Changes

-----------==Recognising ROCOR== 

::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

::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"==

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.

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]]'''[[Usertalk:Pistevo|τ]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]]''[[User:Pistevo|vο]]'', at 10:52, May 25, 2006 (CDT) :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]]'''[[Usertalk: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>]] ^{[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]} ^{[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]} ^{[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]} 14:46, May 25, 2006 (CDT)

:::Excellent idea. chrisg 2006-05-26-0916 EAST