I can't believe what I read.
If I weren't annoyed by the idiotic "arguments" thrown in my face (no, actually I am not an idiot and stupidities used to convince me actually annoy me) I'd be shuddering in the salves of laughter.
Let me make clear what I am speaking about.
A) There are some undisputed facts, beyond any doubt:
A.1) Benedict XVI visited Phanar back in 2006.
A.2) There are various public reports about the events there, including some claim on a list, with the link to EP's official site proving that claim in 2006.
A.2.1) The link is not valid in 2009, about two and a half years latter, since EP removed the footage from its site.
A.3) There are two official documents castigating H.A.H. Bartholomew (kindly note I referred to him by his official title of His All-Holyness) from Mount Athos, the authonomy within EP, one of Self-Governing Body (the one posted above) and the second one from Koinotes (a.k.a. hermits).
A.4) The letter of Self-Governing Body of Mount Athos contains
description of the events
During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer...
A.4.2) certain qualifications of them:
...received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron...as though it were Christ the Lord...his liturgical (remark by OL: the word "liturgical" makes the qualification of the event) embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.
A.5) There is no response to the letters in the form and manner pertaining to them by the addressee.
The answer to my questions about the facts has been persistantly avoided in this thread. Instead, what I got here, and in the thread to which I linked in my first post on the thread, is:
B.1) Counter-questions with a bunch of various rubbish qualifications and interpretations, such as:
B.1.1) It wasn't one word, than three words that were altered.
B.1.1) The invitation to explain the qualification (you might use the word "interpretation"; however, the word "qualification" refers exactly to subsuming if an event qualifies as a notion prescribed as a norm) of the events by the Athonites to an "authority" of cyber-Orthodox laymen.
B.1.2) The lecture about the pallium (something I am interested in as much as in the snow of last winter), with particularly "authoritative" explanation that Orthodox understanding is that pallium is part of Papal omophorion, (I did shudder in laughter over this one.) but the Athonites are ignorant about this treasure of Orthodox knowledge.
B.2) Assurances by "Orthodox cyber-authority" that an opinion of an Greek Old Calendarist priest, whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR", is the final and supreme authority over the issue if it is appropriate to trash an Orthodox hieromonk by a bunch of "cyber-authorities" in Orthodoxy for simply pointing out the well-known facts.The simple truth is that EP has been remaining silent to Athonites' letters for two and a half years. Therefore, when an Orthodox hieromonk brings qualifications expressed in these letters, and even more annoying details reported on some list, "cyber-authorities" in Orthodoxy can only hurl salves of insults and ridiculous interpretation of the events to silence it.
Now, the only thing that remained uncelar to me is what makes me wasting my time in the debate with the people capable of throwing such an "arguments" in my face.