OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: mike on December 28, 2013, 01:03:46 PM

Title: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: mike on December 28, 2013, 01:03:46 PM
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/12/position-of-the-moscow-patriarchate-on-the-problem-of-primacy-in-the-universal-church/

So, they've adopted it recently.

tl/dr

Is there anything new or is it hoary old chestnut ?
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Mor Ephrem on December 28, 2013, 01:31:51 PM
Define "new" and "hoary old chestnut". 

I just read it (it's not too long or difficult), and it seems like, more or less, a standard ecclesiological position paper.  As far as I can tell, there isn't anything controversial in it, but I don't know enough about the subtleties of EO inter-ecclesiastical politics to say for sure that it is completely innocuous. 
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Asteriktos on December 28, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
As for the article, it would have been nice if there had been a bit more acknowledgement that the inclinations to the type of primacy attributed to Rome was hardly absent in the East as well (e.g. with Alexandria interfering with Constantinople in the 4th and 5th centuries). I say this not because I want to slight anyone else, but because it brings more balance (not to mention historical accuracy) than the simple eastern collegiality vs. western primacy descriptions that often get used.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: mike on January 07, 2014, 05:16:10 AM
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis

Responce from the EP.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fabio Leite on January 07, 2014, 08:11:07 AM
Quote
If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.6vmpn8PO.dpuf

I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople. I wonder what a Patriarch with such a sense of primacy would do to the Church.

Now, this is all impressions, but obviously Constantinople and Rome want union. Period. That objective is non-negotiable. Opposition to it will not be tolerated, resistance will be marginalized and even persecuted. Both resent their most traditionalist members. Both marginalize or make life more difficult for the most vocal about keeping the tradition of the Church. Constantinople has been talking a long time about the need of a firmer or even stronger understanding of Primacy. Popes have been talking a lot since Vatican II about the need for more collegiality. It's clear the idea is to meet somewhere in the middle in the future. Union failed in Florence because of St. Mark. So, this time, it must be agreed beforehand that if the "Primate of the East" says so, no other bishop can contradict him. The Archbishop of Constantinople must first have powers equals to those of the Pope before he can acknowledge by means of these powers his right to "give them back" to Rome once Rome itself akcnowledges a more collegial way of administration. Rome has to be structurally organized to deal with churches with a much stronger sense of independency.

 Both have more or less acquired the habit of "let's broaden the meaning of words" to the point that even groups or people who had been considered heretical for centuries and, most importantly, by their own contemporaries (Non-Chalcedonians, Pope Honorius, etc), may somehow be included in this. The only ones who have to remain excluded are the traditionalists.

It means it's just a matter of how making it all look legitimate. A slow process would be needed to descentralize Rome and centralize the Orthodox Catholic Church, along some generations, so that when it happens it's just making something that already exists de facto into something de jure. Hence, support for highly ambiguous quasi-cocelabrations and omissions on real cocelabrations, blurring of theological differences and sacramental practices like Romans receiving the Eucharist in Orthodox Churches, focus on pragmatism that does not require strict definition of anything, and so on. Those who board too enthusiastically on the ecumenist ship may be punished, less for what they believe, but more for the fact they have failed to understand this "union" is meant to be a slow, non-scandalizing process. It's as if some hierarchs consider union an inegotiable mission, the very calling of their generation, and the masses, with which they are forced to put up with, the cumbersome weight that delays the realization of their enlightened ambitions, but who will yield due to their ignorance by means of these soft long-term measures. Thus all their frustation related to this is vented over groups like Old-Calendarists in Orthodoxy or the Society of St. Pius X in Rome. All too revolutionary, globalist and secular. Once again an obsession with achieving Utopia, a kingdom of this world.

Curiously, I can understand and recognize in the history of the Church the kind of primacy His Emminence talks about. But to so bluntly call it "first without equals" sounds really like a leap that cannot and should not be made.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fabio Leite on January 07, 2014, 08:44:50 AM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Misplaced Book on January 07, 2014, 08:46:49 AM
I understand what His Eminence is trying to say (although those who can read the original Greek can offer something more to this discussion)..

HOWEVER...

