'World Orthodoxy'

[Olympiada]

Where does the concept of World Orthodoxy come from and is it a derogatory term? Is there an alternative to it?
Olympiada

[Marie-Duquette]

Where does the concept of World Orthodoxy come from and is it a derogatory term? Is there an alternative to it?
Olympiada

Dear Olympiada,

Where did you read or hear of the concept,--"World Orthodoxy"--

Perhaps knowing where this term/concept comes from it would be easier to help you to clarify your thoughts on the subject/issue.

marie_duquette

[Rick H.]

Dear Olympiada, Dear Marie, and All,

I would like to learn more about this expression as well. I remember our community member, Gregorios, the seminarian, used this term last fall in some of his posts. And, I think I know how he was using this, but I wonder if any could help to bring me up to speed a little more here. I can see how this may be interpreted in either a positive or a negative way. Possibly, this is a new expression coming into usage, or this may be an expression that has been in use by some main stream Orthodox writers?

Maybe some of our friends from the Great White North can weigh in on this one? BTW does anyone remember Bob and Doug McKenzie?

In Christ,
Rick

[Demetrios Galanidis]

Where does the concept of World Orthodoxy come from and is it a derogatory term? Is there an alternative to it?
Olympiada


I have only seen this term used by some Old Calendarist groups in referring to those churches in communion with Constantinople. I do believe they mean it to be derogatory.

[Michael Stickles]

I've seen it used in two different ways. The first way seems to be as a reference to Orthodoxy overall, rather than a particular group within it (such as "Greek Orthodox", "Russian Orthodox", etc.); I'm not sure in some of those instances why simple "Orthodoxy" isn't used instead. The second way is in reference to an apparent movement to bring Chalcedonian and Pre-Chalcedonian churches into full union. The usages in this sense that I've seen have been by Chalcedonian Orthodox, are in quotes (i.e., "World Orthodoxy"), and are definitely meant to be derogatory.

[Robert Rager]

I have only seen this term used by some Old Calendarist groups in referring to those churches in communion with Constantinople. I do believe they mean it to be derogatory.


That's the connotation that I'm most familiar with, also.

[Kusanagi]

If people werent so nationalistic i dont think there would be a need to use a 'world orthodox'.

[Stefan Markovich]

I have only seen this term used by some Old Calendarist groups in referring to those churches in communion with Constantinople. I do believe they mean it to be derogatory.
God helps.

yes, the schismatic old-calendarist use this terme in a derogatory way, to poin out that the Orthodox Church (in comunion with Constantinople) have fallen under the influens of the world (the spirit od the world, of what ever the english the translation is). They have a distinct learning that if bishop by his deeds/teaching falls under an anathema, loses his "bishopness" (i don't know how to say blagodat in english- grace, maybe?). So, everyone that is in comunion with such bishop also loses his grace- so, the Orthodox Church, by their teching, is not a Church any more. So they call us "world othodox". Ecumenism is the arch-heresy, and the patryarch of Constantinople is certanly a heretic(only a blind man can't see it), but my Church is in comunion with Constantinople, and the miracles haven't stoped here...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes- it is painful to endure such attacks from those we consider brothers in Christ.

Still though if the events of the past year are any lesson to the wider Church it must be that we also suffer over this separation and allow economia towards its healing.

After all, in the recent healing between the Church in Russia and the Russian Church Abroad, Patriarch Pavle himself played a major role by having his bishops personally involved in this process. And also by pointing to the past rift in the Serbian church as a precedent for healing.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Florianos]

God bless!!

God helps.
yes, the schismatic old-calendarist use this terme in a derogatory way, to poin out that the Orthodox Church (in comunion with Constantinople) have fallen under the influens of the world (the spirit od the world, of what ever the english the translation is).
So they call us "world othodox". Ecumenism is the arch-heresy, and the patryarch of Constantinople is certanly a heretic(only a blind man can't see it), but my Church is in comunion with Constantinople, and the miracles haven't stoped here...

I think we should not put all old calendarians in one box! I know many old calendarists and usually all that they say sounds true to me! Many old calendarians suffered extremly under the pressure of the new calendar church.How can an orthodox persecute and orthodox only because he wants to follow the old calender?

