Updates from May, 2020 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 8:50 pm on May 24, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cellular, ,   

    PinePhone and how the consumer cellular market may be the next big profitable area for GNU/Linux 

    So I’m basically all over the hype and joy for PinePhone, the newest Linux phone (and by far the cheapest) hitting the markets today. It’s far from feature complete (it seems to be a really spur of the moment choice to add Ubuntu Touch), but it seems overall flawless. Add in the UBPorts community supporting the hardware, and you have a no-brainer.

    But this got me thinking: if they make this work, we know they’ll be able to scale up– and can they go even cheaper?

    The one difference between phones and most computers is the bricking problem. On most computers, if you try to install an operating system that it didn’t come with, you can usually restore the operating system it shipped with or put in a new one. On a phone, there is no such safety. Outside the phone’s own OS updates, you’re usually not changing anything. And when you do make a change, it usually has to be built to the phone’s own architecture. With the PinePhone, this changes things as the phone already has multiple distros being optimized for it. Your phone can become an extension of your computer. Or, as in the convergence ideal, simply replace it.

    What won’t happen, however? Bricking. The phones are being designed to be hackable. And this means that people looking for an accessible, hackable phone will soon find them. But who else will be looking? People who just need a phone and might not want an Android or iPhone. So worth considering is the market of users who don’t want an Android or iOS device who actually have no intention of hacking their phone anyway.

    It’s worth considering.

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 9:03 pm on May 20, 2020 Permalink | Reply  

    Forming a Coherent Argument Against the Claims of Papal Supremacists 

    A question came from Facebook from a convert from a Roman Catholic background about making a coherent argument about Papal Supremacy.

    So of course I’m going to move it to the sortbox.

    Dear Facebook person: The first thing you have to do is establish what the early Popes consistently believed. This is not nearly as neat as originally assumed (and drilled as “facts” by Papalists): Orthodox Popes often made reference to the superiority of councils, and were frequently rebuked by fellow Western Bishops. From an Orthodox standpoint, this seems to be normal: but it is important to establish this from not simply an Orthodox standpoint, but a Western one. If we do that, than we can clearly mark off which claims of pre-schism Popes are based on what and what are later derivations.

    Not going to plug our show here, but we have shown through the Western manuscript tradition that in many countries ALL Western Orthodox Bishops were consecrated as successors of Peter. Further, we can show breaks from the Pope, not simply from “Eastern” Bishops, but WESTERN Bishops, during controversies. Finally we can clearly establish that Popes were enthroned with imperial sanction.

    Once we have established these bases, we can slog– we must, even– through the context of each of these Papal quotes, bearing the above in mind. Contrary to a belief in universal primacy against Constantinople’s claim that the two Romes were similar, St Leo held to a triune Petrine see, and did not want Alexandria and Antioch to be disrespected, for example. And that’s just one case. This can be done with all of them. But you cannot forget your first principles in terms of what Orthodox Rome actually was.

    From here, therefore we can establish that the Pope’s supremacy in the first 1,000 years was largely honorific and rose and fell with the power of the West Roman Empire, but that was enough to give him a lot of authority to begin with, and canonically entailed appellate jurisdiction. We can now look at the first time the Pope’s sudden rise to supremacy became an issue, and coincidentally it occurs around the time of the Great Schism– politely retitled the Investiture Controversy. Amazingly, the most important document of the period, the Dictatus Papae, is the first claim of unprecedented Papal Supremacy in the Church– so unprecedented it violates all the other norms we’ve just established. And this would become the basis of what Roman Catholics see as Papal supremacy, completely alien from the Church of East, and West.

    So to put it simply, you cannot create an argument against “Papalist supremacy” by simply poking holes in their bad misquotations. You have to study up on the Orthodox West and take the whole thing down with a sledgehammer. I hope that helps!

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 5:43 pm on May 19, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Facebook, War Zone   

    I can’t believe people are fighting over a 10-year old picture.

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 4:29 pm on May 19, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Orthodoxy, Q&A, Saints,   

    Last night I was asked: “Deacon, how do you feel about saints canonized after the 1920s, like St. Paisos and St. Silouan?”

    I figured the answer would be a bit too complex and wordy for Twitter, so I’m going to unpack it here.

    Let me preamble by saying I am no fan of the question of “modern saints”. I am not sure I like my saints knowing Twitter and the television exist. I feel like people saying “well, they’re newer so they’re more approachable” is bunk: I would question the authenticity of a saint who sounds “like me”. No one reads the history of the civil war and says “that’s too unapproachable”. The saints of all ages are real people with real lives. While there are great saints of the modern era (see St John of Shanghai for example) their behavior was often considered insane, and so I imagine they will appear more and more “insane” to a more and more insane world. The lives of Saints should not confirm us. They should correct us.