I really, really, really, really, really, really, really wish that there was another title to this article.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 07, 2014, 11:00:17 AM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)

This, IMO, is a serious contender for POM.  Jaguars are awesome. 
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on January 07, 2014, 11:34:54 AM
Another nail in the coffin of the Great and Holy Council.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 12:00:32 PM
Quote
If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.6vmpn8PO.dpuf

I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople. I wonder what a Patriarch with such a sense of primacy would do to the Church.
Yes, I fear H.E. is being preened as the next ethnarch of the Phanar. The nonsense H.E. tried to shove down our throats at Holy Cross a few years ago was only a foretaste.  It will be pushing Antioch even further into Moscow's camp: I don't see Pat. John having the same relationship as Pat. Ignatious of blessed memory had with H.E.'s boss.

Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on January 07, 2014, 12:14:03 PM
Quote
If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.6vmpn8PO.dpuf

I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople. I wonder what a Patriarch with such a sense of primacy would do to the Church.
Yes, I fear H.E. is being preened as the next ethnarch of the Phanar. The nonsense H.E. tried to shove down our throats at Holy Cross a few years ago was only a foretaste.  It will be pushing Antioch even further into Moscow's camp: I don't see Pat. John having the same relationship as Pat. Ignatious of blessed memory had with H.E.'s boss.



In the context of the Regional Assemblies, I suspect that neither Moscow or Constantinople expects much progress. Otherwise, Ravenna, its refutation by Moscow and the doubling down by Constantinople would not (need not) have happened at this time.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 12:51:41 PM
Another nail in the coffin of the Great and Holy Council.
Not to hear the Phanar speak of it:
Quote
Bartholomew convokes the Primates of the Orthodox Churches
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Bartholomew-convokes-the-Primates-of-the-Orthodox-Churches-29964.html?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferf1b79&utm_medium=facebook
wonder how many will go.  And what will the Phanar do if Met. Tikhon shows up.

I'm particularly amused by this
Quote
Constantinople, also thanks to its historical supra-national mentality...
it seems the author of the article shares the definition of Hellenism/ization with a certain oracle of ignorance who acts now as Metropolitan of an empty see, and is being preened as the next ethnarch.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Samn! on January 07, 2014, 01:08:21 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 01:13:11 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...
Wisdom! Let us attend!
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: hecma925 on January 07, 2014, 01:27:53 PM
 And what will the Phanar do if Met. Tikhon shows up.

I don't know, but I hope he does go.  He is a Primate.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: alexpetros on January 07, 2014, 01:42:57 PM
 And what will the Phanar do if Met. Tikhon shows up.

I don't know, but I hope he does go.  He is a Primate.

Quote from: Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa
This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly.

I will have to start a new thread on this, because the autocephaly of the OCA, the jurisdiction which I attend, is in question at Constantinople, and I do not understand this questioning.
So if Met. Tikhon were to show up as a Primate of the OCA, recognized autocephaly by Moscow, how would he be recognized by those in Constantinople?
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fr. George on January 07, 2014, 02:14:41 PM
Quote
If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.6vmpn8PO.dpuf

I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople. I wonder what a Patriarch with such a sense of primacy would do to the Church.


I wouldn't bet on it: the other members of the Synod don't think much of him.  If he's elected, it will only be due to his age (read: relative youth).
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fr. George on January 07, 2014, 02:15:39 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality... 

His see may be titular, but he has a flock... Struggling to survive, fighting to witness to Christ in a Muslim sea.  I've met them, and they're good people.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Samn! on January 07, 2014, 02:18:33 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...  

His see may be titular, but he has a flock... Struggling to survive, fighting to witness to Christ in a Muslim sea.  I've met them, and they're good people.

Neither Met Zizioulas nor Met Labriniadis in any meaningful sense has a flock.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 03:01:00 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...  

His see may be titular, but he has a flock... Struggling to survive, fighting to witness to Christ in a Muslim sea.  I've met them, and they're good people.
There are Christians in Bursa, Father?
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Iconodule on January 07, 2014, 03:04:45 PM
 And what will the Phanar do if Met. Tikhon shows up.

