OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 10:04:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patriarch Bartholomew: Convening the Great Council  (Read 18904 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #135 on: June 03, 2010, 07:49:10 PM »

BTW, I do not think that it is right for you, particularly because you are still learning and growing, to make categorical statements or to make fun of those who are already members of the Church. It may be better if you were to ask questions instead, or at least to mask your critique in the form of a question.

I may have an abrasive sense of humor, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Besides, I got my point across!  Wink I am just cautioning you regarding the consumer aspect to Orthodoxy in the USA, that's all. In traditionally Orthodox lands (which I believe you are from?) you don't get to pick and choose. You just go to the nearest temple. I try to make that my policy as best as I can.

Also regarding your assessment of the "secret" Anaphora prayers, I would be very cautious in your judgments. A deacon at my parish has a spiritual father in Serbia who was conflicted about this very issue (as it is being debated in Serbia right now), and a saint actually appeared to him and told him to return to doing them in a lower voice after he had begun saying them aloud for a few months. So be careful who you judge; and be even more cautious with restorationist liturgical practices. I'm not saying you have to take his vision as authoritative on the matter, but be aware that you might be wrong.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 07:50:37 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #136 on: June 03, 2010, 08:10:40 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:

"Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: June 03, 2010, 08:17:36 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:

"Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 

Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.

Saint Justin the New:
On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #138 on: June 03, 2010, 08:39:01 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:

"Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 

Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.

Saint Justin the New:
On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx




Because the only Church issue coming to a head is ecclesiology, and on that it seems the inmates are trying to run the asylum.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #139 on: June 03, 2010, 10:10:27 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting. 

Many of the Vatican II reforms were in fact framed as a restoration of "primitive" practices. More participating from the laity was also a big issue.

Remember Nikon and remember the New Calendar controversy...no needless reforms please.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #140 on: June 03, 2010, 10:24:46 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:  "Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 
Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.   Saint Justin the New:On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx   

Are you sure he's the greatest theologian of the last 100 years.  That's funny, St. Justin himself considered St. Nicholai of Zica his teacher and an "Apostle" and yet, St. Nicholai was one of the first and most vocal proponents of an ecumenical council at the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference held at Vatopedi Monastery in 1930, and remained so until he fell asleep in the Lord in 1956.  It was these same proposals of the 1930 conference that became proposals at the later pre-conciliar conferences.  That's the same St. Justin who himself wrote of St. Nicholai:  "Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Apostle! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Evangelist! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Confessor! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Martyr! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Saint!"   

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #141 on: June 03, 2010, 10:28:12 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting. 

Many of the Vatican II reforms were in fact framed as a restoration of "primitive" practices. More participating from the laity was also a big issue.

Remember Nikon and remember the New Calendar controversy...no needless reforms please.

I am remembering Nikon, and that is precisely the mess that we need dug out of.   I can't stand it when people compare the Great Church of Christ to other bodies.   Do you believe it is the Church of Christ?  How can there be "our Vatican II" if you believe that there is a difference?   IT IS NOT A REFORM IF IT IS PART OF SACRED TRADITION.  Enough of the nonsense.
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,303



« Reply #142 on: June 03, 2010, 10:33:32 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:  "Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 
Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.   Saint Justin the New:On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx   

Are you sure he's the greatest theologian of the last 100 years.  That's funny, St. Justin himself considered St. Nicholai of Zica his teacher and an "Apostle" and yet, St. Nicholai was one of the first and most vocal proponents of an ecumenical council at the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference held at Vatopedi Monastery in 1930, and remained so until he fell asleep in the Lord in 1956.  It was these same proposals of the 1930 conference that became proposals at the later pre-conciliar conferences.  That's the same St. Justin who himself wrote of St. Nicholai:  "Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Apostle! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Evangelist! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Confessor! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Martyr! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Saint!"   



St. Justin wrote his letter 20 years after the repose of St. Nicholai.  Perhaps the Church was a different place in 1977 than it was in 1956, or more accurately, 1930 when St. Nicholai spoke at Vatopedi.  I would be interested to hear St. Nicholai's opinion of the matter AFTER the institution of the New Calendar by the Greeks, and after the Ecumenical activities of the latter half of the 20th Century.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #143 on: June 03, 2010, 10:52:26 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.

Many of the Vatican II reforms were in fact framed as a restoration of "primitive" practices. More participating from the laity was also a big issue.

Remember Nikon and remember the New Calendar controversy...no needless reforms please.

I am remembering Nikon, and that is precisely the mess that we need dug out of.   I can't stand it when people compare the Great Church of Christ to other bodies.

By that, I take it that you are using the Phanar's favorite self reference to itself: aping that Great Church of Christ is precisely how Nikon opened the Church doors to the evil one.

Quote
 Do you believe it is the Church of Christ?  How can there be "our Vatican II" if you believe that there is a difference?

