in my opinion, best represented by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod says''':term.
:'''“Let bishops not go BTW, while I will gladly admit to churches beyond "madness," I would hope that you would refrain from throwing such terms around too freely. The standard on OrthodoxWiki is to assume that all editors are acting in good faith (until they prove otherwise, which they sometimes do), which I protest that I am! I was one of the boundaries founding editors of OrthodoxWiki and have been editing on it since December of 2004, beginning and significantly contributing to hundreds of their own diocesesarticles. (In fact, about 1/6th of all edits on the wiki have been mine.) I hope that my commitment is clear.”'''
The Synods of these Dioceses together with their primate: Anyway, president, archbishop, exarch or patriarch, constitute I will gladly submit to the highest ecclesiastical authority in the whole region will of the Diocese. And according to this institution, there remain to this day consensus if ''Greek Orthodox Patriarchates in '' is the lands of the East, and, term preferred by most editors interested in the other realms, the administrative synods with their presidentsthis article. But according to the aspirations of the phyletists As a sysop, there are no specific loci for the administration I wouldn't consider it (in this case) a "tyranny of the local Church. The racial, highest ecclesiastical jurisdictions also expand and contract in accordance with majority" if the eternal ebb and flow of nations, in groups or as individuals, wandering and migrating hither and thithervote went that way. Let's do a straw poll. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.Thus, in one and the same ecclesiastical diocese, there will be, on the one hand, many exarchs or patriarchs of the same faith, and5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, on the otherGaramond, many administrative synods of the same faithGeorgia, in despite of so many sacred canonsTimes New Roman">Fr. In sum, according to the principles of phyletismAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, it is not possible for Diocesan ChurchesGaramond, PatriarchalGeorgia, provincial or metropolitan Churches to existTimes New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, nor for there to be a bishopric or even a simple parish or church in some small village or settlementMay 20, if they are to have their own area and are to include all those of the same faith living therein”.2008 (UTC)
This Report, which also contains other historical and canonical arguments, concludes: “If things are thus: Well, asto take the last point first, indeed, they I don't for a second think that you aremad! However, phyletism I do think it is clearly in opposition madness not to and conflict with recognise that these different Patriarchates are 'Greek Orthodox' patriarchates, for the spirit and reasons I have already given. I also think it betrays a POV agenda, which only wants to allow the teaching use of Christ..the title 'Greek Orthodox' to describe 'ethnically-Greek Orthodoxy'.
'''These general theological, historical and canonical principles expressed in this Report were taken into consideration by the Holy and Great Local Synod which met at Constantinople in August, 1872. It condemned phyletism and published a “Resolution” (Όρος) concerning it, in which, among other things, the following is stated: “censuring and condemning it, we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in : In the Church minds of Christ as being contrary to the teaching most people, all of the Gospel and Churches which are the sacred canons subject of our holy Fathersthis article are "Greek Orthodox". This is because the Churches themselves call themselves "Greek Orthodox", who support and because the holy Church and adorn media calls them "Greek Orthodox". So you really cannot assert that 'in the whole minds of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness”''most English speakers'[25]"Greek Orthodox" just means Greece.
Despite this, and after :: I appreciate you coming clean that what you really mean is that you don't want the decision Patriarch of Antioch to be called 'Greek Orthodox', essentially because the Synod in Constantinople, phyletism, converts in the sense American Antiochian Archdiocese don't think of unrestrained nationalismthemselves or the Patriarch as 'Greek Orthodox'. But really, unfortunately continued to influence that is reflective of a deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese - how does it maintain the thoughts and actions historic identity of some local the Antiochian Patriarchate (which is Greek Orthodox Churches in this direction) when it has such a large number of culturally Protestant converts who, at least as regards certain questionsfor various reasons, don't want to the detriment be thought of Church unity. This is clear in the so-called as 'Greek Orthodox Diaspora, where canonical disorder prevails and where the nationalist element is powerful[26].'?
