I made some formatting edits very good article it is missing much information though; the name of ship and also removed some POV commentarycaptain in 1792. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www i have it somewhere, i have to look for it. i will add it when i find it.orthodoxwiki very good article.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 22:08, May 30, 2007 (PDT){{unsigned|MshKlimek}}

==POV==Nectarios:That sounds good - this is just how a wiki works - one person knows a detail, another adds other information, I'm not clear why you are trying to remove and the association of this Russian community with ROCORarticle improves gradually. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www. it appears to me that you are trying to shape the article to assert that ROCOR has an exclusive canonical claim to the Hawaiian Islandsorthodoxwiki. Can you be more clear about why you're making these edits?org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])

From an OCA point of view, Hawaii is part of North America, which constitutes is proper canonical territory, following the ''tomos'' from MoscowVery good article. I don't think this is a terribly helpful or productive battle to fight though -- we must all recognize the reality of the historical situation ll put more materials in America (and all the "diaspora" lands) , with all of its opportunities and challenges. Ideally, there would be a united Orthodox church in these regions, I have more research but I don't think this will happen anytime soon. I agree we need to keep proper canonical order in mind, but translate it shouldn't be a stick with which we beat each other with into English from Hawaiian-- rather, something we work towards in charity and brotherhood. — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])Marcus

== Personal attacks: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)

::That sounds great! I dont think personal attacks 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 = There are any monasteries in Hawaii? [[User:Arthasfleo|Arthasfleo]] 23:47, September 16, 2007 (PDT) :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]) ::ok. thank you [[User:Arthasfleo|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. -[[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]) :::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 proper good people. -12:52, September 22, 2007 (PDT) {{unsigned|Poepoe77}} :::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) ::"Not good" here FrI assume just means non-canonical, outside the fold? — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www. Johnorthodoxwiki. 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? Who moderates In the moderators90s the Moscow Patriarch broke off communion with the Constantinople Patriarch, was Pat Alexey II a schismatic? Who 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 complain will ask permission from the Icon's Guardian to?include something. People should know about this.