Heretics have sat on the throne of that Great Church of Christ.  We have no promise that it will not happen again, nor that it is not happening now.


Quote
 IT IS NOT A REFORM IF IT IS PART OF SACRED TRADITION.  Enough of the nonsense.
Indeed! Let the Phanar denounce the council of Ravenna and its "primology." Let them renounce their innovation in canon 28 of Chalcedon. Let them cease to refer to the Orthodox Church as an "Eastern lung," as if it was not filled with the plenitude of the Holy Spirit. Let the upstart on the Bosphoros embrace humility and cease to refer to itself as the "Mother Church."
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 10:53:45 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #144 on: June 03, 2010, 10:54:06 PM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:  "Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 
Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.   Saint Justin the New:On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx   

Are you sure he's the greatest theologian of the last 100 years.  That's funny, St. Justin himself considered St. Nicholai of Zica his teacher and an "Apostle" and yet, St. Nicholai was one of the first and most vocal proponents of an ecumenical council at the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference held at Vatopedi Monastery in 1930, and remained so until he fell asleep in the Lord in 1956.  It was these same proposals of the 1930 conference that became proposals at the later pre-conciliar conferences.  That's the same St. Justin who himself wrote of St. Nicholai:  "Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Apostle! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Evangelist! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Confessor! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Martyr! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Saint!"   



Surely there is no implication that Saint Justin betrayed Saint Nikolaj because he disagreed over this Council?!

To place it in another context,  there are thousands of those who venerate Saint John Maximovitch and yet will have no truck with his beloved staunch belief ~ the aerial tollhouses.
Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #145 on: June 04, 2010, 04:54:25 AM »

I'm really hoping for this council to take place. Mostly I'm looking forward to have the calendar issue decided upon. Hopefully this would take the Finnish Orthodox Church out of the irregular situation it now finds itself in.

In my opinion there are real issues that the Church needs to deal with (as have been mentioned on this thread; difference in fasting, the calendar, overlapping jurisdictions, and so on). These things are perhaps not heresies and therefore this council should perhaps not be called "ecumenical". But still I think this council is necessary.

Come to think of it; some posters on this forum have expressed the view that celebrating pasha according to the Gregorian calendar is heresy. If this is the case then the council would indeed deal with heresy!  Grin
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #146 on: June 04, 2010, 06:35:39 AM »

Reply Nos. 47 & 85 above list the topics that will be addressed by the Synod.  There were Pre-Conciliar Commission Reports published for each of the topics for which meetings were convened, prior to the agreement of each of the Pre-Conciliar Commissions. They should be available through the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy. 

As I recall, the Pre-Conciliar Report about the Calendar determined that no conciliar action could be agreed to.  Therefore, in all probability, the Holy and Great Synod (Council) will not make any changes by the Church as a whole.

Fr. Elpidophoros Lambrinidis (spelling is incorrect) the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, (many on this forum remember him and his infamous speech at Holy Cross Seminary in Brookline, MA) was the guest on "Come Receive the Light" this week, which can be heard at "myocn.net"  He indicated that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyrill had discussed convening the Synod in 2012 or 2013!  He also mentioned that St. Irene Church, (in Turkey I'd imagine), the site of the II Ecumenical Synod, was being considered as a site for this forthcoming Synod. Is this venue logistically feasible? 

(By the way, unless it was said in jest above, I'm sure Roman Catholic officials will be invited to attend the Synod as observers, but no way could they be offerred a more substantive role.)
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #147 on: June 04, 2010, 08:15:05 AM »

As I recall, the Pre-Conciliar Report about the Calendar determined that no conciliar action could be agreed to.  Therefore, in all probability, the Holy and Great Synod (Council) will not make any changes by the Church as a whole.

Thank you for your post Basil . I'm still hoping the Council could either bless or condemn the practice of the Finnish Orthodox Church. Either way would be a path for the Church in Finland to become more in harmony with the rest of the Church.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #148 on: June 04, 2010, 09:37:39 AM »

I'm still hoping the Council could either bless or condemn the practice of the Finnish Orthodox Church. Either way would be a path for the Church in Finland to become more in harmony with the rest of the Church.

Why would that be necessary? I agree that our situation is a bit irregular but wouldn't just some kind of clear pronouncement from the EP regularize the situation? I've heard two kind of rumours about the EP's acceptance so I would be grateful of any official comment from the EP.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 10:03:15 AM by Alpo » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #149 on: June 04, 2010, 09:50:29 AM »

BTW, I do not think that it is right for you, particularly because you are still learning and growing, to make categorical statements or to make fun of those who are already members of the Church. It may be better if you were to ask questions instead, or at least to mask your critique in the form of a question.

I may have an abrasive sense of humor, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Besides, I got my point across!  Wink I am just cautioning you regarding the consumer aspect to Orthodoxy in the USA, that's all. In traditionally Orthodox lands (which I believe you are from?) you don't get to pick and choose. You just go to the nearest temple. I try to make that my policy as best as I can.

