Question about the Milan Synod

[Robert Hegwood]

Pardon me if I open a can of polemical worms...I'm not trying to, just looking for an informed informational lay of the land.

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the canonicity (or the perceived canonicity)of the Synod of Milan. I know they are in origin a Greek Old Calendrist communion who reckon themselves as a survivor synod of some bishop named Auxentios, whom I know very little about beyond the fact that he didn't like the new calendar (not that I blame him) and that he apparently worked a little too fast and loose and little too unilaterally sometimes in the opinion of other contemporary bishops. So I realize there are some questions concerning their pedigree.

How does their practice compare with other Orthodox bodies, either OC or NC?

If their priests or bishops visited Mt. Athos would they tend to be received as fellow Orthodox, schismatics, or out and out pretenders to Orthodoxy?

What is their stance with regard to NC Orthodox...disapprove of the NC but still consider them Orthodox, wall themselves off without explicit condemnations just to be safe, etc.

Which if any national Churches, either "True/Continuing" Orthodox communions or other Orthodox ecclesial bodies would be willing to serve jointly with their clergy?

Thanks

[Christophoros]

Pardon me if I open a can of polemical worms...I'm not trying to, just looking for an informed informational lay of the land.

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the canonicity (or the perceived canonicity)of the Synod of Milan. I know they are in origin a Greek Old Calendrist communion who reckon themselves as a survivor synod of some bishop named Auxentios, whom I know very little about beyond the fact that he didn't like the new calendar (not that I blame him) and that he apparently worked a little too fast and loose and little too unilaterally sometimes in the opinion of other contemporary bishops. So I realize there are some questions concerning their pedigree.

How does their practice compare with other Orthodox bodies, either OC or NC?

If their priests or bishops visited Mt. Athos would they tend to be received as fellow Orthodox, schismatics, or out and out pretenders to Orthodoxy?

What is their stance with regard to NC Orthodox...disapprove of the NC but still consider them Orthodox, wall themselves off without explicit condemnations just to be safe, etc.

Which if any national Churches, either "True/Continuing" Orthodox communions or other Orthodox ecclesial bodies would be willing to serve jointly with their clergy?

Thanks

The Milan Synod is not recognized as "canonical" either by the autocephalous Churches or any Old Calendarist group.

What their ecclesiological views are in regards to the calendar question and ecumenism varies significantly, depending on which bishop is being quoted. They do not appear to have any binding position on either issue.

Regardless, they are not in communion with anyone (though they were, at one time, in communion with the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate). FWIW, many years ago, the exarch of an Old Calendar group in the United States told me their first hierarch - Metropolitan Evolgius of Milan - was deposed for serious moral reasons... In fairness though, most Old Calendar bishops appear to have been deposed at one time or another by their fellow bishops, rightly or wrongly.

[Anthony Stokes]

Pardon me if I open a can of polemical worms...I'm not trying to, just looking for an informed informational lay of the land.

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the canonicity (or the perceived canonicity)of the Synod of Milan.

The history section on their new wesbite in the USA says that they are not in communion with any patriarchates, but that they have friendly relationships with all canonical Orthodox churches. It is a very convoluted history, and hard to follow - http://www.milansynodusa.org/

Their autonomy was first granted by their bishop Auxentios, and then again by the Patriarch of Kyiv, which then split itself.


How does their practice compare with other Orthodox bodies, either OC or NC?

A friend of mine at my church first came to Orthodoxy through their monastery in Austin. They are basically an Old Calendar Western Rite church, from what I gather.


If their priests or bishops visited Mt. Athos would they tend to be received as fellow Orthodox, schismatics, or out and out pretenders to Orthodoxy?

Since they are mostly Western Rite, I doubt it would work out too well.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Ryan]

I think the Milan synod views the NC churches in a similar way to the Cyprianites, that is, they are ailing but not graceless.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Pardon me if I open a can of polemical worms...I'm not trying to, just looking for an informed informational lay of the land.

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the canonicity (or the perceived canonicity)of the Synod of Milan. I know they are in origin a Greek Old Calendrist communion who reckon themselves as a survivor synod of some bishop named Auxentios, whom I know very little about beyond the fact that he didn't like the new calendar (not that I blame him) and that he apparently worked a little too fast and loose and little too unilaterally sometimes in the opinion of other contemporary bishops. So I realize there are some questions concerning their pedigree.

How does their practice compare with other Orthodox bodies, either OC or NC?

If their priests or bishops visited Mt. Athos would they tend to be received as fellow Orthodox, schismatics, or out and out pretenders to Orthodoxy?

