OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 04:43:38 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Announcement by the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain Athos  (Read 30345 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 10, 2009, 04:57:56 AM »


Now, my question is simple orthodoxlurker.
How do you account for the fact that the Athonite Monks allegedly claim that the Pope was commemorated as :
“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”
Yet Irish Hermit says he was commemorated as:
"the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict"

?

A hieromonk repeated it, adding the word "Archbishop" (that would account to something awful?), receiving the avalanche of insults.

Wait a minute.
Firstly, it was not Irish Hermit who "added the word Archbishop".
Secondly, we not only have the addition of a word, we have the alteration of one word and the removal of three other words ("Pope of Rome").
Irish Hermit states that his evidence comes from the witness of one "Rdr. Petar Rajic" who posted on the Indiana List:
As I said I did not try the video because my computer is too slow.  I asked the chap who sent it where he got the information and it comes from the Indiana list for December 2006.

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0612A&L=ORTHODOX&P=R3400
Now, this "Rdr. Petar Rajic" admits in his post that he is "not a native Greek speaker", yet he is sure that he heard the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..."
So the monks of Mount Athos (most of whom are native Greek Speakers since they say in their letter: "we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate") - where did they get the words: "“most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”"?

Let me explain why.

If you read the letter of the Holy Community of Mount Athos you will notice that the word "commemorate" occurs earlier in the letter. The second paragraph reads:


" As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall.  We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world.  Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate."


Is the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain talking here about "commemorating" the Patriarch in the Liturgy? Is the Patriarch "particularly" commemorated in the Liturgy for his "stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world."?
Clearly they are not talking about their commemoration of the Patriarch in the Liturgy, so what makes you think they are talking about the commemoration of the Pope in the Liturgy in the second instance of the word in their letter? I think the confusion is in the paragraph because of the syntax.
The Monks state that "During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;" see the semicolon at the end of that point? It means that is the only point they make about the Service. The next point is about how the Pope was greeted in the welcoming Speech of the Patriarch: "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;" Another semi colon. This did not take place in the Liturgy but during the speeches.  Neither did the joint blessing take place during the Liturgy, it took place on the Balcony afterwards. So the monks are not talking about a Liturgical commemoration.
If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

No commemoration of the Pope takes place in the Liturgy.

All this was pointed out to Irish Hermit.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:12:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #91 on: February 10, 2009, 06:20:11 AM »

OzGeorge points out above this tidbit about the article from Mount Athos:
"The Monks state that "During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;" see the semicolon at the end of that point? It means that is the only point they make about the Service. The next point is about how the Pope was greeted in the welcoming Speech of the Patriarch: "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;" Another semi colon. This did not take place in the Liturgy but during the speeches.  Neither did the joint blessing take place during the Liturgy, it took place on the Balcony afterwards. So the monks are not talking about a Liturgical commemoration.
If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.
"


The complete point of this article from Mount Athos was that the Pope wore an omophorion or in Roman Catholic terms a Pallium during the Liturgy.





Pope Benedict was NOT wearing a Pallium during the Liturgy at the Phanar. 

Here is a link to the Liturgy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM

Pause at minute 5:03 and pause.  Have a look.  No pallium.

What is this pallium I am speaking of?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallium

The Pallium is the Papal equivalent to the omophorion  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omophorion

In fact the pope was in choir dress during the Divine Liturgy at the Phanar.

What is choir dress? 



This is what the Pope was wearing except that fancy red cape was furred lined.  Notice during the video the white trimming on the red cape/mozzetta.

Once again at the Divine Liturgy the Pope attended at the Phanar he was wearing
choir dress:
Zuchetto
Pectoral cross
stole
cassock
red shoes

He didn't wear his pallium which is the sign of his position in the Roman Catholic Church.

The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.


Here is Pope Benedict XVI wearing a Pallium or what the Eastern Orthodox would call the omophorion.



« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 06:34:01 AM by username! » Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 10, 2009, 06:30:33 AM »

The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.
It seems that even Athonite Monks and Global Moderators make mistakes sometimes.
Thankfully, we Orthodox do not claim infallibility. Cheesy
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 06:58:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2009, 07:25:57 AM »

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

both

A.4.1)

description of the events

Quote
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...


and

A.4.2) certain qualifications of them:

Quote
...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.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 10, 2009, 07:46:18 AM »

I can't believe what I read.
That's because you don't want to.

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.
Idiotic arguments?
Look at the video of the Liturgy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
Where is the Pope's omophorion (pallium) as the Athonites claim?