Also regarding your assessment of the "secret" Anaphora prayers, I would be very cautious in your judgments. A deacon at my parish has a spiritual father in Serbia who was conflicted about this very issue (as it is being debated in Serbia right now), and a saint actually appeared to him and told him to return to doing them in a lower voice after he had begun saying them aloud for a few months. So be careful who you judge; and be even more cautious with restorationist liturgical practices. I'm not saying you have to take his vision as authoritative on the matter, but be aware that you might be wrong.

I am happy that you try to be a member of the nearest parish. I have got to tell you though that in my experience, both here and in the old world, Serbs attend Serbian Churches, Greeks belong to Greek Churches, etc... The exception is when there is no ethno-appropriate (I may have coined a new word here!!!) church near by, they attend a "neutral" church UNTIL the right church is built. That is happening right now in Austin, Texas where the local Serbians have deserted the Orthodox churches they were attending to start a Serbian Church. Ironically, one of the local Antiochian Churches is hosting them until they can build their own church. Let me tell you another ironic occurrence: I know of one ROCOR parish that started with the clergy and members carved out of the local OCA parish and all of the ROCOR members are converts. As far as I can see, the only differences are the calendar, women wearing head scarfs and men and women segregated in separate areas during worship. In the old country, you must realize that the choice is normally limited to local congregations of the same jurisdiction. Even in that case, I do think that folks have preferences and attend whichever church they wish to.

As for your deacon, why in the world would he say the priest's prayers of the Anaphora? I don't get it. (I am happy though that the Church of Serbia is discussing this issue. May the Holy Spirit guide the deliberations).
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 09:52:19 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #150 on: June 04, 2010, 10:04:48 AM »


b. Things that may be central:
- The priest's Anaphora prayers
- The people's amens at the Epiklesis

These things may affect the role of the laity and ecclesiology, and do not directly affect one's salvation. However, a jurisdiction that insists on "secret" prayers and no amens for the laity may be betraying either a Pharisaic propensity (towards rubrics, for example), or a disdain for the laity that is not grounded in the Holy Tradition. If the underlying reasons are overwhelming, these two issues become symbolic of the wrongness of that church/jurisdiction and may thus become an artificial burden on the believer. In such a case, one's salvation is indeed affected and it would be advisable to move on.

I find your suggestions exceedingly harsh and not acceptable in the slightest.  I have belonged to two Churches (Serbian and Russian) which have secret prayers and have no doubt had them since they were founded a thousand years ago.

I object very much to the idea that these Churches which I love very much have either "a Pharisaic propensity (towards rubrics, for example), or a disdain for the laity."  That is just a little on the nose!


I am upset that I upset you dear Father Ambrose. Please forgive me.

Regarding the substance of my suggestions, I must point out that they were conditional. The first condition was that a jurisdiction had to "insist" on the "secret"prayers and on "no amens" for the laity. The second condition was the that such insistence "may" betray pharisaic propensities. The third condition (albeit not not an explicit one) was that their insistence was based on something like rubrics (that is the letter of the law). I should also have elaborated on what I meant by "disdain of the laity": perhaps I should have added a parenthetical example "such as exhibited by Protopriest Alexander Lebedefff." Finally, I was negligent in not including "inertia" as a possible reason for secret prayers and no amens for the laity. Inertia of course would not elevate these issues to the point of affecting one's salvation or ecclesiology.

I hope that my explanations make more sense than my original postings. May the Lord grant you many years Father; you remain in my prayers. In Christ, Kyrill
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #151 on: June 04, 2010, 10:06:55 AM »

How about reconciliation with the Old Rite?

I agree with this and also the Old Calendar.  I also would be in favor of a restoration of the Cathedral Rite for parishes, giving the parish the option to choose between the two.

I did not know anything about the Cathedral Rite. I am curious though how it can be restored if we do not have source documents any more.  BTW, regarding the calendar, I think it is plain weird to celebrate December 25th sometime in January.

This last Christmas was our first time celebrating it according to the Old Calendar. It was a very nice experience. We weren't sucked in by commercialism we just paid attention to the Feast. It was spiritual beneficial for us. I wouldn't think about celebrating Pascha according to the western calendar so I guess it just made sense that we wouldn't celebrate Christmas according to it either. Of course there aren't many Orthodox and even less according to the Old Calendar here but I guess in Traditionally Orthodox countries we would have been in the thick of it.

That's my point, I enjoy celebrating the Nativity without all this commercialism, same goes for Pascha. 
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #152 on: June 04, 2010, 10:13:52 AM »


Fr. Elpidophoros Lambrinidis (spelling is incorrect) the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, (many on this forum remember him and his infamous speech at Holy Cross Seminary in Brookline, MA) was the guest on "Come Receive the Light" this week, which can be heard at "myocn.net"  He indicated that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kyrill had discussed convening the Synod in 2012 or 2013!  He also mentioned that St. Irene Church, (in Turkey I'd imagine), the site of the II Ecumenical Synod, was being considered as a site for this forthcoming Synod. Is this venue logistically feasible?  