Orthodox faithful, members at first of different local Ghurches and states, have emigrated :: I don't doubt for a second your commitment to new countries, settled and live thereOrthodoxwiki. They no longer belong, in Church terms, But you have given me cause to wonder about the ecclesiastical provinces from which they came, because, as residents now nature of these new countries, they belong that commitment. You do seem to the new ecclesiastical province in which they have settled and in which they experience their eucharistic and sacramental and spiritual life. They are thus members of a blind-spot to the local Church under its bishop. This was always the canonical way peculiarities of ordering thingsyour own Antiochian-convert position, it was which you rather glibly project onto 'the practice and tradition minds of the Church and has continued to this day in regions other than the new countries mentioned earliermost English speakers'. In Egyptthis discussion, for example, in Libya, Pentapolis and you have been promoting the other territories of Africa, which are subject to the jurisdiction views of one minority group in Orthodoxy as if it were the Patriarch default-position of Alexandria,.new churches are being established by missionaries or emigrants. These new communities are independent speakers of the national provenance of the missionaries or of the emigrants or of the original autocephalous Church from which they cameEnglish language. The missionaries and emigrants, living and working in the region proper This has led you to repeatedly avoid using the title by which ''your own Patriarch of Alexandria, and with his canonical permission, are automatically placed under his jurisdiction'' calls himself. The same is true in Antioch, in Jerusalem and so on. This ought also That should surely alert you to be the case fact that there is something in the new ecclesiastical provinces of America, Australia and so on, though it your position which is not so because here the criteria of ethnophylestism prevail to this dayabove board. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 19:27]., May 20, 2008 (UTC)
The ::: Alas, this is neither the first or last time in which I have been accused of having a hidden agenda. I must admit to some amusement at surveying such accusations with regard to their own diametric opposition when taken together! I have described myself variously as "Greek Orthodox," "Eastern Orthodox," "Orthodox Church isChristian, "Russian Orthodox," "Antiochian Orthodox," "Orthodox Catholic," "traditional Christian, in general" etc. I raise eyebrows just as much when I chant ''Eti kai eti'' as much as I do with ''AiDan wa aiDan'', conscious ''Paki i paki'' or ''Iara si iara'' (and occasionally even "Again and again"!). I've also been called a lot of things: Hellenophile, Russophile, Hellenophobe, Russophobe, anti-cradle, anti-convert, modernist, traditionalist, fascist, liberal, etc., etc. They're all quite silly. One might also wonder perhaps whether you have the ecclesiological and canonical irregularity which was created by the appearance Hellenophilia of ethnophyletism in the 19th century and sort which identifies Orthodoxy with Hellenism. In either case, one would be off the mark with regard to OrthodoxWiki. ''Ad hominem'' is apparent in the formation and establishment of new provinces in America and elsewherealways pointless here. Let's avoid it altogether, shall we?
For this reason::: Anyway, one of the subjects for discussion by the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church which is to be convened is also that of the so-called Diaspora, on the basis of canonical order and Orthodox ecclesiology and it's not ethnophyletic criteria. A good deal a question of progress has been achieved "converts" in this direction by the preparatory committee of the Synod in its sessionsAntiochian Archdiocese. The application of canonical order in the new provinces of the so-called Orthodox Diaspora does not mean uniformity ''Greek'' isn't in the parishes. Today's pastoral realityofficial archdiocesan title, and expediency, would not permit I think we can safely say that the absorption of one title wasn't dreamt up by the other and the levelling out of everythingconverts! It doesn't matter who came up with it, anyway. Besides, as we see in the Gospel, Jesus Christ, (''Ad hominem'' once again!) What matters is what the “Good Shepherd” most common and the “Chief Shepherd” of the Church, did not scorn the cultural features of His environmentuseful reference term is.