A.1) Benedict XVI visited Phanar back in 2006.
Yes, that's right. No one is disputing that.


A.2) There are various public reports about the events there,
Which contradict each other as pointed out.

including some claim on a list, with the link to EP's official site proving that claim in 2006.
Written by a "Rdr. Petar Rajic who clearly says his first language is not Greek yet he presumes to translate a Greek video. Well, you have the video above. This is the first of a series of 8 videos of the entire liturgy. Tell us where the Pope is commemorated in them and we will believe you.

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.
Then please use the alternate video of the Liturgy on youtube linked to above to prove your point.

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).
"Castigating"? This certainly doesn't sound like "castigating" to me:
" As Monks of the Holy Mountain, we respect the Ecumenical Patriarchate, under whose jurisdiction we fall.  We honor and venerate the Most Holy Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and we rejoice in all that he has achieved and so diligently labored for, in his love of God, for the Church. We particularly commemorate the stolid and untiring defence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, amid the many unfavorable conditions that exist, as well as the impoverished local Orthodox Churches and the care that is taken to project the message of the Orthodox Church throughout the world.  Furthermore, we the Monks of the Holy Mountain honor the Most Holy Church of Greece, from which most of us originate, and we respect His Beatitude the Primate."

A.4) The letter of Self-Governing Body of Mount Athos contains
both
A.4.1)
description of the events

Quote
During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron;
Which is patently WRONG. The Pope is not wearing the omorphion. He is in choir dress.
See for yourself:

See? No omorphion. No Pallium.
They made a mistake.
You clearly have trouble facing reality.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 07:56:29 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 10, 2009, 08:05:37 AM »

From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_regalia_and_insignia#Choir_dress


Quote
Choir dress

When not celebrating religious services, the pope wears a distinctive choir dress. Choir dress is worn when attending—but not celebrating—services, and formal occasions, such as audiences. On less formal occasions, the pope wears ordinary dress.
The most immediately noticeable feature is a white cassock and zucchetto (skull cap). Only the pope is permitted to wear a cassock made out of watered silk. The cassock used to have a train on it, but Pope Pius XII discontinued this custom. For convenience, the train could be folded up and fastened to the back of the cassock. He used to wear a tufted fascia (white sash-like belt fastened about the waist, the ends of which fall down past the knees and are often embroidered with the pope's coat of arms), until Paul VI replaced it with a simpler fringed sash. Previously, the tufted fascia (terminating in gold tassels) was worn with choir dress, and the fringed fascia (terminating in a simpler gold fringe) was worn with ordinary dress.
Over his cassock the pope will wear a lace rochet. Over the rochet is worn the red papal mozzetta, a shoulder cape that has a collar and is buttoned all the way down the front. The red color is a vestige from the days when scarlet was the papal color (white only became associated with the papacy after the Napoleonic wars). The papal mozzetta had a small hood on the back, which disappeared after Vatican II but has recently been restored. In wintertime, the papal mozzetta is of red velvet trimmed with ermine (this also fell out of use after Vatican II, but Pope Benedict XVI recently began again to wear a winter mozzetta trimmed in white fur). In summer, the papal mozzetta is of red satin. The pope wears a pectoral cross suspended on a gold cord over the mozzetta. He may also choose to wear a red stole with gold embroidery over the mozzetta, even when he is not officiating at a service.
Traditionally during the Octave of Easter, the pope wears the white paschal mozzetta, which is of white damask silk trimmed with white ermine. While the paschal mozzetta fell out of use during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, it was returned to use in 2008 by Pope Benedict XVI.
Since the 13th Century many papal portraits have shown the pontiff wearing the camauro, a red velvet cap which covers the ears, and is trimmed with ermine. The camauro fell out of fashion with the death of Pope John XXIII, but has recently been revived by Pope Benedict XVI.
Traditionally, he wears special red satin or velvet papal slippers indoors, and red leather papal shoes outdoors. The papal shoes were traditionally red, though Pope John Paul II would sometimes wear black or brown leather shoes. Pope Benedict XVI has restored the use of the traditional red papal shoes.



Pope Benedict XVI in choir dress
(red shoes, white cassock with fringed fascia,
rochet, red mozzetta, embroidered red stole,
gold pectoral cross on cord, and white zucchetto).


This is what the Pope was wearing at the Patriarchal Liturgy.
Case closed.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #96 on: February 10, 2009, 08:17:49 AM »

I can see how one could get confused; the stole on the "choir dress" looks like it's primed to be folded over and made into an omophorion/pallium.  In my secondary school days I don't remember seeing the RC Bishop of Cleveland in "choir dress" ever, so I wasn't familiar. 