Here is the short story of the Church of Saint Irene that I found at a Turkish source for tourists:

"St. Irene was the first church in Istanbul built by Constantine in the 4th century. Justinian later had it restored. It served as the church of the Patriarchate before Hagia Sophia was built. It is the only example of a Byzantine church in the city with its original atrium. The building stands in the outer courtyard of Topkapı Palace and was used as an armory by the Janissaries (Ottoman Soldiers) after the conquest of Istanbul in 1453.

Today it serves mainly as a concert hall. Most of the concerts of the Istanbul Festival have been held in St. Irene Church for more than 25 years because of its impressive atmosphere.

On October 2000 the famous haute couture designer Faruk Saraç produced a special show in this church. A team of 120 professionals worked for one-and-a-half years to complete the collection of 700 pieces, ranging from designed inspired by the founder of Ottoman Empire Sultan Osman Gazi, to the last sultan of the Empire Sultan Vahdettin. Actors and actresses modeled the collection, which included the dress of 36 sultans. The show was accompanied by music and the story of the sultans' lives and Ottoman-era dancing was demonstrated."

http://www.mymerhaba.com/St-Irene-Church-in-Turkey-333.html
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 10:14:54 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #153 on: June 04, 2010, 10:24:30 AM »

How about reconciliation with the Old Rite?

I agree with this and also the Old Calendar.  I also would be in favor of a restoration of the Cathedral Rite for parishes, giving the parish the option to choose between the two.

I did not know anything about the Cathedral Rite. I am curious though how it can be restored if we do not have source documents any more.  BTW, regarding the calendar, I think it is plain weird to celebrate December 25th sometime in January.

This last Christmas was our first time celebrating it according to the Old Calendar. It was a very nice experience. We weren't sucked in by commercialism we just paid attention to the Feast. It was spiritual beneficial for us. I wouldn't think about celebrating Pascha according to the western calendar so I guess it just made sense that we wouldn't celebrate Christmas according to it either. Of course there aren't many Orthodox and even less according to the Old Calendar here but I guess in Traditionally Orthodox countries we would have been in the thick of it.

That's my point, I enjoy celebrating the Nativity without all this commercialism, same goes for Pascha. 

Well, we all are better off without the rampant commercialism during the Holy Seasons (as well as the rampant immorality and violence on TV and movies, rampant consumerism, etc.. that are like a plague). It is hard to be an Orthodox in the West indeed. And, especially hard during the four major fasts: The impact on the Nativity fast is not as great for those on the Julian Calendar but it is still present. I would think that the impact of the evil ways of the West on the Great Lent, Apostles Fast and Dormition Fast is also great on all Orthodox, regardless of the calendar. Perhaps what we should do is to all run into the desert or the wilderness where the calendar is a non-issue.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #154 on: June 04, 2010, 10:53:06 AM »

It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.   I can see the headlines now:  "Orthodox innovationists take over Church at Great and Holy Council.  They are restoring the older forms used by the Holy Fathers:  all traditionalists should flee from the canonical church because newer traditions are far better than old ones."   Spare us. 
Why then, why, was our greatest theologian of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic, so concerned about this Council, and hoped it would not proceed.   Saint Justin the New:On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx   

Are you sure he's the greatest theologian of the last 100 years.  That's funny, St. Justin himself considered St. Nicholai of Zica his teacher and an "Apostle" and yet, St. Nicholai was one of the first and most vocal proponents of an ecumenical council at the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference held at Vatopedi Monastery in 1930, and remained so until he fell asleep in the Lord in 1956.  It was these same proposals of the 1930 conference that became proposals at the later pre-conciliar conferences.  That's the same St. Justin who himself wrote of St. Nicholai:  "Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Apostle! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Evangelist! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Confessor! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Martyr! Thank you, Lord—in him we have a new Saint!"   



Surely there is no implication that Saint Justin betrayed Saint Nikolaj because he disagreed over this Council?!

To place it in another context,  there are thousands of those who venerate Saint John Maximovitch and yet will have no truck with his beloved staunch belief ~ the aerial tollhouses.

Of course that is not the implication, but if you thought it might be, I'm glad you brought it up so it could be cleared up.  The point is that there is not just one side of the issue from beloved Saints and theologians of our century, but there are two, and in this case, from Saints who were very close to each other and both very well respected as prayerful theologians.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #155 on: June 04, 2010, 11:11:00 AM »

Sorry for the ambiguity on the reference of the "Great Church of Christ."  Actually, I had just got done reading some of St. Nicholai's writings and was assuming his statement "the Orthodox Church is the Great Church of Christ."  I apologize for the ambiguity, given that Constantinople also is specifically as a primatial church called "the Great Church".   My point was that the Orthodox Church cannot be compared to other bodies if we believe it is truly the Church of Christ, and the Great Council will be a Council of the entire Church.   Obviously its decisions would need received by the "protector" of the Orthodox Faith, which is the whole Church and its people (Encyclical of 1848).   


