Schisms - personal notes.....

finger-pointing-left16.gif

26) "Molokan" is often confused with the similar sounding malakan, Molokane (dairy-eaters) — founded ~1765 in Central Russia (Tambov oblast)*. Before the Molokan label, their founding leader, M. Uklein, separated from a tribe labeled with the heresy Ikonobortsy with his family and 70 of the best singers to evangelize along the Volga, central Russia.

27) Pryguny (jumpers) — loosely consolidated ~1833 in northeast Taurida governateNovorossiya (New Russia, now South Ukraine, Zaporizhia oblast) from Pietist and charismatic movements transferred from Europe and Central Russia, and indigenous shamanism. The Prygun label first appeared in print about 1856 after most were resettled in Transcaucasia.

28) Dukh-i-zhizniki (Spirit-and-lifers) — founded ~1928 in U.S.A. The documented faith was initiated 2 miles west of Glendale AZ from 1911 to 1915, in a village of recent immigrants from Russia at 75th Ave and Griffith Lane, then amalgamated with other faiths in Boyle Heights district, Los Angeles CA in the 1920s as various Spiritual Christian faiths from Russia in Los Angeles clashed while trying to compile and edit a common religious text, with guidance from a sociologist at the University of Southern California. Dukh-i-zhiznik is a neologism formed in 2007 to accurately label these old new religious movements (NRM) which must use their religious text Kniga solntse, dukh i zhizn'(Book of the Sun, Spirit and Life) in addition to the Russian Synodal Bible.

link:

http://www.molokane.org/taxonomy/ .

FaceBook notes......CALENDAR:Quote:"Schismatics, I did not call them heretics. Some of them are doctrinally heretics because they believe ethnophyletism. 

 

The New Calendar is the Revised Julian Calendar, it was invented by a Serbian Orthodox scientist and is more accurate than the Gregorian Calendar. 

 

The Old Calendar was used secularly until recently. Why should we change the 2,000 year old ecclesiastical calendar?

 

Why not switch back to the old for secular use? We have no reason to change. Don't change what isn't broken. Catholics committed idolatry by converting to the Gregorian because all they wanted to change was the solar accuracy, the Church isn't about the accuracy of the sun.

 

Catholics obsess over the sun's placement too much, borderlining sun worship."Quote:"They are in schism and reject the Church, they are schismatics. Yes, only 1%. It's not the Gregorian Calendar, it's the New Calendar. They are three different calendars. Not everyone who stayed on the Old Calendar broke communion with the Church.

 

All of Russia's Church is on the Old Calendar, all of Greece's is on the New Calendar. The Gregorian Calendar is 500 years old. The New Calendar is only 100 years old. The old calendar is 2,000 years old. The old calendar was used the the majority of Europe until recently, Russia changed to the Gregorian for politics only in 1918."




point
The Old Calendarist community, ninety years ago, broke ecclesial relations with Orthodoxy, decreeing they are no longer part of the Church. They have decreed none of the majority of clergy are real clergy and that they are not Orthodox.


QUOTE
Exactly. Is what St. Mark of Ephesus did ten centuries ago. Or St. John Chrysostomos six centuries before that. The point is, we are those who keep the apostolic teaching as it was in 1920, as it was in 1054, as it was in 797 etc. Are we some mere 200 dioceses around the world? So what. The teaching is what matters. But, you would need to be Orthodox to know that. You would need to know the anathemas to know that.

 

QUOTE
The event has no formal name, Kenneth. It simply is common knowledge among our communities. The simplest description is that in the 1920s the chief bishop of Constantinople together with the chief bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria decreed that henceforth their churches would use the Gregorian calendar to calculate the movable feast days. Several other bishops objected that this was a betrayal of Orthodoxy and harbinger of worse things to come. Relations between the bishops broke down and soon the objecting bishops decreed the other bishops had forfeit their rank and their followers were no longer Orthodox. The two communities have not interacted since then.

 

QUESTION
So in effect the Titular Head "you" have presently is old calendarist, and has excommunicated 75% of your church as committing anathemas, while the world looks on, under the illusion it is all one church?