He did not destroy things ::: As I said, I'd be willing to accept ''Greek Orthodox'' if that were well's what the consensus is. I'll even fight against my "Anti-lovedGreek Madness" and make the change myself! (And, but rather used these features in order to communicate with people and save themby the way, you haven't yet put your mark below. Please do so!) &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3. People must certainly retain their faith above all5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, but without feeling contempt for their culture and without being cut off from their rootsTimes New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[28User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]].''')</font></small> 21:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
This variety, which enriches the life :::: A sense of the Church in the new provinces and is demonstrably necessary, pastorally, for the survival and development of the local communities, must find expression within the ecclesiological and canonical framework defined by the sacred canons and decisions of the Patriarchal and Synodical Tomes of the Ecumenical Throne concerning the autocephalous status of the recent autocephalous Churches, and thus provide diversity in canonical unity, within the defined territorial limits of the local Churches.humour!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------:::: I must admit though that I'm not so sure you should be looking at people's eyebrows when you say '* A paper read at the International Congress of Canon Law, Budapest, 2-7 September 2001.'eti kai eti''...
'''Notes:'''[1]. Valsamon, Commentary on Canon 6 of the1st Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Similar commentaries by Zonaras and Aristenos on the same canon, in RALLIS AND POTLIS::: In any case, Constitution of you are still dodging the Divine and Sacred canons.issues.. (in Greek), vol. II, p. 129.
[2]. Valsamon::::* The Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, commentary an Canon 6 as well as the Church of the 1st Ecumenical SynodGreece, RALLIS AND POTLIS, opall call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'. citThe media also routinely calls them 'Greek Orthodox'. vol. IIThis is a normal, neutral, p. 131non-misleading usage.
[3]. MANSI 7::::* Against this,179you have not provided any good reasons for your claim that calling these Churches 'Greek Orthodox', the title they call themselves, is 'misleading'.
[4]. Valsamon:::: In fact, Commentary on Canon 6 of the 1st Ecumenical Synod, RALLIS AND POTLIS, op cit. vol. II, p. seems you just expect me to take your word for it!
:::: But I'm not going to do that - since that ''would'' be ad hominem!! [5[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]]. Cf. Canon 36 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod.06:30, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
[6]. This title has been ::::: I've given my reasons and the arguments behind them in use for the Patriarch of Constantinople since the 6th centuryseveral different ways above. He is the bishop of the capital of the Roman Empire, I understand that you're not convinced by them (i. e. of the whole of the inhabited, civilized worldthey are not "good reasons"). I don't really have anything further to add. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, according to the political theory of the RomansTimes New Roman">Fr.Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 12:36, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
[7]:::::: Well, actually you've not given any arguments. You made an ''unsupported assertion'' that it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'. I have explained repeatedly why that cannot be true (namely that it is normal in the media to call certain Churches which are not ethnically or nationally Greek 'Greek Orthodox', and that these Churches call themselves 'Greek Orthodox'). Canon 3 You clearly hold that your unargued opinion and assertion carries more weight than either the authority of these Churches themselves, or established use in the 2nd Ecumenical SynodEnglish-language media. That is rather self-inflated. But more importantly, Canon 28 it is a rejection of the 4th Ecumenical Synodλόγος (since it says that you don't need to give reasons for your views, Canon 36 as the fact that ''you'' hold them is all that matters). This has always been a fundamental difference between Greek Orthodoxy and Protestantism: Orthodoxy is the religion of'the Quinisext Ecumenical Synodλόγος, whereas Protestantism is the religion of personal conviction.[[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 23:10, May 21, 2008 (UTC)
[8]::::::: I do not assert and do not believe that "it is misleading to use 'Greek Orthodox' to mean something other than 'ethnically or nationally Greek'. Canon 36 of " As for the Quinisext Ecumenical Synodrest, as I said, I'm done. I won't be goaded into a continuing back-and-forth rehashing the same stuff. Cf Let us suffice it to say that I've said my piece and you think it's rubbish. Novella 131 of Justinian, Basilika, BookV, title 3 I'm okay with that.
