Next Door to the Temple

[Грешник]

Mor you really need to calm down and stop assuming there are monsters under your bed coming after you. I was not reffering to you as I do not remember adressing you personally. What I meant by my last statement was the simple fact that I have had three different people not including you, because I know your intentions were not thus, try and talk me out of ROAC.

And no it does not havve anything to do with human praise. It has to do with the fact that I am a Catechumen in the ROAC. I have never gone to a Matthewite Church, I do not know of anyone in Phoenix, there are a lot of reasons, but the basic bottom line is that I agree with the ROAC positions, I have spoken to clergy, to Bp. Gregory, to friends, and I believe that this is where I am called to be.

Essenrially Mor what I am getting at is this: eoing to the Matthewites would essentially mean that I believe that they are the only valid jurisdiction left and that everyone else is wrong. As much as people like to say that this is also the biline of ROAC I know for a fact from three different ROAC priests that this IS NOT THE BELEF OF THE ROAC, however it is of the Matthewites. I have been there, done that and will not put myself in that danger again.

Then you also have the issue of the belief of the Matthewites on the Calendar and thelifting of the Anethamas. The Matthewites hold that World Orthodoxy lost grace at the time of the Calendar change, not at the likfting of the Anethamas. ROAC believes the opposite. There is also as a thrd point the point of the ordinations of their bishops. Their bishops were all ordained by Matthew alone, so all the bishops from them, even if ordained by 3 bishops, it all leads back to one man, Matthew. I do not know much on Canon Law in the Orthodox Church, (but if you get me it in Latin we got a chance lol) but I just (personally) don't trust that.

I hope this helps a bit. I am still learning as well.

Juvenaly

[Daniel]

Nick, Mor;

The canonical issue with the Matthewites is Bishop Matthew having concicrating a bishop or 2 single handedly. To the best of my knowledge that that was corrected by ROCOR in the early 70's. As far as I can tell, the Matthewites, ROAC, GOC, all have the same basic ecclesiology as did ROCOR at one time.

If it was corrected by ROCOR, then what is the problem now? If this was the only difference, and it was corrected, why isn't there communion between these bodies? Or else, why would one choose ROAC over the Matthewites?

From what I understand, they were for short while. But the Mattewite synod wanted a formal proclomation on the statis of the new calenderists, and other such things. So, when that wasn't going to happen they broke communion with the Church Abroad. Now, I don't know why ROCOR just being in communion with both the Florinite Synod and themselves was not enough of statement. I personally don't think Met. Philaret was dumb enough to be doped into union with two such 'extreme' synods, I think he knew full well what he was doing.

As to your second question...I haven't the foggiest idea. But, I'm also not going to harry Juvenaly about his decision

[CGW]

It has to do with the fact that I am a Catechumen in the ROAC. I have never gone to a Matthewite Church, I do not know of anyone in Phoenix, there are a lot of reasons, but the basic bottom line is that I agree with the ROAC positions, I have spoken to clergy, to Bp. Gregory, to friends, and I believe that this is where I am called to be.

I think part of what the two of us are trying to get at is the question of why you are choosing to affiliate with a church which was never less than seven hours away-- except the seconds away that it lay on the internet. And it seems weird to me that, while I've encountered a number of laymen who are or have affiliated with a certain church, not a single one is even in the same state as a parish, and (by my calculation) the shortest Sunday drive to a parish is on the order of five hours-- perhaps more. It seems intellectual, but not necessarily lived.

Perhaps you can make this work in the long run.
[/quote]

[Грешник]

CGW,

I understand what you are saying and I understand that it might be hard for someone ot understand. I don't deny that. What I am saying is that I am a member of this Church because I agree with their positions. I am a part of this chosen community because in the long run I will be able to participate more even though not every week, but the two days every other week that I will have there will allow me to be as close as I can.

Part of the reason that most of the ROAC people have to travel is because there are not a lot of parishes yet. I do believe that this will change in the near future but for now we are left with what we are left with and that is a burden to bear along with everything else.

For now we wait and pray.

Juvenaly

[CGW]

Part of the reason that most of the ROAC people have to travel is because there are not a lot of parishes yet.

Well, it seems to me that the reason there is so much travel is that most ROAC people appear to encounter the church at a distance. It would not surprise me to find out that every single lay ROAC person here, catechumen or baptized, found out about ROAC over the internet-- as I have.

[尼古拉前执事]

It would not surprise me to find out that every single lay ROAC person here, catechumen or baptized, found out about ROAC over the internet-- as I have.

Charles, it would not surprise me if most of the online Orthodox youth learned about Orthodoxy online, at least in part. 40% of everyone online is looking for spiritual information at one time or another and with Orthodoxy so unknown in much of America, online is where it is either first encountered or learned of by many, I bet.

[Joe Zollars]

heaven forbid the Church should use the internet as a form of missionary activity, at least in some small way.

Nicholas Zollars