I don't know, but I hope he does go.  He is a Primate.

Quote from: Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa
This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly.

I will have to start a new thread on this, because the autocephaly of the OCA, the jurisdiction which I attend, is in question at Constantinople, and I do not understand this questioning.
So if Met. Tikhon were to show up as a Primate of the OCA, recognized autocephaly by Moscow, how would he be recognized by those in Constantinople?

Probably as a Moscow bishop, which is how OCA bishops are counted in the episcopal assemblies if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fabio Leite on January 07, 2014, 03:07:28 PM
There are three major geopolitical forces in the world today.

Globalists, who are a loose network of people (not necessarily millionaires, even middle-class level employees) whose interests and daily lives are more related to global affairs than with any local problem, but which also include several multinationals, NGOs, Foundations, global governance institutions, media and so on. Globalists are not the billionaires only, much less the American interests, although many of the actual players are located in America, even occupying the American State for their objectives instead of American local interests. This loose network of people with different backgrounds is what paranoids often refer to as "Jewish conspiracy" or "American Imperialism", although it's neither. It's just a set of the population of the world that "thinks global";

Islam, a classic faith-based multi-national expansionist civilization;

Russia, the only classic nation-state that holds also classical imperialistic objectives;

It means that, despite much belief of some on the personal inspiration of some hierarchs of any church (Orthodox, Roman or any other), hierarchs are playing into the interests of one of these forces. God will surely guide the Church despite all this, but that does not mean the problem itself is a good thing.

The Moscow Patriarchate works with Russia for very obvious reasons. Orthodox Churches in the ex-communist countries face a dangerous dillemma of falling either back to the imperialistic Russian orbit, or into the Globalist influence of the European Union. Greek Orthodoxy has been playing with the globalists since the independence of Greece, while the Midle-Eastern patriarchates had to deal with Islam. So, the ex-communist countries, if choosing the European Union would probably slowly drift toward Constantinople along the 21st century.

Enviromentalism and Union of Churches are topics dear to Globalists. A multi-headed hydra needs a multi-headed religion, and multiple heads here mean less the number of hierarchs at the top, but the number of meanings the same symbols and words can have. In fact, having one supreme hierarch can only help in this standardization.

Current affairs are throwing the Middle-Eastern churches out of the influence of Islam into Russian influence. At the same time, Constantinople gets closer and closer with Rome in the globalist field. For Rome itself, that would be a perfectly good outcome: Orthodoxy split into two different grounds, a Romophile Greek Orthodoxy and Slavophille one, both hating each other, and claiming to be the "real" Orthodoxy. One could even think of a union of Greek Orthodox Churches with Rome, in which Constantinople would be given papal like powers over whatever churches remained with it in the Greek world, which an ambitious hierarch could agree. This block would have a tendency to "aggiornamento" while the block of Middle-Eastern Churches under the protection of the Russian Church would tend to stay more traditional in contrast to that. Rome probably would agree that the united Greek Orthodoxy kept calling itself the Orthodox Church and autonomous, so that, in its disputes with Moscow, they would prove that only a supreme hierarch can be the symbol of unity.

This is probably the scenario of Orthodoxy for the 21st century. If union happens with Rome, it will be this division with stronger colors and universal scandal among the Orthodox, for the ME-Moscow side probably would not follow the Greek churches. The churches in ex-Soviet countries would probably split among unionists and traditionalists or even form a "third way".

That is why I believe that even the wish for union is a bad, destabilizing thing. If union happens, it will not generate "one church", but the collapse of the sense of unity of both Orthodoxy and Rome (for also in Rome divisions would arise with several traditionalist groups not following and I would not be surprised if disputing popes appeared). It will not create a stronger sense of witness and unity, but just prove to the world that slander that the Church is just a human institution. Unionist ecumenism is just another revolutionary ideology seeking Utopia.