::::::: I must say, though, that it is a bit nasty to claim that I'm rejecting Jesus Christ (the Logos) by asserting such a thing (despite the irony that I do not assert it)! It really is inappropriate to claim that those with whom you disagree have some sort of hidden agenda, that they're gripped by "madness," or (worst yet) that they are apostates. I strongly suggest that you cut it out. &mdash;[[9]User:ASDamick|<font size="3. Interpretation of Zonaras of the above canon5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr.Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 02:19, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
[10]:::::::: Well, I'm glad you've changed your mind re the title 'Greek Orthodoxy'. Interpretation (Previously you said that it would be misleading to use the title, because it made people think of Valsamon of Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical SynodGreekness in some ethnic or national sense.)
[11]:::::::: You repeatedly say that I have accused you of a "hidden agenda". RALLIS AND POTLISI have at no point made that accusation, opand I'd appreciate it if you didn't impugn motives at the same time as crying foul over being (supposedly) accused of having a "hidden agenda".citNeither did I at any point accuse you of being an apostate.'''In future, vol Vget your facts straight before you start issuing imperatives.''' For the record, pI think you're confused on the issue of what it is to be 'Greek Orthodox'. 474I think you've quite openly promoted a perspective which is distinctive to converts of the American Antiochian Archdiocese. CfI think you've acted in a haughty and non-rational manner, by repeatedly avoiding giving reasons for your claims and by speaking as if your word should by itself entail acceptance of your position. also You can twist what I said about the Cataloque ''logos'' into an accusation about personal conviction if you want, but that would only confirm the point I made. :::::::: In any case, this is going nowhere. It's clear from what is below there is now a consensus, and in light of Neilos Doxapatris in Goar in Allatiusthat I' de Consensuve made a new and constructive suggestion below, pand I hope the discussion can proceed appropriately. 411 As far as I'm concerned this segment of the discussion with you has run its course. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. [[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 02:53, May 23, 2008 (note 1 in RALLIS AND POTLISUTC).
[12]==Straw poll on title==The following is a straw poll on the proposed renaming of this article. According to Since there has been disagreement over it, its results may be analyzed by the testimony administration to determine what the undersigned best course of Gaction may be. (It is ONLY considered as a recommendation, not as legislation. Ferrari) You may place your vote beneath your preferred term. You may wish to note first, second, third, late Professor of Patrology and Dogmatics in the Theological School of Barifourth preferences, the Archbishop of Paronaxia was sent etc. (Feel free to these eparchies by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the 18th century on a pastoral tourchange your vote if you change your mind or if new choices are presented.)
*'''Byzantine response to...''' (the current name)**First choice. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[13[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]. On the term “Barbarian” in the canons<font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, see MAXIMOSGaramond, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEISGeorgia, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church Times New Roman">(in Greek'''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, Thessaloniki 21989May 20, p2008 (UTC)**Third choice. 277.. -- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Greek Orthodox response to...'''**Fourth choice. &mdash;[14][User:ASDamick|<font size="3. Cf5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Vlasios PHEIDASAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, “Οικουμενικός Θρόνος και Ορθόδοξος Διασπορά” in Ορθόδοξος Μαρτυρία και Σκέψις art. 19Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, 1979May 20, pp2008 (UTC)**Second choice. 5-6-[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**Third Choice. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Response to...'''**Third choice. &mdash;[[15]User:ASDamick|<font size="3. In RAlLIS and POTLIS5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, opTimes New Roman">Fr. citAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**First choice. vol--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:56, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**First choice. V-- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, pMay 20, 2008 (UTC)**This is now my '''Second choice. 