Favorite Athonite Monastery

[ArmyMatt]

Yes I've thought about trying to join the brotherhood there but I hear it is quite busy with pilgrims? something like 200 a week? Seems a little loud for my tastes.

not sure how much they get, but it is quiet there. being Athonite and strict, they do cultivate silence.

 

[JasonV]

Not Mount Athos, but closely related. My wife and I have just been spending a few days at St Anthony's monastery in Arizona. Back to La La land tomorrow.
It is simply amazing what Elder Ephraim has been able to establish here in the desert.
Glory to God!

It's a beautiful monastery.

 

[OrthodoxStruggler]

Esphigmenou is the only one I would visit.

Well, approach carefully lest you become the latest victim of their molotov cocktails!

Molotov cocktail gets Esphigmenou abbot twenty years in jail

 

[JasonV]

Well since I'm not trying to evict the monks from their monastery, and insert my own in their stead, I don't think I'd have the same problem.

 

[RobNJ]

Well since I'm not trying to evict the monks from their monastery, and insert my own in their stead, I don't think I'd have the same problem.

Then again, if I violated my lease, my landlord would be within his rights to evict me.

 

[JasonV]

Then again, if I violated my lease, my landlord would be within his rights to evict me.

Good thing the Ecumenical Patriarch is the touchstone of Orthodoxy. What a poor landlord he would make otherwise.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good thing the Ecumenical Patriarch is the touchstone of Orthodoxy. What a poor landlord he would make otherwise.

whether or not the EP is good or bad is irrelevant. you don't justify bad behavior with more bad behavior.

 

[JasonV]

whether or not the EP is good or bad is irrelevant. you don't justify bad behavior with more bad behavior.

So following that same logic, the MP parishes in Ukraine should surrender to the "legal" church of the EP?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So following that same logic, the MP parishes in Ukraine should surrender to the "legal" church of the EP?

no...that doesn't even follow what I said, and does not make sense.

Met Onufry is the landlord. the EP can only make the claim over Ukraine if Met Onufry dies, retires, goes into schism, goes into heresy, etc.

 

[JasonV]

no...that doesn't even follow what I said, and does not make sense.

Met Onufry is the landlord. the EP can only make the claim over Ukraine if Met Onufry dies, retires, goes into schism, goes into heresy, etc.

It does make sense, you just don't like it. Even by your own words, the EP is the landlord, because legal rights pass to him when Onufry dies, etc. The EP granted the churches to the MP, and revoked the grant. The MP has been evicted from Ukraine.

Onufry's resistance in Ukraine is the same as the monks of Esphigmenou. Yet you claim one is excusable, and the other is not?

 

[ArmyMatt]

It does make sense, you just don't like it. Even by your own words, the EP is the landlord, because legal rights pass to him when Onufry dies, etc. The EP granted the churches to the MP, and revoked the grant. The MP has been evicted from Ukraine.

Onufry's resistance in Ukraine is the same as the monks of Esphigmenou. Yet you claim one is excusable, and the other is not?

no, because Met Onufry was never under the EP, but only Moscow. the EP transferred Kiev to Moscow, so they can only claim Kiev when the canonical bishop dies.

that is not the same as breaking communion and refusing to leave the monastery. Met Onufry's resistance would be the same if he were ever under the EP. but since he never was, it's not.

 

[JasonV]

no, because Met Onufry was never under the EP, but only Moscow. the EP transferred Kiev to Moscow, so they can only claim Kiev when the canonical bishop dies.

that is not the same as breaking communion and refusing to leave the monastery. Met Onufry's resistance would be the same if he were ever under the EP. but since he never was, it's not.

In the case of Ukraine, Moscow is under the EP. Using your analogy, the EP is the landlord, and the MP sublet. So my comparison stands.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the case of Ukraine, Moscow is under the EP. Using your analogy, the EP is the landlord, and the MP sublet. So my comparison stands.

Moscow is not under the EP in Ukraine. none of those bishops are a part of the EP's Synod or were consecrated by the EP. you are only showing ignorance here.

 

[☦Marius☦]

So following that same logic, the MP parishes in Ukraine should surrender to the "legal" church of the EP?

It does make sense, you just don't like it. Even by your own words, the EP is the landlord, because legal rights pass to him when Onufry dies, etc. The EP granted the churches to the MP, and revoked the grant. The MP has been evicted from Ukraine.

Onufry's resistance in Ukraine is the same as the monks of Esphigmenou. Yet you claim one is excusable, and the other is not?

In the case of Ukraine, Moscow is under the EP. Using your analogy, the EP is the landlord, and the MP sublet. So my comparison stands.

MP parishes aren't in schism and are fully recognized by the EP I'm not sure what the comparison is here. Moscow is not under the EP, neither is the Ukraine. This is hardly a comparison to a monastery on MT ATHOS which is directly under the EP.

 

[JasonV]

Moscow is not under the EP in Ukraine. none of those bishops are a part of the EP's Synod or were consecrated by the EP. you are only showing ignorance here.

Whose synod the successor comes from isn't the issue, and not the case I made. If the EP can decide who rules in Ukraine without consulting the MP, then it is the EP who is the landlord. You can derail this all you want, but it's pretty darn clear that the EP holds the deed, and the MP just sublets to Ukraine.

 

[JasonV]

MP parishes aren't in schism and are fully recognized by the EP I'm not sure what the comparison is here. Moscow is not under the EP, neither is the Ukraine. This is hardly a comparison to a monastery on MT ATHOS which is directly under the EP.

Have you been following the news at all since last Summer? They are in schism. They no longer commemorate each other as I understand. Or the MP no longer commemorates the EP at least. That is the definition of schism.

 

[prodromos]

no, because Met Onufry was never under the EP, but only Moscow. the EP transferred Kiev to Moscow, so they can only claim Kiev when the canonical bishop dies.

They still can't claim it as Moscow, not Constantinople will select the new bishop.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Whose synod the successor comes from isn't the issue, and not the case I made. If the EP can decide who rules in Ukraine without consulting the MP, then it is the EP who is the landlord. You can derail this all you want, but it's pretty darn clear that the EP holds the deed, and the MP just sublets to Ukraine.

except the EP cannot decide in the Ukraine. he isn't the landlord over Ukraine. no derailing at all. bringing up that the Synod is under Moscow is one reason why the EP isn't the landlord.

he is, however, the landlord over Mt Athos.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They still can't claim it as Moscow, not Constantinople will select the new bishop.

I just meant if Moscow agreed that Ukraine should go under Constantinople (ie if the transfer was only temporary), that discussion would only happen after Met Onufry since he is a canonical bishop.

 

[JasonV]

except the EP cannot decide in the Ukraine. he isn't the landlord over Ukraine. no derailing at all. bringing up that the Synod is under Moscow is one reason why the EP isn't the landlord.

So Onuphry dies, who gets to choose the new leader of the Ukrainian church? The MP or the EP?

he is, however, the landlord over Mt Athos.

If he were still Orthodox, sure.