I also witnessed miracles in old calendarian churches. Did not even the cross appear over Athen in 1925 on the old calendar feast of the elevation of the cross! I think it is allways a problem when we limit the grace here and there.

The innovations were uncanonical , without reason and bad for the unity of the church. Many of the leaders and founders of the old calendarians were great Elders and some Saints! So it is not so easy to say who create the schism, they that innovated or they who did not follow these actions?
Who is guilty of the schism? No one can say only the old calendarians!

Many Elders and Saints within the New Calender church were also against the changing but stayed to fight from within, until now I think this fight from within did not bear fruits?

In CHRIST

[Olga]

The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, in the Orthodox Church, not a heresy, as some might have us believe. The fact that there are any number of old-calendar churches in full communion with new-calendar churches (of Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, and some (all?) under the Patriarchate of Antioch), attests to this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Plus a number of Orthodox churches which mainly use the 'new' Calendar have in recent years begun blessing the use of the 'old' Calendar within their own church.

The Bulgarian Patriarchate allows this with the new parishes recently received under Metropolitan Joseph.

The OCA has begun doing this in certain dioceses (and always had some parishes who kept to the old calendar even after the calendar change).

I have heard the GOA has allowed this with some former old calendrists who came under the omophor of the GOA.

So this would mean that if the calendar was a matter of doctrine, of heresy, then these parishes within one church should not be in communion with each other!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Florianos]

God bless!


The difference in calendar is an anomaly, an irregularity, in the Orthodox Church, not a heresy, as some might have us believe. The fact that there are any number of old-calendar churches in full communion with new-calendar churches (of Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, and some (all?) under the Patriarchate of Antioch), attests to this.

Olga I do not know if it is so clear? When someone is under anathema is he a heretic , I do not know?

Some excerpts from an article about the calender question:
SIGILLION of the Patriarchal formulation of an encyclical to Orthodox Christians throughout the world not to accept the modernistic Paschalion, or calendar of the innovated Menologion, but to keep what was once for all and well-formulated by the three hundred and eighteen Holy God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, under penalty of penance and anathema.

Background: In 1583, the Pope of Rome, Gregory XIII, who changed the Julian calendar, repeatedly pressured the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias, who was called Illustrious, to follow him in the calendar innovation. The Patriarch repeatedly refused with letters, and finally in the same year, 1583, he convened a council in Constantinople...

......7) That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed, and Holy Pascha, and the Menologion with which they did well in making it a law that we should follow it, and wishes to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the New Menologion of the atheist astronomers of the Pope, and opposes all those things and wishes to overthrow and destroy the dogmas and customs of the Church which have been handed down by our fathers, let him suffer anathema and be put out of the Church of Christ and out of the Congregation of the Faithful.

And from an Articel about Blessed Elder Philotheso Zervakos:

Two quotations at the beginning of the pamphlet serve as an introduction to what Father Philotheos has to say. The first, taken from the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, states: "If someone sets aside any tradition [of the Church], written or unwritten, let him be anathema." The second, which is taken from St. Augustine, says: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish."

Continuing, Father Philotheos adds that the rejection of the New Calendar and the restoration of the Traditional one is necessary not only in order to put an end to the division of the Church, to dissensions and hatreds, but also for the following reasons: a) because following the Old Calendar is a tradition of the Church, and those who reject it are subject to the anathema of the Seventh Holy Œcumenical Synod, which is quoted at the beginning of his treatise; and b) because the introduction of the New Calendar abolishes the Fast of the Holy Apostles, which is an old tradition of the Church: sometimes it abolishes this fast completely and sometimes reduces it to only one or two days. (Originally, this fast was a seven-day one, then it became longer.)

