Talk:Orthodoxy in Hawaii

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
("Jurisdictionalism" section)
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=="Jurisdictionalism" section==
+
== very good article ==
I've commented out this section.  Here's the text as it was:
+
  
:Up until the 1960s, the Russian Orthodox Church held canonical jurisdiction over the Hawaiian IslandsAfter the 1960s, three seperate Orthodox jurisdictions established themselves in the Islands; Greek, Serbian, and OCAAt one point there were as many as five different Orthodox jurisdictions in the Hawaiian IslandsFor more information on the sin of Jurisdictionalism, [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/gen_america.aspx click here], and [http://members5.boardhost.com/STANDREWHOUSE/msg/1153963172.top here].
+
very good article it is missing much information though; the name of ship and captain in 1792i have it somewhere, i have to look for iti will add it when i find itvery good article. {{unsigned|MshKlimek}}
  
The problem with this wording is that it presumes a certain POV (i.e., Russian).  It's certainly not the case that the other Orthodox churches regarded Hawaii as canonically belonging to Russia.  Perhaps this section could be worded simply to state that up until the 1960s, the Russians had the only presence there, regarding the territory as canonically theirs, then other jurisdictions established a presence there. Regarding the "sin of Jurisdictionalism," a link to the [[diaspora]] article should suffice.
+
:That sounds good - this is just how a wiki works - one person knows a detail, another adds other information, and the article improves gradually. [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
  
Thoughts?  &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>]]</small> 17:50, May 30, 2007 (PDT)
+
Very good article. I'll put more materials in. I have more research but I need to translate it into English from Hawaiian--Marcus
  
What makes you think that I am Russian?? I am a member of the Greek Church and have been all my life??
+
:There is so much info on Orthodoxy in Hawaii. There is stuff in Hawaiian about St. Innocent's visit to the Islands.  I'll try to locate it and put it up.  Great job to whomever wrote this article!  --[[User:Poepoe77|Poepoe77]] 12:40, August 28, 2007 (PDT)
  
== Good idea ==
+
::That sounds great! I look forward to seeing this -- even just citing the sources in Hawaiian would be very helpful as a start. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
 +
 +
=Monasteries =
  
I realize that we must be politically correct on this forum.  Holy Fathers help us!  "Politically correct Orthodox Christians."
+
There are any monasteries in Hawaii? [[User:Arthasfleo|Arthasfleo]] 23:47, September 16, 2007 (PDT)
  
The article flows a little better as well.  The links are wonderful links, with a variety of sources and ideas and points of view; Fr. Seraphim Rose, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Fr. Alexander Schmemmann, etc..  
+
:Not that I know of - it's not a bad idea though! — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
  
What do you think?
+
::ok. thank you [[User:Arthasfleo|Arthasfleo]] 02:34, September 18, 2007 (PDT)
Ang.
+
  
: Well, it's not really a question of "political correctness," but rather of keeping to the [[NPOV|neutrality]] appropriate for an encyclopedia and in keeping with [[NPOV|OrthodoxWiki policy]].  It's worded better now, though I'm going to replace the external links with internal ones (which is also the preference).  &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>]]</small> 18:13, May 30, 2007 (PDT)
+
:There is a small monastic skete on the Big Island of Hawaii, under the jurisdiction of the Greek Old-calendar Milan Synod. The priest in charge is Hieromonk Bartholomew.  -[[User:Nectarios|Nectarios]] 02:39, September 19, 2007 (PDT)
 +
::Thanks, Nectarios. What do you know about the canonical status of the Milan synod? Also, do they have more than one monk there, and are they friendly to non-Milan people? I know very little about the Milan synod. Thanks! — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
  
== Much Better ==
+
:::The Milan Synod is an uncanonical Orthodox Christian jurisdiction.  They are the most moderate of all the Greek Old-calendarists jurisdictions.  They are very friendly to the OCA. But of course like all Old-calendarist parishes and monasteries, you may find some hostility.  Of course this happens in any Orthodox Church that has one distinctive ethnic identity. They are good people. -12:52, September 22, 2007 (PDT) {{unsigned|Poepoe77}}
  
Much better.. You're good at this!
+
:::I know something about the Milan Synod. It is from [[Old Calendarists | here]]. It is a Churches "in resistance", a Florinite church. It is not a good monastery :(    [[User:Arthasfleo|Arthasfleo]] 00:40, September 20, 2007 (PDT)
  
Ang.
+
::"Not good" here I assume just means non-canonical, outside the fold? — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
 +
 