The Ecumenism that is possible and desirable, Dialogal Ecumenism, shuns talks of union and favors dialogue, fraternity and tolerant coexistence. And only that.  A much better witness of belief in unity and love would be both Rome and Orthodoxy keep to their traditional ways and *despite* believing each other wrong, not initiate violence toward each other and show tolerance to converts. Orthodoxy would gather round the Symbol of Faith and the Holy Spirit, respecting the limited honours and duties of the Primate in Constantinople, and Rome around its supreme leader, the Pope. And the world would be a better place.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 03:10:16 PM
Was this blasphemy released today? I wonder if it was timed when Moscow was celebrating the birth of the Head of our Church, Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 03:11:27 PM
 And what will the Phanar do if Met. Tikhon shows up.

I don't know, but I hope he does go.  He is a Primate.

Quote from: Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa
This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly.

I will have to start a new thread on this, because the autocephaly of the OCA, the jurisdiction which I attend, is in question at Constantinople, and I do not understand this questioning.
So if Met. Tikhon were to show up as a Primate of the OCA, recognized autocephaly by Moscow, how would he be recognized by those in Constantinople?

Probably as a Moscow bishop, which is how OCA bishops are counted in the episcopal assemblies if I recall correctly.
Not quite: it was Moscow's threat to do just that that made the Phanar stop bringing its Estonians to such gatherings.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Fabio Leite on January 07, 2014, 03:14:09 PM
Was this blasphemy released today? I wonder if it was timed when Moscow was celebrating the birth of the Head of our Church, Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Yes:

Quote
FIRST WITHOUT EQUALS: A Response to the Text on Primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
In a recent synodal decision, the Church of Russia seems once again to choose its isolation both from theological dialogue with the Catholic Church and from the communion of the Orthodox Churches. Learn More »
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Alpo on January 07, 2014, 03:29:20 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Gunnarr on January 07, 2014, 03:32:43 PM
I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople.

Don't say that ever again, it makes my head explode
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on January 07, 2014, 04:25:59 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality... 

His see may be titular, but he has a flock... Struggling to survive, fighting to witness to Christ in a Muslim sea.  I've met them, and they're good people.

I wonder how many of them are survivors of the 1920s.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Mor Ephrem on January 07, 2014, 04:49:40 PM
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis

Responce from the EP.

I'm really hoping that something was lost in translation when publishing the English text of this response, or that this is simply a personal response of one bishop and not the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (despite being published on its website).  With all due respect to His Eminence, and without wanting to take sides on internal EO politics, it is painful to read a text with such erroneous theological ideas.  The MP's original statement (in the OP) was rather boring, honestly, because it just repeated standard theology and practice.  This text is not boring, but frustrating and even saddening.     
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Nephi on January 07, 2014, 05:32:46 PM
I'm really hoping that something was lost in translation when publishing the English text of this response, or that this is simply a personal response of one bishop and not the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (despite being published on its website).  With all due respect to His Eminence, and without wanting to take sides on internal EO politics, it is painful to read a text with such erroneous theological ideas.  The MP's original statement (in the OP) was rather boring, honestly, because it just repeated standard theology and practice.  This text is not boring, but frustrating and even saddening.

I tend to stay out of the MP-EP conflict myself, but isn't this what Isa is always saying the EP professes about itself? Often brings in a reference to some canon-or-other. Idk.

FWIW, the GOA Facebook page even shared the two articles today, which is where I saw them before they were posted here.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:08:57 PM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)

That's about how I feel whenever Orthodox bishops discuss who should be first.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:10:08 PM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)

This, IMO, is a serious contender for POM.  Jaguars are awesome. 

Indeed.. Each synod should have at least five hungry jaguars in the meeting room.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:10:38 PM
Another nail in the coffin of the Great and Holy Council.


Probably just as well.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Maria on January 07, 2014, 06:11:33 PM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)

This, IMO, is a serious contender for POM.  Jaguars are awesome. 

Indeed.. Each synod should have at least five hungry jaguars in the meeting room.

Jaguars are friendly. It would be rare for them to attack humans unless they felt threatened or were rabid.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:12:13 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...
Wisdom! Let us attend!

Most bishops are spread so thin, they have very little contact with their flocks, let alone reality.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:13:40 PM
Quote
If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).

http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadis#sthash.6vmpn8PO.dpuf

I heard that H.E. Elpidophoros is considered the probable next Patriarch of Constantinople. I wonder what a Patriarch with such a sense of primacy would do to the Church.


