Talk:Orthodoxy in Hawaii

From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 19:19, September 22, 2007 by Nectarios (talk | contribs) (Monasteries)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


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)
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)
Such judgment is unbecomming any Orthodox Christian. 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! Before laying blanket judgment upon others, look to yourself! Worry about your own salvation Arthasfleo. -Nectarios 12:19, September 22, 2007 (PDT)