It is not going to be "our Vatican II."  The only proposals that are there are to go back to more primative forms of liturgy and fasting.

Many of the Vatican II reforms were in fact framed as a restoration of "primitive" practices. More participating from the laity was also a big issue.

Remember Nikon and remember the New Calendar controversy...no needless reforms please.

I am remembering Nikon, and that is precisely the mess that we need dug out of.   I can't stand it when people compare the Great Church of Christ to other bodies.

By that, I take it that you are using the Phanar's favorite self reference to itself: aping that Great Church of Christ is precisely how Nikon opened the Church doors to the evil one.

Quote
 Do you believe it is the Church of Christ?  How can there be "our Vatican II" if you believe that there is a difference?

Heretics have sat on the throne of that Great Church of Christ.  We have no promise that it will not happen again, nor that it is not happening now.


Quote
 IT IS NOT A REFORM IF IT IS PART OF SACRED TRADITION.  Enough of the nonsense.
Indeed! Let the Phanar denounce the council of Ravenna and its "primology." Let them renounce their innovation in canon 28 of Chalcedon. Let them cease to refer to the Orthodox Church as an "Eastern lung," as if it was not filled with the plenitude of the Holy Spirit. Let the upstart on the Bosphoros embrace humility and cease to refer to itself as the "Mother Church."
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #156 on: June 05, 2010, 10:49:44 AM »

As for your deacon, why in the world would he say the priest's prayers of the Anaphora?

This story is about his spiritual father, who is a priest in Serbia.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #157 on: June 05, 2010, 06:19:01 PM »



As for your deacon, why in the world would he say the priest's prayers of the Anaphora? I don't get it. (I am happy though that the Church of Serbia is discussing this issue. May the Holy Spirit guide the deliberations).

At their annual Synod two years ago the Serbian bishops discussed these changes - keeping the Doors open, making the Secret Prayers into public prayers, removing the Prayer of the Third Hour.

Later, during the Great Fast, one of the bishops (Sabacki, if I remember rightly but need to check) went ahead and unilaterally issued a decree that these changes would be implemented in his diocese.

There was a negative reaction from his priests.  The monasteries of the diocese refused to implement his directive , and many a parish priest.  There is even the story of one Abbess who was unfortunate to have a compliant periest in her monastery and every time he opened the Doors she sent one of her nuns to close them.   Wink


The bishop responded by suspending the noncompliant priests.  Now, this was the week before Holy Week - it meant that the monasteries and parishes would have no services for Holy Week and none for Holy Pascha.  

At the point the faithful decided to make their views known about these highhanded changes to their traditions of a thousand years.

They exercised their role as the royal priesthood of the Church and they made their views known to the hierarchs.  Even though it was Holy Week they picketed and protested in Belgrade outside the Patriarchate.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 06:22:21 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #158 on: June 06, 2010, 08:06:39 PM »

I've been thinking about it, and we must realize that even if bad decisions are made, it is no excuse to schism. The Holy Spirit eventually prevails and if we were to fight the "bad decisions" (if there were any), then they would have no choice but to comply.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #159 on: June 06, 2010, 08:53:41 PM »

I've been thinking about it, and we must realize that even if bad decisions are made, it is no excuse to schism. The Holy Spirit eventually prevails and if we were to fight the "bad decisions" (if there were any), then they would have no choice but to comply.
Depends on how bad the decisions are (e.g. Florence).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #160 on: June 06, 2010, 11:55:03 PM »

I've been thinking about it, and we must realize that even if bad decisions are made, it is no excuse to schism. The Holy Spirit eventually prevails and if we were to fight the "bad decisions" (if there were any), then they would have no choice but to comply.
Depends on how bad the decisions are (e.g. Florence).
Ah but still, Orthodox didn't schism over Florence did they? As far as I'm aware, the laity, clergy and monastics didn't enter schism. (if anyone entered schism, it was the Bishops who signed at Florence)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #161 on: June 07, 2010, 12:03:29 AM »

I've been thinking about it, and we must realize that even if bad decisions are made, it is no excuse to schism. The Holy Spirit eventually prevails and if we were to fight the "bad decisions" (if there were any), then they would have no choice but to comply.
Depends on how bad the decisions are (e.g. Florence).
Ah but still, Orthodox didn't schism over Florence did they? As far as I'm aware, the laity, clergy and monastics didn't enter schism. (if anyone entered schism, it was the Bishops who signed at Florence)

A very small number of bishops at Florence did go into schism and entered the Roman Catholic Church, but the great majority of those who signed (under some duress let us remember) still made a praiseworthy effort to render their signatures meaningless.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 says:

