Difference between revisions of "Talk:Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Australia and New Zealand"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Bishop Irinej and his seat)
(Bishop Irinej and his seat)
Line 42: Line 42:
[[User:Petar|Petar]] 07:22, June 30, 2006 (CDT)
[[User:Petar|Petar]] 07:22, June 30, 2006 (CDT)
:Thank God (that a reschism is unlikely). Thank you for clearing that up. &mdash; edited by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="red">Pι</font>]][[Special:Listusers/sysop|s]][[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="yellow">τ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Pistevo|é]][[User:Pistevo|<font color="blue">vο</font>]] at 07:30, June 30, 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:30, June 30, 2006

Raskolnic is an exceedingly insulting term. People get killed over it. It should never be used by truely Christ-like people.

chrisg 2006-04-29 : 0254 EAST


First off, the Patriarchal Diocese has the Serbian name 'EPARHIJA AUSTRALIJSKO-NOVOZELANDSKA', which translates as 'Diocese of Australia and New Zealand'. If it were 'in Australia and New Zealand', it would be 'EPARHIJA U AUSTRALIJI I NOVOM ZELANDU', which it isn't.

Furthermore, removal of Raskolnik and Schismatic serves to airbrush the facts: the 'free church' was a schismatic organisation created by a defrocked bishop. It WAS schismatic, and calling it something else merely legitimises it.

for further info on this, see the blog antiglupost [1]

Regarding the name for the patriarchal diocese - no arguments.
Regarding Free/Schismatic: I would think the term on this article should be to call it by its legal names, ie Free Serbian Orthodox..., perhaps with a small 'formerly schismatic' or something like that - raskolnic is improper simply because it's not an English word. The suitable place for discussing the merits and/or problems of the former diocese would be on its own article, which this article would link to, and would have (consistant with the whole idea of OW) both sides listed. An example of how this would work can be found on the SCCOCA article. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:18, May 20, 2006 (CDT)

Balance!! chrisg 2006-05-22-1304 EAST

!!! "godless collaborationists" as a balance to 'considered schismatic'?! The balance to this would be 'self-deifying' or something similar!
Disregarding the history and justifications for a moment: according to the MCB, it is not the Church of Serbia which must be justified, but the part that broke away (again, justified or otherwise is not at issue). The arguments of both sides should be placed in its own article, or at the least in the articles of Church of Serbia and the article for the New Gracanica Metropolitanate (whenever that may be written). — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:24, May 21, 2006 (CDT)
Clarified balance!!! - chrisg 2006-05-22-1418 EAST

Crossing of wires!

who added that the schismatics were in Elaine and the Mother Church was in Canberra? This is completely reversed!!!! Petar 07:00, May 28, 2006 (CDT)

Thank you for the benefit of your knowledge. Please understand that neither myself, nor chrisg, is under the Church of Serbia - we are not being malicious in our edits. That the former-schismatics were in Elaine, etc., was in the article from when I created it, and it was due, not to any sense of malice, but solely to a lack of information. Also: please remember to sign your post (the easiest way is to use four tilda's, ie ~~~~).
Thank you again for filling in gaps that it is not possible for me to fill. — sτévο, at 05:12, May 28, 2006 (CDT)

Bishop of which diocese?

Currently the article says that Bishop-elect Irenej was elected to the Patriarchal diocese. Would someone be able to confirm that such is the case? The reason I ask - the previous two bishops were elected to the New Gracanica diocese, even though, afaik, both were elected from within the Republic of Serbia (or, at least, the general region - certainly not born in the 'diaspora'!). Thanks, — edited by sτévο at 06:56, June 30, 2006 (CDT)

Bishop Irinej and his seat

As one of Bishop Milutin's readers, I quote Bishop Milutin:

'Bishop Irinej will be Hierarch of the Patriarchal diocese, and administrator of the New Gracanica diocese'

I hope this clears it up.

As for New Gracanica always having a bishop up to now, it was mainly due to the threat of a renewed raskol. The threat now no longer exists as much as it once did.

Petar 07:22, June 30, 2006 (CDT)

Thank God (that a reschism is unlikely). Thank you for clearing that up. — edited by sτévο at 07:30, June 30, 2006 (CDT)