Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Orthodoxy in Australasia

4,617 bytes added, 11:37, February 6, 2007
English Usage
:::Agreed {{User:FrJohn/sig}}
-----------==Recognising ROCOR== 
Which Churches do you say officially recognise ROCOR?
chrisg 2006-05-05 : 2346 EAST
::The Serbian church has always recognized ROCOR. It's been a little wierd - other churches in communion with Serbia but not ROCOR, and ROCOR in communion with Serbia but not other churches. I think most folks have understood this as a temporary blip caused by Communism. Thanksfully, these abberations are being cleared up... {{User:FrJohn/sig}} ::It was interesting watching Metropolitan Archbishop Paul (Antioch) serving Divine Liturgy to the right of Patriarch Pavle in Cabramatta Australia last year with Archbishop Hilarion (ROCOR) serving to the left of Patriarch Pavle. Both said they were serving with the patriarch, and both said they were not serving with the other. True oeconomia in practice! They did have a friendly discussion afterwards which they achieved by avoiding any contentious topic. chrisg 2006-05-09 : 1854 EAST
While the Serbian Church de facto accepts ROCOR, has there ever been any synodal decision to "be in communion with" ROCOR?
chrisg 2006-05-06 : 0746 EAST
:I've always thought that the Serbian Church had an awesome deal in the diaspora :)
:However, I don't know if there was there was an explicit acceptance of ROCOR. TBH, I don't think that it was seen as needed - they were Russian bishops who were told to organise themselves, so they were accepted. Also, I'm fairly sure that Jerusalem accepts ROCOR, too. --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 17:07, May 5, 2006 (CDT)
::The problem with that unfortunate term "schismatic" is firstly it is usually polemical. Secondly it is inappropriately misapplied to cover a large number of situations.
::ROCOR, because it was setting itself up as a separate Church, was considered by many mainstream Orthodox Churches to be schismatic. Serbia was in communion with it. Serbia, however, avoided ever officially "recognising" it.
::In the earliest years ROCOR was in a delicate relationship with the King of Serbia and the official state Church there. Both were obviously sympathetic to the plight of the Synod-in-Exile, and all had the same Imperial foundation to their ecclesiology. However, they never seemed to de jure "recognise" ROCOR as a separate Church. In that way, it is inappropriate to say that Serbia "recognises" ROCOR. They are in communion with the bishops-in-exile, but Serbia "recognises" Moscow, and always has.
Conversely::Similarly, many Churches admit the faithful of the Macedonian Orthodox Church to communion. The hierarchy of some Churches serve with the priests of MOC, but will not serve liturgically with the hierarchy of MOC. The reason being they do not want to offend the Church of Greece, or the Church of Serbia, or to recognise the seeming self-proclamation of Autocephaly by Macedonia without the consensus of all the mainstream autocephalous Orthodox Churches. But they also recognise the sacramental needs of the Macedonian Orthodox. Some also recognise the need for MOC clergy to be able to serve with non-rabid hierarchs from outside MOC, and to provide an open channel for the resolution of various pastoral problems MOC clergy cannot resolve within MOC.
::MOC allows non-contentious clergy from other jurisdictions to serve within its territory and in its churches. It is clergy from the parallel hierarchy, and their supporters, who are prohibited from serving within its territory or erecting churches or monasteries there.
::ROCOR has had many years to stabilise its position and to drop some of its most unChristian polemics. Serbia and Macedonia are still in the early to middle stages of their polemics.
::But it would be biased in favour of Serbia to condemn Macedonia and its Orthodox to perdition by branding them as schismatics. Serbia granted them autonomy. Serbia has never denied granting them autonomy. Serbia later set up a parallel hierarchy on the canonical territory of Macedonia and justified it by saying Macedonia was schismatic. In some Serbian circles they said the Macedonians were heretical. That is hardly helpful to solving the current impasse and scandal to world orthodoxy.
::If you want to talk heresy, then the creation by Serbia of a parallel hierarchy is in direct contravention to the canon of the nineteenth century Council of Constantinople which condemned that practice as "phyletism" and anathematised its practioners as heretical. I personally think it most unhelpful to brand people as heretics. It effectively precludes understanding and reunification. But the practice of parallel hierarchies is a scandal, as most North Americans would recognise.
::The self-styled Macedonian Orthodox Church, or to use its canonical title, the Autonomous Archbishopric of Ohrid, difficult as they may be to deal with, and suffering from the common regional "Balkanian mentality" as they might, still must be seen, understood, and sympathetically written about, for a full picture of world orthodoxy.
::If they are brought out of their ghetto by sympathetic western Orthodox understanding, the conflict and rending of the fabric of Christ's Church, is much more likely to be healed much sooner, than if we simply follow the polemics of one side of the dispute.
::I am not opposed in any way to the Church of Serbia as Church. I have served with Patriarch Pavle and consider him a truly holy man, although I do not agree with some of his world view, or his insistence on using Slavonic only.
::I serve each Sunday with an ethnic Serbian priest, but I also serve whenever I can with an ethnic Macedonian priest. The funny thing is they both get on very well together, and serve together whenever they can. Both being outside the warring jurisdictions, and under interested but neutral Antioch, allows them the necessary distance to take a balanced view.
::That approach is what we all need to take.
::chrisg 2006-05-09 : 1854 EAST
:::To bypass basically all of your points - to this article, with the way that it is structured, it is enough to say that there is an irregular status: something that is a universally accepted fact. Anything further would have its place on other articles: the [[Macedonian Orthodox Church]] article, perhaps, or a new article(s) that details both sides of the split.:::(btw, I assume that you're aware that the same 'phyletist' label would apply to most of the rich-world - ironic that the last universal condemnation is the one most broken...) --{{User:Pistevo/sig}} 04:46, May 9, 2006 (CDT)
==ROCOR"In Communion"==
That was not how I read the Sobor decision. Do you have a citation?