    On to the question.

    In the first place, there is no such thing as “canonization” as it exists in the Roman Catholic Church in Orthodoxy. Local Bishops in fact have the right to glorify local saints, and it is up to the Church to recognize them. My Synod’s calendar often corresponded to a calendar ROCOR produced of Western and Eastern Saints until the mid-2000’s. Because of this, it contains a wide number of insertions to the calendar which are often uncommon among other True Orthodox (the most recent insertion being that of St Philaret of New York, whom we didn’t actually glorify but did quietly attend one of the various glorifications done among True Orthodox Russians.)

    That said, I presume you are talking about recent additions to the calendar by the EP of more recent Athonite Elders (ones glorified after 1920 but who died before often had a local cultus anyway). The question in such a case is not so much who’s doing the glorification (that is important, but often a formal glorification consists of nothing but insertion of the saint’s name into a diocese’s calendar) but whether the saint is in fact a saint, and that is a function of time. Some saints will never be known to the world; by contrast, some who were claimed to be saints (such as the Patriarch Michael Cerularius at the time of the schism) were forgotten as saints over centuries, despite being public figures. So we need to put aside the idea of an “official list” in the way the Roman Catholics do. The saints are there for more than simple commemoration but their lives are meant to be emulated. The saints on our local calendar are sufficient, but thanks to globalization and the internet local glorifications now get worldwide treatment.

    Now the deeper question of these saints’ positions during a time of polarization and heresy can often be quite revealing and which leads to the question of “politicisation” of glorifications: when Russian True Orthodox in different Synods glorified St Philaret it was referred to as “political” (though his body was found to be perfectly incorrupt.) This can probably also be said for Athonite elders who have condemned the Greek Old Calendarists. It is a complex question, and one that has to be looked at from the entire life of the saint. I have less to say about an elder who condemned ecumenism and modernism and viewed Old Calendarists as schismatics than one who would claim that ecumenism is from God– the former can be in simple error, and the latter would be a flaming heretic. But since we are living through a time of polarization and heresy, the former example and St Philaret could still end up on the same calendar 100 years after our deaths, as this would all be seen as something as tame looking as the “ecumenist controversy” in Church history books for future generations, the struggles will be those recorded through their lives.

    This can manifest in many forms: we cannot forget the name of new-martyr Katherine Routis, a wife and mother who was killed by police while protecting a priest of the Old Calendar in Greece. Is that the extremism decried? We can look at other confusing examples, such as St Nicholas Planas, recognized by the EP and Old Calendarists alike? Or the incredible case of St Myrtidiotissa, recognized as a Saint in Kleisoura, glorified as a nun of the Matthewite Old Calendarists– but as a pious laywoman of the Ecumenical Patriarchate???

    History, in the end, must make sense of this in ways we cannot. We look at the writings of no less a Saint than St Jerome, who was literally decrying other saints of his day as heretics and schismatics. Thus, in a time of controversy, it is best, as St Vincent of Lerins writes, to cleave to what is ancient, and accept the wisdom and counsel of the Fathers who agree with those before them. If a pious departed Orthodox elder inspires you to a greater life of prayer and Orthodox practice, far be it from me to tell whether his glorification is “valid.” Only his life can do that. I’ll end like I started: Older Fathers are always better than newer ones.

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 2:36 pm on May 19, 2020 Permalink | Reply  

    The recent blow-up over a ten year old picture on Craig Truglia’s baptism article is why True Orthodox can’t have nice things.

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 5:27 pm on May 18, 2020 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Sortbox,   

    Busy building the Sortbox 

    Basically, this site is a solution to a problem which has plagued me since it was clear that Big Social was out to own all of the data, but at the same time solved a fragmentation problem that seems to plague the average website. I’ve had websites before (I’m now starting to consolidate them into this one) but for the most part, they suffer from the problem of theme: I can’t talk about politics or tech on an apologetics site. I’m not reviewing movies or soccer matches on NFTU.

    Well, why not just put it under my name? Put simply, I didn’t really want something titled as my name. I did that before. I just don’t like it. I don’t know why: maybe that’s why social media works, as you feel like you are part of something greater.

    But when you boil it all down, it’s really just people posting on a website. The real question is: who owns what you are writing? As of May 17, 2020 (May 4 OS) I’ve decided my data will be owned by me. And my socials can go back to what they were being meant for: primarily interpersonal communication (which will also work here.)

    There’s a lot of people to thank to getting to this point. But first I have to finish building the Sortbox.

  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 11:08 pm on May 17, 2020 Permalink | Reply  

    It’s built. 

    It should get more interesting from here.
  • Dcn Joseph Suaiden 9:51 am on May 17, 2020 Permalink | Reply  

    This is under construction. 

    Give me a few.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc