Talk:Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia
The Standing Council of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia was established only for Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions. The bias was there at establishment.
My correction showed this historical bias.
Your removal of my correction, for whatever reason, removes the historical truth.
Is that what you meant to do?
chrisg 2006-03-15 1820 AEDT
- Without wanting to intrude: the term 'byzantine' (in 'byzantine Orthodox') is usually used comparatively - whether comparing byzantine and slavic (as the main Eastern liturgic traditions), comparing byzantine with roman (although that's usually 'greek' and 'roman'). The only interpretations that I saw for explicitly saying 'Byzantine Orthodox' was that it excluded either the Orthodox following slavic customs (eg Serbians, Russians), or those following the Western Rite (which, afaik, didn't exist in Australia at the time of founding), or those in the Oriental Orthodox Churches (which would, indeed, be covered under the MCB). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 02:01, March 15, 2006 (CST)
In 1991 the Church of Antioch decided:- 1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved. Pastoral Agreement 1991
The adjective Byzantine had been used in the sense of not including Oriental Orthodox.
The founders of SCCOCA deliberately excluded the Oriental Orthodox.
chrisg 2006-03-15 2132 AEDT
- In the quote provided, Byzantine is referring to the specific liturgical tradition rather than to the bodies in question. In any event, the current wording (Eastern) is more in keeping with established English usage when comparing the two groups (Eastern and Oriental). Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian are also quite common.
- Anyhow, the adjustment that Dcn. David originally made was in keeping with OrthodoxWiki's established Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias, in which Orthodox used without qualification refers to Chalcedonian/Eastern Orthodoxy. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with that portion of and the rest of the Style Manual.
- I do have a question about the external link, though—it seems to be linking only to the Greek Archdiocese's website without any history of SCOCCA included. The previous link included the history. I've restored it. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 06:10, March 15, 2006 (CST)
This article, [this edit], has the appearance (or more) of being biased. I have tried to present both sides; please try to respect that there are two sides to any given story, but more precise information would be better still. Cheers, --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:13, April 9, 2006 (CDT)
- Again, I have tried to make this article resembling NPOV, telling both sides of the story (see []). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:06, April 10, 2006 (CDT) / [edited, with some extra edits. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 23:12]
Accuracy of article
This article, even aside from the polemics, currently has an inconsistancy and a lack of cited evidence. Inconsistancy: the page on the Serbian Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand lists Bishop Vasilije (Veinovic) as the bishop of the New Gracanica diocese until 1993, probably beginning near the end of the previous bishop's tenure, 1988 (a little late for 1979); however, the listing for the patriarchal diocese has Bishop Vasilije (Vadic) around the right period of time. Particularly considering that the Free Serbian Diocese was not in communion with Constantinople, the most logical reading to me is that it was the patriarchal diocese that joined SCCOCA.
Lack of cited evidence: the Romanian parishes under the Antiochian Archdiocese - that the parishes were schismatic is uncited, that this is the reason for an exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited, that there was a purposeful exclusion from SCCOCA is uncited. ISTM that there is no benefit to keeping the allegation on there when it is uncited but the response is. I think a week should be enough time, on both counts, to cite sources. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 04:55, April 14, 2006 (CDT)
Defrocked Romanians and Schismatic Romanian Communities
This is a widely held belief among those under the thumb of Archbishop Stylianos, including the two Romanian parishes who look to him for protection.
The belief was actively promoted collusively by the Exarch of the Patriarch in Turkey and by Dr Popescu.
The only meeting of SCCOCA attended by Metropolitan Archbishop Paul ended quite rapidly in a screaming session when Met Abp Paul declined to discuss the matter of the allegedly schismatic community and the allegedly defrocked priest. This so strongly displeased one of the key players that he vigorously insisted the Met Abp discuss the matter and kick out the allegedly defrocked priest. Met Abp Paul again said it was not a matter for discussion at SCCOCA, or indeed at any inter-jurisdictional forum. The other antagonistic key player said this was precisely the right forum to discuss it and arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
Met Abp Paul again said it was an internal matter and he was not prepared to discuss it outside his own jurisdiction.