474''' -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**'''First and only choice. Cf''' -- [[User:Petermav|Peter]] 23:04, May 20, 2008 (UTC)**First choice. (I'd enjoy seeing 'Responses to', but since I'm not willing to put in the registers of Darrouzes and Gelzer “Notitiae episcopatuumtime to enormously expand the article, myself...) &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 06:41, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**Second Choice.[[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Ancient patriarchates' response to...'''**Second choice. &mdash;[16][User:ASDamick|<font size="3. In RALLIS AND POTLIS5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, opTimes New Roman">Fr. ritAndrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:38, May 20, 2008 (UTC) *'''Non-Slavic Churches' response to., vol. V, p. 149 ff'''**Second choice.-- [[User:Andrew|Andrew]] 15:20, May 20, 2008 (UTC)
*'''Ecumenical Patriarchate's response to...'''**Seems like this would be the more precise title. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 12:17, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**If it is only the Ecumenical Patriarch's response(s) that this article is reviewing. Would it be better to use the title Inistea proposed (below) since that would allow the flexibility to take into consideration 'other' responses not limited to the EP alone? [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]]. Canon 35 of 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)**If push came to shove, this would be my '''Third choice''' - although I get the Apostlesimpression its NOT JUST his response this article infers.[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:01, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
[18]. Cf. also Canons 6 and 15 *'''The Autocephaly of the Ist Ecumenical Synod and Orthodox Church in America''' **the interpretations article is more that one responde or one opinion; so I propose to simply name it ''The Autocephaly of these by Zonarasthe Orthodox Church in America'' --[[User:Inistea|Inistea]] 22:01, May 22, Valsamon2008 (UTC)**This is my '''First Choice''' - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:01, Aristenos. Also Canon 8 of the 3rd Ecumenical Synod and interpretations of it. May 22, 2008 (UTC)
[19]Hi all. I do think this is an interesting conversation, and I wonder if some of the differences here result from a different sense about the ways these terms are used in different parts of the world.<br>I am in substantial agreement with Fr. Andrew's reasoning. I find either "Byzantine..." or "Response'''s''' to" acceptable. If the article is titled "Responses...", I think Fr. Comment by Aristenos Andrew's points should be made early on Canon 6 in the article for the sake of clarity. The other options feel wrong to me. It seems "Responses to..." would be the Ist Ecumenical Synodway to go here, although something like "Critiques of...", in RALLIS AND POTLIS op"Opposition to" or "Arguments against..." would be even better and more precise.<br>Vasiliki and Seminarist -- please tone down the rhetoric a bit. I don't think it's necessary. cit. vol. II<br>Yours in Christ, p— [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://orthodoxwiki. 131org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 02:11, May 21, 2008 (UTC) (a priest of the OCA)
[20]If we change this to "Responses to.. Cf. Sir Stephen RUNCIMAN, The Orthodox Churches and the Secular State", p. 26 ff. Auckland Oxford 1971. On I'll be happy to add a small section at the meaning top of “Nation” in the sacred canons, see Canon 34 of the Apostles, article that simply tells which is repeated in Canon 9 of the Synod in Antioch. See also autocephalous Churches have recognized the interpretation autocephaly of Zonaras on this. “Nation” in the sacred canons means the metropolitan province as geographical boundariesOCA.--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 14:11, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
[21]. MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEIS, The Ecumenical Patriarchate op.cit. p. 320. Cf. Gerasimos konidaris, The Greek Church as a Cultural Force in the History of the Balkan Peninsula (in Greek), pp. 28-29.== Suggestion: Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly ==
Since the article includes not only various ''responses'' to OCA autocephaly, but also the canonical arguments which underlay the grant of autocephaly in the first place - and since the consensus seems to be grativating towards broadening the explicit scope of the article beyond simply the Greek Orthodox responses to OCA autocephaly - perhaps it would be good to call the article '''Arguments for and against OCA autocephaly'''? That would reflect both the contents of the article as it stands, whilst being inclusive enough to cover the broadened scope being suggested. [22[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]]. The text of the Report is in MAXIMOS23:13, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEISMay 22, op. cit. pp. 323-330.2008 (UTC)