"The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #162 on: June 07, 2010, 07:45:58 AM »

I've been thinking about it, and we must realize that even if bad decisions are made, it is no excuse to schism. The Holy Spirit eventually prevails and if we were to fight the "bad decisions" (if there were any), then they would have no choice but to comply.
Depends on how bad the decisions are (e.g. Florence).
Ah but still, Orthodox didn't schism over Florence did they? As far as I'm aware, the laity, clergy and monastics didn't enter schism. (if anyone entered schism, it was the Bishops who signed at Florence)

A very small number of bishops at Florence did go into schism and entered the Roman Catholic Church, but the great majority of those who signed (under some duress let us remember) still made a praiseworthy effort to render their signatures meaningless.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 says:

"The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved..."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

Did the Orthodox bishops break communion with the Patriarch?
From what I've read, the Patriarchs of Constantinople were pro-Florence union, and therefore essentially in communion with the Pope, until the fall of Constantinople.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #163 on: June 07, 2010, 09:36:57 AM »


Did the Orthodox bishops break communion with the Patriarch?


Patriarch Joseph actually died while at the Council in Florence.

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

" However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #164 on: June 07, 2010, 09:45:38 AM »



As for your deacon, why in the world would he say the priest's prayers of the Anaphora? I don't get it. (I am happy though that the Church of Serbia is discussing this issue. May the Holy Spirit guide the deliberations).

At their annual Synod two years ago the Serbian bishops discussed these changes - keeping the Doors open, making the Secret Prayers into public prayers, removing the Prayer of the Third Hour.

Later, during the Great Fast, one of the bishops (Sabacki, if I remember rightly but need to check) went ahead and unilaterally issued a decree that these changes would be implemented in his diocese.

There was a negative reaction from his priests.  The monasteries of the diocese refused to implement his directive , and many a parish priest.  There is even the story of one Abbess who was unfortunate to have a compliant periest in her monastery and every time he opened the Doors she sent one of her nuns to close them.   Wink


The bishop responded by suspending the noncompliant priests.  Now, this was the week before Holy Week - it meant that the monasteries and parishes would have no services for Holy Week and none for Holy Pascha.  

At the point the faithful decided to make their views known about these highhanded changes to their traditions of a thousand years.

They exercised their role as the royal priesthood of the Church and they made their views known to the hierarchs.  Even though it was Holy Week they picketed and protested in Belgrade outside the Patriarchate.

So, there are limits to the power of a bishop after all. That must mean that Father Schmemann was terribly wrong when he argued that the Church is hierarchical. See at http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/churchhierarchal.html. And, I was erroneously thinking that the concurrence of the people was essential when it came to essential things, like the Christological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils that were called to combat heresies.

In the Serbian example above, God forgive me, but I see priests and monks and nuns breaking their oaths. I am OK with the laity exercising its role as the royal priesthood, but I wonder if theirs was thoughtful and considerate action or were they stirred up to action by appeals to reject changes made to "their tradition." It may be useful to listed to Father Alexander: "The Church is hierarchal...All men, who put the Church, her Life and her Truth, above their own private and individual options, likes and dislikes, must...act accordingly."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2010, 10:14:35 AM »

So, there are limits to the power of a bishop after all.

Well, yes - the bishop's "powers" are limited by a number of things, including scripture/canons/Tradition, and the decisions of his synod.

That must mean that Father Schmemann was terribly wrong when he argued that the Church is hierarchical. See at http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/churchhierarchal.html

Fr. Schmemann usually argues (I haven't read the above document) that calling the Church hierarchical doesn't negate the fact that it is also governed with consent of the people & the oversight of the synods, but he rather holds the position that we cannot emphasize any one part unduly over the others.  The Church is hierarchical; but even within the hierarchy there is a hierarchy, with diocesan bishops answering to their Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan to his diocesan bishops, etc.  There is an interplay between the members of the Synod and their President, and vice-versa, that forces them to be accountable to one another, and which places that accountability in the hands of the group assembled in Synod.

And, I was erroneously thinking that the concurrence of the people was essential when it came to essential things, like the Christological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils that were called to combat heresies. 

Well, eventually the idea is to bring all men "to the knowledge of the truth," but as we see in the historical example of the Arian heresy, the Church sometimes becomes uncomfortably small (and yet, paradoxically, remains infinitely large) because hierarch and layman alike are swayed by temptation.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #166 on: June 07, 2010, 10:46:33 AM »

So, there are limits to the power of a bishop after all.

Well, yes - the bishop's "powers" are limited by a number of things, including scripture/canons/Tradition, and the decisions of his synod.