Finally, Blessed Philotheos notes that as a Church calendar the New Calendar has been condemned and anathematized by three Regional Synods (in 1583, 1587, and 1593). This pamphlet has the merit of putting the Calendar problem in proper perspective, dealing with its essential aspects in a brief, clear, incisive manner. New Calendarists think that the question is about thirteen days, about astronomical correctness, and view the Old Calendarists as simply stubborn, ignorant persons who are averse to scientific improvements. Father Philotheos makes no mention of "astronomical correctness" vs. "astronomical incorrectness," because this is not really the point at issue. What is at issue is whether Orthodox Christians should remain faithful to Tradition, or are free to innovate as they please, with a view to some political or other secular expediency, without regard to the Church’s canonical way of doing things and without regard to foreseeable evil consequences ("fruits") of their innovations for the Church


When orthodox say that some traditions are not dogmatic ( calender, pews, how to chant, organs, long hair and beards of priests, hair cover......) and are not so important I think they are wrong! We are not allowed to change any tradition of our HolyChurch. St. Basil the great writes in his book on the Holy Spirit that there are not important and unimportant things - everything is important in church! I think we can not reduce orthodoxy on a few dogmas and doctrines and believing in them we are orthodox .
Orthodoxy is the WHOLE, catholic( kat holon) faith we received from the Apostles (stand fast in the traditions written and unwritten).

We can not divide tradition from teaching ! Tell me how you pray and I will tell you what you believe! There is a good book from Constantine Cavarnos about ecumenism and modernism.

In CHRIST

[Owen Jones]

I tend to think that the arguments in favor of the Old Calendar are spiritually correct. And it serves as an eschatalogical sign, as if to say, "we don't need your stinkin' new calendar."

However, a lot of people who observe the Old Calendar who I have met strike me as a bit out of whack. So it's hard to separate the message from the messenger. And for most of us in the U.S., there is little opportunity to observe the Old Calendar, unless you live near a monastery that observes it, aside from your personal prayers of course, but then what are you going to do, observe one calendar in your personal prayers, and another in church?

The other factor is that the secular authorities imposed the new calendar society wide and repressed the religious resistance to the change. Of course, now that there are only secular governments (maybe the Greek case is an exception), one can worship according to whatever calendar one wishes. There were widespread riots in Britain in the 18th century when the government changed over to the new calendar. But the power of the government prevailed.

[Olga]

When orthodox say that some traditions are not dogmatic ( calender, pews, how to chant, organs, long hair and beards of priests, hair cover......) and are not so important I think they are wrong!

My dear Alexander, you may think they are wrong, and you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that there is full communion between old and new calendar Orthodox Churches. Using your reasoning, this means that all the new-calendar Orthodox churches are in heresy, as would be all the old-calendar churches which are in communion with the new-calendar churches. Is this what you believe?

[Vasilis Kirikos]

God helps.

yes, the schismatic old-calendarist use this terme in a derogatory way, to poin out that the Orthodox Church (in comunion with Constantinople) have fallen under the influens of the world (the spirit od the world, of what ever the english the translation is). They have a distinct learning that if bishop by his deeds/teaching falls under an anathema, loses his "bishopness" (i don't know how to say blagodat in english- grace, maybe?). So, everyone that is in comunion with such bishop also loses his grace- so, the Orthodox Church, by their teching, is not a Church any more. So they call us "world othodox". Ecumenism is the arch-heresy, and the patryarch of Constantinople is certanly a heretic(only a blind man can't see it), but my Church is in comunion with Constantinople, and the miracles haven't stoped here...
Maybe we should merely turn the other cheek.
There are so many people who hate. I don't want to be even accused of being one of them.
Vasilis Kirikos.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Such discussions I think tend to get nowhere once they become polemical. A potential discussion about the Patristic principles by which the Church lives turns into an exchange of accusations of betraying the Faith.

An interesting discussion though that does directly touch the theme of this thread is that of how the Church actually determines what heresy and schism is.

This question has been brought up or suggested many times here over the years but without dealing directly with the subject from an ecclesiological perspective.

Just as the principles of iconography has been discussed here in the past few days so the question of heresy & schism and how the Church actually determines these through Her life is a very important question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosta]

The adoption of the new calendar was definately bad, and the man who made it possible Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of sorry memory was even worse. Anyone who asks me, I tell them let the healing begin by holding a council condemning this freemason.

Regardless, if your under a right-believing bishop with apostolic succession whether old calendar or new, schismatic or not you have nothing to worry about.

[Paul Cowan]

Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of sorry memory

I hope when I die, I will be thought of a little better for all the decisions good or otherwise I make in my lifetime.

Should we not let God do the judging?

humbly
Paul