[23]. The text :Though I am more inclined to agree with your thinking regarding the various issues surrounding the terminology of the Report also refers "Greek Orthodox" I would not have to Canons 34 and 35 of the Holy Apostles, Canon 2 agree with you on your choice of name for the 2nd Ecumenical Synod; Canon 8 of article because the 3rd Ecumenical Synod; Canon 6 of word "Argument" in itself is a word that in the Ist and Canon 28 psychology of the 4thbrain will incite people into an editing war :-) I personally would steer away from using words that are not in their essence "Thetikes" (positive or neutral).Thoughts? - [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 23:29, May 22, 2008 (UTC)
[24]:: Well, the bulk of the article seems to consist of arguments people have given for and against OCA autocephaly. The To use your metaphor, the whole issue is, as it were, an 'politeumaedit war' over the 'editing' of the status of the Church is OCA by the system of governance in Moscow patriarchate - with some Churches and theologians giving arguments why they think the Churchedit was correct, in its ecclesiological and canonical dimensionothers giving the reasons why the edit was wrong. And I don't think that "argument" is primarily a psychological matter; unlike eristic and rhetoric (which are psychological), argument is logical - it's to do with providing (dialectical) reasons for a position.[[User:Seminarist|Seminarist]] 01:02, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
[25]. In MAXIMOS:::Yes, METROPOLITAN OF SARDEISI too took some offence to the use of the word "rhetoric" although, op, citI dont take offence by the person who used it because he is a very gentle and peaceable peace ... I quite like him from my experience of being on OW but the word "rhetoric" was strong and it felt almost one sided when it is quite easy to "debate" that "rhetorics" exist on both sides ... ppits just some people conclude there "rhetorics" with a single sentence and others use paragraphs. 323-330LOL.[[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 01:16, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
::Interesting analogy! I think "Responses to..." would suffice here. — [[26User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]]([ For more, see PANTELEIMON RODOPOULOS (METROPOLITAN OF TYROLOE AND SERENTIONphp?title=User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])03:49, An Ecclesiological and Canonical View of the Orthodox Diaspora, in his collection Meletai A', Thessaloniki 1993May 23, pp. 180-181 2008 (in GreekUTC).
::: Can I suggest then that we take out the reasons for the granting of OCA autocephaly, and put them in the full OCA article, so that this article contains only responses to the grant of autocephaly, rather than the reasons for its being granted in the first place? [[27User:Seminarist|Seminarist]. panteleimon rodopoulos] 04:23, May 23, op. cit. 184-185.2008 (UTC)
[28]::::In my opinion, these reasons are relevant here, even if some need working on. Perhaps they could be moved to a place after the "Arguments against... metropolitan aimilianos " as a kind of selyvriaresponse to these criticisms. A couple other things occur to me related to this article: If I remember correctly, The Revitalization the name "Orthodox Church in America" was taken rather than "Orthodox Church of America" precisely as a recognition of the Local Communityother Orthodox bodies in the U.S. Also, (while Russian jurisdiction over the U.S. was pretty commonly assumed before the Russian Revolution, I don't think there was any claim from 1920-1970, as the article seems to indicate. Finally, while the part about lack of unity between three separate bodies related to the Russian church is true today, the Patriarchal church in Greek)NY functioned more as an "Embassy" church for some time, along with the limited number of parishes which desired to stay directly under Moscow. ROCOR was only restored to communion more recently. I think some charity must be granted on all sides with the realization that these schisms are directly a result of Communism... one hopes that, in Επίσκεψις 192 time, they will be healed (1978as we are seeing now with the Serbs, Romanians, etc.). — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([ talk]) 23:08, p. 10May 23, 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is one of the reasons given for OCA autocephaly the fact that the Metropolitan is "humble?" That may be true, but it's a far cry from a canonical argument...:Posted by [[User:Ixthis888Hgais|VasilikiHgais]] 2319:2724, March 22, May 2011 (UTC):Seriously, who uses such an argument?[[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 19:51, March 22, 2008 2011 (UTC)

Navigation menu