What is their stance with regard to NC Orthodox...disapprove of the NC but still consider them Orthodox, wall themselves off without explicit condemnations just to be safe, etc.

Which if any national Churches, either "True/Continuing" Orthodox communions or other Orthodox ecclesial bodies would be willing to serve jointly with their clergy?

Thanks

At the end of the day the only way to get any clarity about such issues is to ask your neighbourhood Orthodox priest how someone from such a group would be received in their parish or Church. This is a good way to get a clear answer because quite likely what you will hear from this priest is what his bishop and/or synod of bishops has stated.

In any case, without going into any assessment of this group about which I personally know only very little, I think Fr David's response whch i came across earlier today is correct that few if any canonical Orthodox churches would accept the canonicity of this group. However due to their continual contacts with Orthodoxy throughout their history it could be that they would be received through economia. Whatever this would mean would have to discovered on a case by case basis.

In any case I think it is very important for us to understand that such groups do not remain forever on one point of the canonical/uncanonical spectrum but rather vary according to present circumstances.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

Please see this message:

Russian Church Abroad receives two Western Rite priests from Milan Synod

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=70041#post70041

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

I think the Milan synod views the NC churches in a similar way to the Cyprianites, that is, they are ailing but not graceless.

Dear Ryan,

While the Milan Synod bishops probably prefer to adhere to the Old Calendar themsleves they have still been willing tio enter into negotiations to unite with several New Calendar Patriarchates.

Here is information supplied on OrthodoxWest, a Milan Synod e-list, by Fr Aidan (Keller) who was during the period of these union negotiations the secretary to the Milan Archbishop Hilarion of Austin Texas.

_______________________

The following applications were made by the bishops of the Milan Synod to majorPatriarchates and Local Churches of Orthodoxy in the years after 1997 and up to about 2002 or 2003. My memory is shaky on exact chronology.

1. Church of Constantinople

Milan's application to Constantinople occurred some years ago now. Constantinople did a check on all of Milan's financial holdings, properties, value of properties, and so forth. One bishop within that jurisdiction said that the EP found insufficient "collateral" to make Milan of any interest to them. During the negotiations one bishop, named Nektarios, went over to the EP unilaterally. I don't know what became of him after that. If I recall, the Vatican was very keen in protesting to the Phanar not to receive the Milan Synod, but I don't think this protest was pivotal in the Phanar's decision. After the negotiations fell through, Milan issued a strong denunciation of the EP.

2. Church of Russia

Milan's application to the Moscow Patriarchate occurred before that to Constantinople since Milan preferred old-calendar jurisdictions. Many in the MP were favourable but also many were unfavourable. Moscow finally offered to receive the Milan bishops in rank, but not as ruling bishops. This was found unacceptable to the Milan bishops. After these negotiations fell through, one Milan bishop, Marco of Genoa, published a derisive denunciation of the MP.

3. Church of Bulgaria

These negotiations were among the most promising. The reception of the Milan Synod as an autonomous or semi-autonomous metropolia under Sofia was actually put on the agenda of the great sobor of the Bulgarian Church. The Bulgarians were somewhat bewildered by the number of bishops Milan had per capita, since the Bulgarian Church has extremely few bishops per capita. However, the agenda item was placed at about item #100 (if I recall), near the end of items, and so it was never brought up at that sobor, time failing. Thus things fell through and Milan turned to other jurisdictions.

4. Church of Romania

These negotiations seemed fairly promising, and friendly "on-the-ground" contacts were established with actual bishops and their faithful in Romania. As a result, a Romanian convent sewed some very beautiful vestments for Metr. Evloghios, and the presence of many Romanians in Milan Synod parishes must have been something of interest to the Romanian Patriarchate. Friendships were made. However, in the end nothing came of these negotiations. Some of their bishops were very much in favour, some were very much not in favour. I can't recall exactly why these ones failed. I know the calendar issue was
discussed, Milan people being very keen to keep the old calendar, and I think this hurdle was cleared. I don't remember what was the chief sticking point, prob. autonomy.

5. Church of Serbia

These were very promising negotiations. There was a Bp. Luke [Serbian Bishop of France] who was keenly interested in making a deal whereby, in one stroke, both the Milan people and the people who were ECOF and were without sponsorship, could together be received under the Serbian patriarchate, and the more traditional Western rite people of Milan could have some oversight over the WR people of France whose liturgical customs were more problematic. Some of the Serbian bishops were enthusiastic about this, incl. the nephew of St. Nikolai Velimirovich, a bishop John Velimirovitch. The other Serbian
bishops weren't as keen to make a bold move in France and in Milan, and the Milan WR people actually
begged off being joined in any relationship to the ECOF people, since their approaches to liturgy were so very different (also the calendar was a big issue for the Milan people). In the end everything fell through entirely, prob. over autonomy.