 +
:::Not good from all of the points of view. Cannonical, salvation, and likeable for God. I love our church, not the schismatic one. :) [[User:Arthasfleo|Arthasfleo]] 03:18, September 21, 2007 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
::::The old-Calendarists are a good and faithful people.  I don't agree with their politics, but they are very much Orthodox Christians. They are uncanonical, which means their canonical autonomy is not recognized because they do not commune with the Ecumenical Throne.  This does not mean they lack canonicity, which is something completely different.  Remember Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia and many of the other autocephalous churches were out of communion with Constantinople at some time in their history and labelled "uncanonical".  Were they schismatics?  Were they not liked by God?  There are many Russian saints who were proclaimed during the schism between Russia and Constantinople after the Council of Florence.  Were they not saints?  Were they not Orthodox?  In the 90s the Moscow Patriarch broke off communion with the Constantinople Patriarch, was Pat Alexey II a schismatic?  Of course not! -[[User:Nectarios|Nectarios]] 12:19, September 22, 2007 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
::Friends, forgive me! I've edited some of the comments to try to take out the personal elements. The issue of the Old Calendarists can be difficult - there are real and remaining tensions. We should recognize the histories involved, while not making light of the profound significance of schism. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 14:34, September 22, 2007 (PDT)
 +
 
 +
==Iveron Icon==
 +
Something should be written for our Holy Icon here in Hawaii.  I will ask permission from the Icon's Guardian to include something.  People should know about this.

Latest revision as of 11:03, February 10, 2012

very good article

very good article it is missing much information though; the name of ship and captain in 1792. i have it somewhere, i have to look for it. i will add it when i find it. very good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MshKlimek (talkcontribs) .

That sounds good - this is just how a wiki works - one person knows a detail, another adds other information, and the article improves gradually. — FrJohn (talk)

Very good article. I'll put more materials in. I have more research but I need to translate it into English from Hawaiian--Marcus

There is so much info on Orthodoxy in Hawaii. There is stuff in Hawaiian about St. Innocent's visit to the Islands. I'll try to locate it and put it up. Great job to whomever wrote this article! --Poepoe77 12:40, August 28, 2007 (PDT)
That sounds great! I look forward to seeing this -- even just citing the sources in Hawaiian would be very helpful as a start. — FrJohn (talk)

Monasteries

There are any monasteries in Hawaii? Arthasfleo 23:47, September 16, 2007 (PDT)

Not that I know of - it's not a bad idea though! — FrJohn (talk)
ok. thank you Arthasfleo 02:34, September 18, 2007 (PDT)
There is a small monastic skete on the Big Island of Hawaii, under the jurisdiction of the Greek Old-calendar Milan Synod. The priest in charge is Hieromonk Bartholomew. -Nectarios 02:39, September 19, 2007 (PDT)
Thanks, Nectarios. What do you know about the canonical status of the Milan synod? Also, do they have more than one monk there, and are they friendly to non-Milan people? I know very little about the Milan synod. Thanks! — FrJohn (talk)
The Milan Synod is an uncanonical Orthodox Christian jurisdiction. They are the most moderate of all the Greek Old-calendarists jurisdictions. They are very friendly to the OCA. But of course like all Old-calendarist parishes and monasteries, you may find some hostility. Of course this happens in any Orthodox Church that has one distinctive ethnic identity. They are good people. -12:52, September 22, 2007 (PDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poepoe77 (talkcontribs) .
I know something about the Milan Synod. It is from here. It is a Churches "in resistance", a Florinite church. It is not a good monastery :( Arthasfleo 00:40, September 20, 2007 (PDT)
"Not good" here I assume just means non-canonical, outside the fold? — FrJohn (talk)
Not good from all of the points of view. Cannonical, salvation, and likeable for God. I love our church, not the schismatic one. :) Arthasfleo 03:18, September 21, 2007 (PDT)
The old-Calendarists are a good and faithful people. I don't agree with their politics, but they are very much Orthodox Christians. They are uncanonical, which means their canonical autonomy is not recognized because they do not commune with the Ecumenical Throne. This does not mean they lack canonicity, which is something completely different. Remember Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia and many of the other autocephalous churches were out of communion with Constantinople at some time in their history and labelled "uncanonical". Were they schismatics? Were they not liked by God? There are many Russian saints who were proclaimed during the schism between Russia and Constantinople after the Council of Florence. Were they not saints? Were they not Orthodox? In the 90s the Moscow Patriarch broke off communion with the Constantinople Patriarch, was Pat Alexey II a schismatic? Of course not! -Nectarios 12:19, September 22, 2007 (PDT)
Friends, forgive me! I've edited some of the comments to try to take out the personal elements. The issue of the Old Calendarists can be difficult - there are real and remaining tensions. We should recognize the histories involved, while not making light of the profound significance of schism. — FrJohn (talk) 14:34, September 22, 2007 (PDT)

Iveron Icon

Something should be written for our Holy Icon here in Hawaii. I will ask permission from the Icon's Guardian to include something. People should know about this.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox