Is it really right to classify ROCOR as "Old Calendarist"? Their separation didn't have anything to do with the calendar change, and they're apparently on the verge of reunion with Moscow, anyhow. --Rdr. Andrew 13:00, 28 Feb 2005 (CST)
Archbishop Gregory (Dormition Skete / Colorado)
How should his eminence be classified? As a separate jurisdiction? Eddieuny 21:18, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
- Good question. What does he call his jurisdiction? Are there any other bishops in it with him? Their website describes them as "temporarily independent." I'd hate to make up a name for them if they didn't have their own, but they are probably worth a mention. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 21:48, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
- Oh, here we go: http://www.roacamerica.org/
- It seems they're the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America." —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 22:15, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT)
- It appears that Archbishop Gregory has changed his church's name to the "Genuine Orthodox Church of America." link title. However, this may be ambiguous as the Metropolis of the GOC-Chrysostomite under Metropolitan Pavlos is called GOC as is the Makarian Synod's presence in America. --Anastasios 14:07, February 20, 2006 (CST)
I received this feedback today from someone. Any comments? Thanks, Fr. John
- Interesting. I think this article illustrates some of the problems with a publicly edited encyclopedia. Just a couple examples...
- Headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the synod has twelve bishops and is enjoying a period of relative stability amidst intermittent persecution on the part of the state church. One bishop, Gregory (George) of Colorado, recently went into schism, but took no parishes with him save four, calling themselves the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in America.
- This seems very biased in favor of Valentine and against Gregory (note that I am not the least bit fond of either of them).
- In 2001, after the ROCOR made a clear commitment to union with the Moscow Patriarchate, the head of the ROCOR synod, Metropolitan Vitaly, retired in clear disgust from the proceedings.
- Almost immediately afterwards, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Varnava of Cannes, and the two of the Russian bishops of ROCOR, separated from the ROCOR and made new bishops. The proceedings that led up to these events are well documented on the Internet and the treatment of the retired head of the ROCOR was painful to watch, for even the most casual observer.
- Again, obvious bias in favor of the Mansonville schismatics (yes, I have a personal interest here).
I don't see why it couldn't be worded a bit more neutrally. The original bulk of the article was taken by permission from a text written by a scholar in the field (who is himself, I believe, in one of these groups), JosephSuaiden. In any event, it's curious that the person who wrote to you didn't see instead the inherent strengths of a publicly editable encyclopedia and come contribute.
I changed the eponym for the "Kiousis" Synod to "Chrysostomite". This is how it is known and referred to in Greece. The alternative "Kiousis Synod" is used in polemical contexts by its detractors. "Chrysostomite" is commonly used to refer to both Chrysostom of Florina (as opposed to Matthewite) and Chrysostom (Kiousis) of Athens (as opposed to Auxentite). I also corrected the timeline of the Florenite ordinations and the removal of Auxentios in 1986.
- Thanks Leonidas! Good to see you here - Fr. John
Walling off vs In Resistance
It seems that these terms are used more by the Exarchate of the Synod in Resistance in their literature interchangeably. I have not seen this terminology used in any of my church's (GOC-Chrysostomite under Metropolitan Pavlos of Astoria) publications in English (although we don't have a large publishing arm!), but I am not sure how these matters are discussed in Greek. From our POV, we are not "in resistance" as we are the local Church of Greece and its American Metropolis (sorry if this offends anyone in the New Calendar Church, but I am just stating the official view) so there is nothing to "resist." Walling off implies that we hold the State Church of Greece to be on equal footing, but just a separate part. I don't see any difference between walling off and being in resistance.
To break the discussion down to "Synods condemning New Calendarists as Graceless" and "those not" would be futile as well, as all the Greek Synods except the Synod in Resistance have done so, yet there have been vocal critics of this policy even within these synods (i.e. Metropolitan Petros of Astoria).
In other words, I don't quite have the answer (although I will think about it some more) but I hope I have pointed out some potential ambiguities.
Anastasios 14:53, February 20, 2006 (CST)
Some changes that needed to be made:
a) Clarification of the 1995 split in Kiousis Synod: Only Euthymios of Thessaloniki was charged with moral infractions. b) Cyprianite Ecclesiology is not widely considered heretical among Greek Old Calendarists, regardless of a 1987 Synodal Decision by the Kiousis Synod. "Cyprianite Eccelsiology" is generally found objectionable because it is seen to blurr the distinction (the boundary created by the act of breaking communion and "walling-off") between World Orthodoxy and the Old Calendar Church and mostly because it is percieved to have been articulted in order to justify divisions within the Old Calendar Church: namely the existance of the Synod in Resistance. c) The reference to a Cyprianite priest in Georgia erased: this isn't the place for invective against individuals.
Egyptian "Old Calendarists"
The jurisdictions, affiliations, and ordinations mentioned in this entry--and the "Holy Synod of bishops headed by Max Michel"--are all highly questionable, if not completely bogus. This jurisidiciton is not a mainstream Old Calendar jurisdiction and it is not recognized by anyone. It really doesn't have a place here, at least in this article.
In general, the Old Calendar movement is Greek as it came as a reaction to the Calendar Reforms of the 1920's in the Greek-speaking churches of Constantinople and Greece.
The Russian Church Abroad came to be associated with this movement in the 1960's as its hierarchs restored the Florenite hiearchy in 1960 after the death of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Florina. Especially under Metropolitan Philaret, the ROCA took an interest in the Greek Old Calendarists, involving itself even in the efforts for reconciliation between Florinites and Matthewites in 1972.
The ROCA and its splinter groups thus come to be included in discussions on the Old Calendar only a) in view of the above described involvement in the ecclesiastic life of the Greek Old Calendar Church and b) in regards to the movment to resist Ecumenism by abstaining from communion with the "World Orthodox" jurisdictions.
A working definition, then, of who and what should be included in this article would be those jurisdicitions which fall into the category of Greek Old Calendarist-ROCA: all those jurisdictions which trace their origins from the ROCA or from the Greek Florenites or Matthewites.
- Thanks for the explanation and clarifying comments, Leonidas. It's helpful for making sense of the situation. Maybe the material on Max Michel should be moved to Episcopi vagantes? — FrJohn (talk)
- P. S. Just noticed we don't have a listing there - maybe that's just as well.
- Thanks very much for the note. As far as I know, Max Michel has been "ordained" by an Old Calendarist group in the States (see http://www.oldorthodox.org/synodcommunion.html ), so please advise. Does this group belong to mainstream Old Calendarists? Max has recently published on his Web site his alleged "Apostolic succession", which, as he claims, goes back to Sts Andrew and Peter through those Old Calendarist "bishops" who "ordained" him in the States ( http://www.bishopmaximus.com/articles_body.php?id=129 ). --Arbible 04:44, September 18, 2006 (CDT)
- I expect that Leonidas would know if they had any regard among the mainstream Greek-American Old-Calendarists. (I don't know many Old-Claendarists, but Leonides, a personal friend, knows more about the movement as anyone I've ever met.) The claim to "apostolic succession" is a familiar trope which, in an Orthodox context, I think is almost meaningless. As I see it, we understand that apostolic succession must mean much more than a mere linear succession; it requires communion with the body of the Church. The ancient dictum "unus Christianus, nullus Christianus" (one Christian is no Christian) certainly applies to bishops, conveniently located far off and bolstered with self-aggrandizing claims to their own succession. — FrJohn (talk)