I wouldn't bet on it: the other members of the Synod don't think much of him.  If he's elected, it will only be due to his age (read: relative youth).

A bad reason to elect an unimpressive candidate for any office.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:14:56 PM
These titular bishops without flocks have no tether to reality...  

His see may be titular, but he has a flock... Struggling to survive, fighting to witness to Christ in a Muslim sea.  I've met them, and they're good people.
There are Christians in Bursa, Father?

Might could be Antiochians. There are more Antiochians ("ethnic") in Turkey than Greeks. They take care of the churches in Istanbul.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:17:01 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: vamrat on January 07, 2014, 06:31:51 PM
.
Repost.

As compensation for clicking on the wrong link, here's a jaguar sleeping.
(http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/onca-dormindo-wallpaper-13643.jpg)

This, IMO, is a serious contender for POM.  Jaguars are awesome. 

Indeed.. Each synod should have at least five hungry jaguars in the meeting room.

Jaguars are friendly. It would be rare for them to attack humans unless they felt threatened or were rabid.

I have always been a fan of keeping a bag of Ratel's handy for church meetings.  Ours can be pretty sedate (I've slept in them before) but one of the other churches in town is known for having some nasty meetings.  Just take the bag of Ratels, shake it a bit, open up the bag and close up the doors and say no one is getting out until we come to an agreement on the Priest's healthcare plan.  (By agreement, I mean you bloody approve it or I start tossing jars of honey in your direction.)
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Gunnarr on January 07, 2014, 06:35:41 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded

That was a couple centuries later. And I don't recall beheading, but it would've been a nice rhetorical flourish.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Gunnarr on January 07, 2014, 07:22:53 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded

That was a couple centuries later. And I don't recall beheading, but it would've been a nice rhetorical flourish.

yes i was not talking about 5th century, just "worse things" :)

and i am certain one was beheaded... i will find it ;)

oh here it is, but i got the story way wrong, but still, beheaded

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_II_of_Constantinople

things like this make our modern controversies sound like nothing!
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: mike on January 07, 2014, 07:47:48 PM
Since when is Estonia autocephalous?
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 07:57:53 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded

That was a couple centuries later. And I don't recall beheading, but it would've been a nice rhetorical flourish.

yes i was not talking about 5th century, just "worse things" :)

and i am certain one was beheaded... i will find it ;)

oh here it is, but i got the story way wrong, but still, beheaded

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_II_of_Constantinople

things like this make our modern controversies sound like nothing!

If he plotted against Constantine V, he can't be that bad. Constantine V was a nasty little man.
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: ialmisry on January 07, 2014, 08:18:13 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded

That was a couple centuries later. And I don't recall beheading, but it would've been a nice rhetorical flourish.

yes i was not talking about 5th century, just "worse things" :)

and i am certain one was beheaded... i will find it ;)

oh here it is, but i got the story way wrong, but still, beheaded

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_II_of_Constantinople

things like this make our modern controversies sound like nothing!

If he plotted against Constantine V, he can't be that bad. Constantine V was a nasty little man.
Was that Constantine the Pooper?
Title: Re: Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy
Post by: Shanghaiski on January 07, 2014, 08:29:02 PM
The Orthodox Bold and the Beautiful. This is riduculous.

Things were much worse in the 5th century. Compared to then, this is the Brady Bunch.

yes, such as iconoclast patriarch of constantinople, switching sides saying he is an icondule, then switching again to say he is an iconoclast

and then beheaded

That was a couple centuries later. And I don't recall beheading, but it would've been a nice rhetorical flourish.

yes i was not talking about 5th century, just "worse things" :)

and i am certain one was beheaded... i will find it ;)

oh here it is, but i got the story way wrong, but still, beheaded

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Constantine_II_of_Constantinople

things like this make our modern controversies sound like nothing!

If he plotted against Constantine V, he can't be that bad. Constantine V was a nasty little man.
Was that Constantine the Pooper?

Yes. The Wiki article doesn't even go into his other colorful aspects.