:We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.
There remains a great deal of work to be done before the United Uniting Council can meet to finalise problems before re-unification can take place.
There has been no suggestion anywhere official that ROCOR and Moscow are in communion NOW, or as of 16 May 2006.
: It's not really a question of storage space, by any means. My question was simply if those working on these articles feel that they are regarding persons of encyclopedic notability rather than being simply biographies of local clergy. I'm glad to read that they are in the former category. {{User:ASDamick/sig}} 21:10, May 23, 2006 (CDT)
::Some things that, imho, should be done - categories and templates. Placing a [[:Category:Orthodoxy in Australia]] (or New Zealand) and a { { orthodoxyinaustralasiasmall } } tag (w/o spaces, of course) in the pages will help keep things orderly. Ideally with these articles, they would also be added to the expanding list on the Orthodoxy in Australasia frontpage. &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talkUsertalk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 10:52, May 25, 2006 (CDT)::Tonight's additions to [[Michael Shehadie]] give a good indication of the sort of material which can be added later, justifying his initial inclusion from an Australian perspective. chrisg 2006-05-30-2332 EAST == English Usage == Additionally - by memory, there are five English-language parishes in Australia in the Antiochian jurisdiction alone - St Barnabas (Gold Coast), Good Shepherd, 40 Holy Martyrs (Vic), St Anthony the Great (Perth) and, of course, Sts Michael and Gabriel (Syd); plus two in ROCOR and one or two in the Serbian diocese (Vic), and the Moscow Patriarchate's ones. &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talkUsertalk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 10:59, May 25, 2006 (CDT) :I was taking the position of distinguishing between firstly fully English-speaking as opposed to bi-lingual including English, and secondly parish as opposed to mission or monastery.  :In the Antiochian archdiocese, Fr Ted in Perth WA has retired because of age and ill-health and there is no replacement for him in sight. 40 Holy Martyrs Mirboo North Vic, is a mission which is a long way from becoming a self-supporting parish.  :In the Moscow Patriarchate in Australia, at Mayfield West Fr Alexander only chants 3 litanies in English and all the rest is in Slavonic. At Blacktown Fr Vladimir uses no English at all. In Melbourne I am informed Slavonic only is used.  :In the Serbian Dioceses in Australia, Fr Patrick from Ballarat serves in English, but does not lead a parish. I do not know of any other English as a first language (EFL) speaking priest serving an English speaking parish in that jurisdiction.  :In ROCOR there are a number of EFL priests and deacons. Hieromonk Benjamin in SA does not lead a parish. He is the only monk at his monastery, and then only part-time. Gosford is bi-lingual and is not a parish yet though it is heading in the right direction. None of the Sydney parishes are English-speaking. The monastery in Tasmania is English-speaking Western rite, but is not a parish.  :The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese uses English on a rotating basis at one parish each week, but that has been authoritatively stated to be a token gesture only, to prevent people saying GOA never uses the language of the people.  :As at the beginning of 2006, I understand there were only 3 fully English speaking [[parish]]es in Australia. They were Saint Barnabas Gold Coast Qld, Ss Michael & Gabriel West Ryde NSW, and Good Shepherd Canterbury Vic. All are in the Antiochian jurisdiction. All are a bit tenuous.  :Regrettably, at this stage, there is resistence in all the jurisdictions to the full use of English in parishes.  :The situation with English usage is a lot worse than the window dressing has indicated in the recent past.  :Matters are a lot different in New Zealand, particularly because of Fr Jack there.  :Would be most happy if anyone can up the numbers in Australia with concrete specifics. :chrisg 2006-05-26-0942 EAST::I had not, admittedly, distinguished between parish and mission or monastery. In ROCOR, I had included Holy Cross Australian Orthodox Mission, Melbourne [] and St John the Baptist Skete, Sydney. However, I had also completely forgotten about St Anna's Convent, Melbourne, which is English-speaking - are there services there? &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[Usertalk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 19:41, May 25, 2006 (CDT) ::: Sr Virginia (Riasophora Theodora) recites all the hours at her convent at Preston Vic, usually alone, but occasionally with one or two others. Fr Joakim at Kentlyn NSW is an EFL priest, and well loved. He usually says the hours and he also celebrates liturgy if any people are there. Spring Street Mission Melbourne Vic now only has three or four periodic attenders. Services there are infrequent with Hieromonk Benjamin having to travel to Melbourne from interstate. The future looks bleak for the Spring Street mission. ::: chrisg 2006-05-26-1053 EAST :Concerning the comments of one chrisg... The 'bleak future' of Holy Cross Mission has been greatly exaggerated. ::Thank God for the fruit it bears. It can be difficult to tell in the early days of a mission, and his comment was written 8 months ago. &mdash; edited 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 03:37, February 6, 2007 (PST)
 When I began the Orthodoxy in Australasia series, I expected that I would be restricted to what was, at that point, found on the internet. Of course, that wasn't much. However, because of the considerable amount of information that is contained in this series, and the basic unwieldiness of trying to fit it all together, I would propose making, effectively, two series' - one for Australia, the other for New Zealand. Thoughts? &mdash; ''[[User:Pistevo|Pι]]''[[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]]'''[[User talkUsertalk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 10:52, May 25, 2006 (CDT) : That seems like a good idea. &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 14:46, May 25, 2006 (CDT) ::Excellent idea. chrisg 2006-05-26-0916 EAST
renameuser, Administrators

Navigation menu