That must mean that Father Schmemann was terribly wrong when he argued that the Church is hierarchical. See at http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/churchhierarchal.html

Fr. Schmemann usually argues (I haven't read the above document) that calling the Church hierarchical doesn't negate the fact that it is also governed with consent of the people & the oversight of the synods, but he rather holds the position that we cannot emphasize any one part unduly over the others.  The Church is hierarchical; but even within the hierarchy there is a hierarchy, with diocesan bishops answering to their Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan to his diocesan bishops, etc.  There is an interplay between the members of the Synod and their President, and vice-versa, that forces them to be accountable to one another, and which places that accountability in the hands of the group assembled in Synod.

And, I was erroneously thinking that the concurrence of the people was essential when it came to essential things, like the Christological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils that were called to combat heresies. 

Well, eventually the idea is to bring all men "to the knowledge of the truth," but as we see in the historical example of the Arian heresy, the Church sometimes becomes uncomfortably small (and yet, paradoxically, remains infinitely large) because hierarch and layman alike are swayed by temptation.

Good Monday morning Father George!

Regarding powers of a bishop, there are two ways of looking at it: from above and from below. It seems to me, and Canon 34 directly answers this, that a diocesan bishop of whatever rank can implement some changes AND expect his priests, deacons and laity to obey him. The issue then becomes whether the change that is made is, to quote Canon 34, "something of consequence" that must be approved by the next bishop up in the administrative change of command.

According to Father Ambrose, the changes that Bishop Sabacki implemented were "keeping the Doors open, making the Secret Prayers into public prayers, removing the Prayer of the Third Hour." We do not know if his administrative superior in the chain of command (or the Holy Synod if that is the next higher administrative echelon) approved or disapproved this action. We are told that Bishop was along in making these changes; however, we are not told that he was disciplined. We are told of a rebellion by priests who had taken an oath of obedience to the bishop.

I wonder if the priests felt that the Bishop's actions were of such great consequence that they endangered the salvation of the souls in the priests' care. If such is the case, I will put the diocese of Bishop Sabocki on my prayer list, for it is made up of folks who have raised externals into cult objects. It is one thing to like something such as secret prayers, it is entirely different thing to rebel against proper authority and disrupt the life of the Church when they elevate rubrics into the same level as the Holy Scriptures. What will be next? Becoming schismatic over other externals?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #167 on: June 07, 2010, 10:51:57 AM »


Did the Orthodox bishops break communion with the Patriarch?


Patriarch Joseph actually died while at the Council in Florence.

Yes, but he was succeeded by Metrophanes II, who was also pro-union and succeeded in turn by the pro-union Gregory III.

Presumably the Patriarchs were pro-union to the end since the last services at the Hagia Sophia were unionist.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 10:52:47 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #168 on: June 07, 2010, 11:10:33 AM »

Good Monday morning Father George!

Regarding powers of a bishop, there are two ways of looking at it: from above and from below. It seems to me, and Canon 34 directly answers this, that a diocesan bishop of whatever rank can implement some changes AND expect his priests, deacons and laity to obey him. The issue then becomes whether the change that is made is, to quote Canon 34, "something of consequence" that must be approved by the next bishop up in the administrative change of command. 

We are agreed on this.  My approach in the earlier post, looking at it "from above," was working from the POV that (although not explicitly confirmed or denied by Fr. Ambrose's post) the synod ruled in favor of the "non-compliant" clergy & monastics.  I know you were not arguing their ability to do so (the Synod, that is), but I thought it would be a good complement to your post for the benefit of others reading the thread.

According to Father Ambrose, the changes that Bishop Sabacki implemented were "keeping the Doors open, making the Secret Prayers into public prayers, removing the Prayer of the Third Hour." We do not know if his administrative superior in the chain of command (or the Holy Synod if that is the next higher administrative echelon) approved or disapproved this action. We are told that Bishop was along in making these changes; however, we are not told that he was disciplined. We are told of a rebellion by priests who had taken an oath of obedience to the bishop.

It would be good information to have in this conversation - what did the Synod say?

I wonder if the priests felt that the Bishop's actions were of such great consequence that they endangered the salvation of the souls in the priests' care. If such is the case, I will put the diocese of Bishop Sabocki on my prayer list, for it is made up of folks who have raised externals into cult objects. It is one thing to like something such as secret prayers, it is entirely different thing to rebel against proper authority and disrupt the life of the Church when they elevate rubrics into the same level as the Holy Scriptures. What will be next? Becoming schismatic over other externals?

The only justifications for a clergyman breaking the orders of one's bishop are (a) heresy, and (b) schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  They obviously felt that the decisions they were rebelling against fell into one of those categories; what would have been useful was to submit their concerns to the Synod for a formal finding of the same, rather than only protesting.  It is one thing for the people to protest - it is their right, and I do not think that right should be fenced in too much.  But for the clergy to break the orders of their hierarch, they should make formal declaration as to cause, and submit their concerns to the synod that governs their territory for proper handling of the situation.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #169 on: June 07, 2010, 11:21:49 AM »

<snip>
The only justifications for a clergyman breaking the orders of one's bishop are (a) heresy, and (b) schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  <snip>

Well, there is a third: obedience to the Synod when the bishop departs the Synod's will.  The reason I say this is because I have known incidents where clergy have disobeyed the bishop over issues where he had clearly departed from a Synodal policy, but the bishop did nothing because he knew that any canonical action would be overturned by the Synod.  While this is not clearly stated in the canons, it is the effective results of right-of-appeal.