6. Church of Georgia.

These were the most promising negotiations of all. Georgia had had internal problems with Greek Old Calendarist entry into their geographic boundaries. Some Georgian negotiators felt that by declaring Milan to be the authentic descendant of Auxentios, while taking it under their wing, they could prevent further 'poaching' by other GOC-ists. The more traditional-minded Milan bishops were very pleased that Georgia had withdrawn from the WCC, an organisation they abhorred, and negotiations went so far that
the Milan bishops actually had plane tickets to travel to Tbilisi and be received under the Patriarchate. At the last minute the Phanar discovered these plans, they made rather severe threats of censure against Georgia should it receive Milan, and as a result the Georgian Church suddenly withdrew its offer.

7. Church of Antioch

We should also not forget the Milan Synod's exploration of being received by the Antiochian Patriarchate. The patriarchal representative who spoke to Metr. Evloghios said that he knew the Milan Synod were pious Orthodox Christians, but due to the fact that the Patriarchates counted Milan in the number of "Slavic" or "Russian" churches culturally, and because the Antiochian Patriarchate had a delicate role in stabilising problematic relations between the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates, it would not be possible for the Antiochian Patriarchate to assist the Milan Synod by receiving them into their communion.



>) Is there the chance that the negotiations will be resumed in the
> future?

I think after all these efforts and all these disappointments, and lots of time and energy and money being poured into these external activities over a period of some five or six years, the Milan Synod bishops are tired of the roller coaster (hopes, hopes dashed, hopes, etc.) and have given up trying to make something happen, except perhaps with other Greek Old Calendarists.

I hope this helps.

Fr. Aidan
a sinful monk

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

In any case, without going into any assessment of this group about which I personally know only very little, I think Fr David's response whch i came across earlier today is correct that few if any canonical Orthodox churches would accept the canonicity of this group. However due to their continual contacts with Orthodoxy throughout their history it could be that they would be received through economia. Whatever this would mean would have to discovered on a case by case basis.
Dear Father,

You are quite right and we see the evidence of this in last month's reception of two priests from Milan by the Russian Church Abroad.

Metropolitan Hilarion made the decision to receive the two Milan priests not by Ordination nor even by Vesting but by Cheirothesia which he describes as the regularisation of their existing Orders from Milan.

More information here:
Oremus: Roman Rite in the Orthodox Church
http://www.sarisburium.blogspot.com


Here is Metropolitan Hilarion's Statement which has been released on the Net and which will appear in the next issue of the diocesan magazine:

_______________________________________
This is to certify that on Thursday, September 18, 2008, before the Divine Liturgy, celebrated in St. Sergius of Radonezh Church at the Synod of Bishops in New York City, we regularized through cheirothesia the ordination to the Holy Priesthood of Hieromonk Aidan (Keller).

Hieromonk Aidan (Keller) is assigned to the Eastern America & New York
Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

[seal]

+ Hilarion [handwritten signature]
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
____________________________________

[Monk Symeon]

Pardon me if I open a can of polemical worms...I'm not trying to, just looking for an informed informational lay of the land.

It never ceases to amaze me that people depend on mediums as this to discover the facts about any particular Orthodox Church.


I'm wondering if anyone can tell me about the canonicity (or the perceived canonicity)of the Synod of Milan. I know they are in origin a Greek Old Calendrist communion who reckon themselves as a survivor synod of some bishop named Auxentios, whom I know very little about beyond the fact that he didn't like the new calendar (not that I blame him) and that he apparently worked a little too fast and loose and little too unilaterally sometimes in the opinion of other contemporary bishops. So I realize there are some questions concerning their pedigree.

Essentially, when the True Orthodox Christians in Greece no longer had a hierarchy 2 bishops of ROCOR stepped in to assist. One of these new bishops was +Auxtentios who later ascended as Chief Hierarch. With numerous requests from Western Europeans seeking membership in the TOC of Greece, in the 1970s a new Diocese was created in Lisbon. In 1984, that diocese was given autonomy status so it could witness the Orthodox Faith without being hampered by Greek nationalism. Later the HQ of this Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia was transferred from Lisbon to Milan with the election of its 2nd & current Chief Hierarch. In 1997, the Milan Synod took in a small Western Rite Synod (formerly recognized by the EP) with a history older than the Milan Synod itself. If one recognizes Archbishop Auxentios' legitimacy then one must also accept the Milan Synod's.