That was met by a screaming session from the first antagonistic key player.
The meeting ended abruptly.
No apology has been offered to Met Abp Paul.
Then the first antagonistic key player travelled to Romania in 2001 to ask for the relevant priest to be defrocked by the Romanian authorities. When he was there he found that the subject priest had been released to Antioch and documentation had been issued in the 1990s to that effect. The key player was very disappointed but still persisted in spreading his version of events.
The other key player has happily involved himself in the spread of these untruths, to such an extent that when Antiochian Orthodox laity go to Greek Orthodox confessors, they are often counselled to leave the Antiochian jurisdiction "because it accepts schismatic defrocked priests from other jurisdictions and so is not truely Orthodox". They are being counselled to join the Greek jurisdiction.
So far the Antiochian authorities have shown forebearance and have not involved their laity in the contretemps. However, if the clergy in Australian of the Ecumenical Patriarchate continue to undermine the Church of Antioch through the confessional, then their grossly unChristian behaviour is unlikely to go unchallenged for much longer.
Apart from the lack of ethics in trying to poach Orthodox from another jurisdiction, there is also the guile and continual deception over this issue, especially when the Romanian authorities gave a clear and unequivocal answer to the first key player that he was inaccurate in his assertions, and wrong in his requests for canonical censure of the relevant priest.
The assertion on the OrthodoxWiki page about the allegedly defrocked priest is unsupported and uncited, but it accurately reflects the disgusting untruths being continuously peddled by the two chief antagonists.
Although the source is uncited, it so completely matches what has been so widely said in Greek clerical circles in Australia for so many years, that it should remain on the website.
There have been no further meetings of SCCOCA since the last debacle.
It is another complete falsehood to suggest Met Abp Paul and Antioch have been kicked out of SCCOCA. Although the Ecumenical Despota in Australia would like to see Antioch kicked out of Australia in much the same way he managed to get Jerusalem kicked out of Australia, this is quite unlikely.
Antioch believes the future for Orthodox Australia is a single jurisdiction. But under the current dictatorial leadership of one of the largest of the jurisdictions this is an obvious impossibility. Antioch will remain in Australia until a single loving co-operative jurisdiction is achieved.
We pray that God will, in God's time, allow us in Australia to come to our senses and learn and show Christ-like love. Until then, the prospect of hordes of converts flocking to Orthodoxy in Australia, is most remote.
chrisg 2006-04-26 0908 EAST
- I'll see what I can do about incorporating some of this into the article.
- On other notes - Jerusalem's little foray into Australia was quite different, and was (from my understanding) based on causing schism in an archdiocese - not unlike Jerusalem's foray into America regarding the Antiochian Archdiocese there. And while it's not my business - nor my direct problem - it may be less than beneficial to refer to the current Archbishop of the numerically largest archdiocese as 'imperial ethnarch'. *shrug* my opinion, anyway. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:23, April 26, 2006 (CDT)
Some suggest Jerusalem in Australia was attempting to heal the schism and bring the lost sheep into the fold. Unfortunately the shepherd representing the Patriarchate in Turkey refused to allow the stray sheep into the fold unless they let him fleece them.
chrisg 2006-04-28 : 2252 EAST
Withdrawal of ROCOR
Is it possible to obtain a citation for this allegation. Preferably a citation which does not come from the former Chairman or one of his mouthpieces.
What is suggested here does not accord with the statement given by the official ROCOR representative in a formal recorded interview incorporated in an unpublished MTh (Hons) Thesis in 2001.
chrisg 2006-04-29 2249 EAST
- Unpublished theses are suitable to be cited in university assignments, so I don't see any reason to not use them here. The article only says that they chose to leave, without supplying a reason (which accords with what I've heard, ie that it was in response to the ecumenical movement, but without stating that, because of lack of citation) - that would change if a reason could be cited, though. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 19:55, April 28, 2006 (CDT)