This is the secret struggle behind many jurisdictional issues, which nobody wants to publicly talk about.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #170 on: June 07, 2010, 11:36:36 AM »

<snip>
The only justifications for a clergyman breaking the orders of one's bishop are (a) heresy, and (b) schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  <snip>

Well, there is a third: obedience to the Synod when the bishop departs the Synod's will.  The reason I say this is because I have known incidents where clergy have disobeyed the bishop over issues where he had clearly departed from a Synodal policy, but the bishop did nothing because he knew that any canonical action would be overturned by the Synod.  While this is not clearly stated in the canons, it is the effective results of right-of-appeal.

This is the secret struggle behind many jurisdictional issues, which nobody wants to publicly talk about.

Very true, but I think I bunched that in with "schism," since a bishop disobeying his synod is essentially (although not formally) in schism.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #171 on: June 07, 2010, 11:39:32 AM »


Did the Orthodox bishops break communion with the Patriarch?


Patriarch Joseph actually died while at the Council in Florence.

Yes, but he was succeeded by Metrophanes II, who was also pro-union and succeeded in turn by the pro-union Gregory III.

Presumably the Patriarchs were pro-union to the end since the last services at the Hagia Sophia were unionist.
I've heard this claimed only from about one or two Orthodox Christians, but from multiple Roman Catholics... Yet it is never accompanied with a source... Where does this claim come from? Where is the proof?

As far as I'm concerned, without proof from a non-Catholic source, I'll just chalk this claim up to pro-RCC propaganda that has misled some Orthodox.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 11:41:57 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #172 on: June 07, 2010, 11:43:55 AM »

<snip>
The only justifications for a clergyman breaking the orders of one's bishop are (a) heresy, and (b) schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  <snip>

Well, there is a third: obedience to the Synod when the bishop departs the Synod's will.  The reason I say this is because I have known incidents where clergy have disobeyed the bishop over issues where he had clearly departed from a Synodal policy, but the bishop did nothing because he knew that any canonical action would be overturned by the Synod.  While this is not clearly stated in the canons, it is the effective results of right-of-appeal.

This is the secret struggle behind many jurisdictional issues, which nobody wants to publicly talk about.

I am.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27932.msg440065.html#msg440065
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #173 on: June 07, 2010, 11:52:17 AM »

We also must not forget that it is completely likely that Patriarch Joseph was murdered at the Council, and the "document" that he supposedly signed was instead forged by the Roman Catholics. Apparently even some Western Historians recognize this as being likely. (It wouldn't be the first time the RCC has done something like this)

There were some heretics/apostate there like Metrophanes and Isidore, and others, but I'm pretty certain other bishops were strong-armed by the heretic bishops and by the RCC.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 11:59:21 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #174 on: June 07, 2010, 12:20:10 PM »

Dear Fr. George:

Just because my wife never listens to me does not mean we are divorced!    Cheesy

Schism and disobedience are two separate things, since we regularly disobey God and yet remain part of His Body.  The issue of schism generally comes under the heading of enforcement, when the use of authority is exercised or resisted.  Granted, disobedience can lead to schism, but we have seen schism occur where the was no disobedience, but rather a choice in switching who one is obedient to.


<snip>
The only justifications for a clergyman breaking the orders of one's bishop are (a) heresy, and (b) schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  <snip>

Well, there is a third: obedience to the Synod when the bishop departs the Synod's will.  The reason I say this is because I have known incidents where clergy have disobeyed the bishop over issues where he had clearly departed from a Synodal policy, but the bishop did nothing because he knew that any canonical action would be overturned by the Synod.  While this is not clearly stated in the canons, it is the effective results of right-of-appeal.

This is the secret struggle behind many jurisdictional issues, which nobody wants to publicly talk about.

Very true, but I think I bunched that in with "schism," since a bishop disobeying his synod is essentially (although not formally) in schism.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #175 on: June 07, 2010, 12:29:00 PM »

That is a great example, and a good point.  Thank you, Father!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #176 on: June 07, 2010, 01:52:56 PM »


You are getting warmer...   Wink
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #177 on: June 07, 2010, 02:20:47 PM »

Father, what do you mean?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 02:21:05 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #178 on: June 07, 2010, 03:54:48 PM »


LOL.  A good humble dig at the self goes a long way.  TU
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #179 on: June 07, 2010, 04:26:51 PM »

Issa, didn't you mean this?



Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Tags: fasting councils 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.188 seconds with 72 queries.