How does their practice compare with other Orthodox bodies, either OC or NC?

The Milan Synod is a traditional observing Church and overall is bi-ritual (Western & Eastern rites).


If their priests or bishops visited Mt. Athos would they tend to be received as fellow Orthodox, schismatics, or out and out pretenders to Orthodoxy?

Is Mt Athos the lipnus test? The Milan Synod is in communion with all other Orthodox Churches in Faith, Tradition and Order. Politically they are not "in communion" with anyone except one TOC Bishop in Greece.


What is their stance with regard to NC Orthodox...disapprove of the NC but still consider them Orthodox, wall themselves off without explicit condemnations just to be safe, etc.

As I have written elsewhere, "The Milan Synod is a thoroughly canonical body that views "modernists" Orthodox Churches still Grace-filled but ailing and in trouble." due to their participation in & influences of false Ecumenism. Contrary to the Cyprianites, the Milan Synod is NOT "walled off". Our clergy do concelebrate with both NC & OC on a selective basis.


Which if any national Churches, either "True/Continuing" Orthodox communions or other Orthodox ecclesial bodies would be willing to serve jointly with their clergy? Thanks

I suggest you read the article: Canonicity, Milan Synod & the TOC of Greece (http://stjohnskellion.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/canonicity-milan-synod-the-toc-of-greece/).

Any further inquiry or clarification you can find my contact info here (http://kellion.org/PapaSymeon.htm).

in Christ's Peace,
Stavrophoremonk Symeon

[Andreas Moran]

The Milan Synod is in communion with all other Orthodox Churches in Faith, Tradition and Order. Politically they are not "in communion" with anyone except one TOC Bishop in Greece.

Could the difference between 'communion' and 'political communion' be explained, please?

[Monk Symeon]

Could the difference between 'communion' and 'political communion' be explained, please?

Well, "political communion" is a misnomer I admit. What I meant, however, is that genuine communion between local Orthodox Churches exists as long as those in question uphold and preserve Holy Orthodoxy as has been handed down to us from the Fathers through the ages. Yet, what may still separate such local Churches from one another are non-doctrinal and non-moral issues such as one's participation in false Ecumenism (and by extension the New Calendar). This can be exampled by the ROCOR & the MP who have over come their so-called "political" or administrative differences. Indeed one might better state such differences were a matter of Faith without touching upon doctrine. Indeed, between the MP & EP there exist political strife over Estonia yet they are in communion with one another.

Fr Raphael Vereshack has stated the difference better in his 2006 post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38683&postcount=9) on the Greek Old Calendarists:



Part of the problem is that "out of communion" can refer to different things. In the Orthodox Church we are not in communion with many other Christian groups. This refers to serious doctrinal points of division. But within Orthodoxy to be "out of communion" refers to serious matters but seen as not directly touching matters of doctrine.

Here a whole range of issues can come into play, everything from jurisdictional (as when the MP & EP were out of communion due to conflict over jurisdiction in the Baltics); to moral questions (priests have been known to not serve with other priests whom they consider to be flagrantly immoral- a possible solution to the RC problem if this had been canonically possible);issues seen as being of great importance but not quite touching doctrine (eg the Calendar, ecumenism, sergianism, etc).

The thing to see here is that to be "out of communion" in this situation means that despite the fact of canonical separation there is still a common recognition of each other's Orthodoxy. This recognition may be grudging since many of these separations are very acrimonious. In words one may get the impression that the other group is hardly even Orthodox anymore. But the thing to watch is how these groups interact pastorally.

Frequently the faithful still attend each others services and even receive the Eucharist in each others churches. Clergy don't concelebrate but often are received by the other church or jurisdiction just as they are; ie their orders are recognized.

As they say, 'actions speak louder than words'. But in the Church it's more that actions speak as loudly as words. In general I think we can gauge the Orthodoxy of separated groups by watching how the whole body of the Church relates to these groups when economia is called for. In Christ- Fr Raphael

Hope that helps.
Fr. Symeon

[Andreas Moran]

Hope that helps.
Fr. Symeon

It does - thank you. It seems then that 'communion' may be a matter of degree. Thus (as I understood it), before the recent reconciliation, ROCOR laity could have communion in a MP church and vice versa but there were restrictions on what clergy could do. On the other hand, I could not receive communion in an Old Believers (as opposed to Old Rite) church in Russia nor indeed in a Milan Synod church.