The Church is one. Always was. That is a dogma. Like it, don't like it, nothing changes. You just do not know that your arguments were used by Monophysites when we told them they are not the Church, they are heretics, and Arians, abmnd ten Latins. Been here so many times before. The only thing that matters: which of the two splinters, where size is the last thing that matter (look at Romans), teaches what the Church has always taught? Easy answer. We did not innovate the liturgical calendar, we did not recognize mysteries of monophysites and anglicans and uniates and latins, nor their pretense-marriages.
quote by clergy
"Whoever is interested in my specific local synod, I am a Florinite, namely Avlonite. The middle stream. Not fanatical, not ecumenist with old calendar alone."

 

MY REPLY
​Well Milan, if you say "pretense marriages" it has massive theological implications. If you say an interdenomonational marriage is no marriage at all, Jesus seems to disagree. I admit he clearly teaches in Matthew 5:32 there are two types of marriage, REAL first marriage, and a FAKE adulterous second marriage, but the entire premise for it being fake is adultery. Interdenominational marriage of two virgins does not match that criteria, so the children are not illegitimate. To justify your rhetoric you must heretically used Ezra 10 as a justification, a now dead theology as old covenant. Prudery can be as heretical as adultery. Once an interdenominational marriage has happened, its still marriage, though likely to bust apart, its not fornication.

 

COMMENT
So, because you tefuse the teaching on Mysteries, and I beckon you do not even know it from Patristics, 
ROCOR? Or the Calendar change? Or Sergianism?

 

COMMENT
​ I am in an Archdiocese that follows the New Calendar, but I would not accept the title, "liberal." In all other issues we follow exactly the same traditions as the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

In the Chalcedonian Schism of 451 AD there was no mention of a collision in doctrine over a Pope alone having "the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven" and the church being so called "built on him". Then again its not mentioned in the 1054 Schism. Yet Rome says the doctrine was that of the early church. Why? When it was not mentioned for a thousand years? Its like that with the doctrine of Mary Ascending into Heaven, that doctrine happened after Reformation saints pointed out Mary could not hear or answer prayers because she was not a martyr, and the resurrection never happened yet. So the doctrine was invented that she floated into heaven on a cloud.​

calls the Pope of Rome "Head Among Equals", ​
QUOTE
In 1054 cardinal humbert declared the anathema against the Eastern first
QUOTE
The copts have been in schism since 451

LEGEND
When analysing religious views of figures after the time the new testament was completed, or in the connecting period overlapping between the two, we here continuously from scholars such statements as "According to legend Polycarp......". This again is comparable with the Talmud. The legend of who? Catholic legend has Polycarp with Catholic views and doctrines. Please don't pedantically make it more difficult to analyse such contradictions by stating something like "that is an anachronism, as Roman Catholicism only existed after the Great Schism" yes I know that angle of view, but nevertheless the RC and O both insist (as explained earlier) the early church had their views, not that of one versus the other, so I am simply referring to the doctrinal content of what they perceive the early church and their church to be. Who needs legend? What facts do we have? If the copies we have of the writings of Polycarp, or about Polycarp, were only copied centuries later by Orthodox or Catholic scholars, can they be relied upon? Is it really a prerequisite of eternal life to be a scholar with your nose buried in a plethora of dusty old probably corrupted old tomes of history? Rather than being guided by the word of God the bible? Get that wrong and you are immediately on the wrong path already.



LINKS by others
1)  ​http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/
2)  http://theorthodox.org/true_orthodox_church.htm
3)  http://www.patheos.com/.../reflections-sack...

MAIN CHURCH:

 

 

Within the main body of Eastern Orthodoxy there are unresolved internal issues as to the autonomous or autocephalous status and/or legitimacy of the following Orthodox churches, particularly between those stemming from the Russian Orthodox or Constantinopolitan churches:

  •  

  •  

  • Orthodox Church in America (Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada) – Not recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

  •  

  •  

  • Metropolis of Bessarabia of the Romanian Orthodox Church Self-governing – Territory is claimed by the Russian Orthodox Church.

  • Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (Metropolitan of Tallinn and all Estonia) Self-governing – Recognised only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, opposed only by the Russian Orthodox Church.

  •  

  •  

  •  Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate  (Metropolitan of Tallinn and all Estonia) Self-governing – Not recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

  •  

  •  

  •  Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) (Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine) Self-governing – Not recognised by the Ecumenical Patriarchate only, as of October 2018.

  •  

  •  

  • Orthodox Church of Ukraine (Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine) – Recognised only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate as of January 2019, opposed by the Russian, Serbian, and Polish Orthodox Churches.