Can we separate out the arguments?

1. The Pope was commemorated.
- Well, in a sense he wasn't, in that it didn't happen during the Divine Liturgy, and certainly not during the commemorations of the hierarchs in communion (at the Great Entrance, and at the "Among the First, Lord, remember...").
- In a sense he was during the "Doxology Service" that took place the days before Liturgy when he arrived at the Phanar.

2. The Pope was vested.
- Those who have looked at the videos have said (with proof, from photography) that he really wasn't - but it would be easy for us to be fooled from our Orthodox POV on vestment types and styles.

3. The Pope was greeted as an Orthodox bishop and given the Kiss of Peace by His All-Holiness.
- Did he do this during Liturgy?  Doxology? (I'm not saying the one is trivial by nature; just trying to be precise regarding the facts.)
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.
Mark of Ephesus
Defender of Orthodoxy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR/MP
Posts: 170



« Reply #97 on: February 10, 2009, 08:20:11 AM »

Since this deals with both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, I thought this was the best place to put this.  However, moderators, feel free to move it if you feel it goes elsewhere.

Scamandrius

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SACRED COMMUNITY OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN ATHOS

About the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate on the occasion of the feast-day of Saint Andrew (30th
November 2006)
http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/athos1.htm



It seems that the Monks of the Holy Mountain have hit the "nail on the head", (as we say in Texas!)



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 03:58:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Suddenly the Judge shall come, and the deeds of each shall be revealed, but with fear we cry out in the middle of the night, Holy, Holy, Holy art thou o God, Thru the prayers of the Theotokos have mercy on us and save us!
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2009, 10:50:00 AM »

Removed my message.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 11:05:46 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,550


« Reply #99 on: February 10, 2009, 10:55:03 AM »

God bless you cleveland!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2009, 11:20:52 AM »



If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

There is one importrant point here which those familar with Liturgy will have noticed at once.

The forum of the alleged commemoration is "Again let us pray...."

Now this is NOT the form used in the Great Litany so there would be no point in looking for it there.

The petitions which all commence "Again let us pray..." are only in the Litany of Fervent Intercession which takes place immediately after the reading of the Gospel.

In some parts of the Greek (and Antiochian) diaspora this Litany has been removed from the Liturgy, or so I am told, and that may explain the confusion.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2009, 11:57:15 AM »

If the Pope had indeed been comemmorated during the liturgy with the words:
"Again we pray for the Archbishop and Pope of Rome Benedict, and for our Archbishop and Patriarch Bartholomew..." as Rdr Petar Rajic claims, then surely the Monastic Community of the Holy Mountain would have included this in their protest letter.

Finally, here is the video of the Great Litany of the Patriarchal Liturgy which Pope Benedict attended (dressed in his omorphion as the Athonites correctly pointed out):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM
The commemoration of the Bishop takes place at 6 minutes and 8 seconds, and it is the Ecumenical Patriarch alone who is commemorated.

There is one importrant point here which those familar with Liturgy will have noticed at once.

The forum of the alleged commemoration is "Again let us pray...."

Now this is NOT the form used in the Great Litany so there would be no point in looking for it there.

The petitions which all commence "Again let us pray..." are only in the Litany of Fervent Intercession which takes place immediately after the reading of the Gospel.

In some parts of the Greek (and Antiochian) diaspora this Litany has been removed from the Liturgy, or so I am told, and that may explain the confusion.

I think the form "again we pray" not only tells us that it is from the fervent litany, but also hints that it could have been from another service, such as Vespers, Liti, or a "Doxology Service," all of which have fervent Litanies  Are we certain that it was Divine Liturgy?

(Note: I'm not nitpicking to say that "if it wasn't in Liturgy it wasn't a big deal," but rather I'm trying to get to "if it wasn't in Liturgy, it wasn't as big a deal, but it's still not necessarily a good thing.")
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.
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2009, 12:05:57 PM »

I'm hesitant to enter this discussion, but if I may offer a couple thoughts...

The link that Irish Hermit posted a few days ago was, indeed, broken.  But if one looks at the URL, one will see that it ended with "pope_arrival_2006."  I'm not sure where the confusion came in that the commemoration happened during the Divine Liturgy (I feel sure that it was just a misunderstanding, and no one confused them intentionally, as it was unclear from what was posted when the commemoration happened), but it did not.  I did a little searching...

I downloaded the podcasts from iTunes and subsequently also discovered that I own the Dvd's.  I watched them yesterday.  Smiley

If one looks on the patriarchate's website that is specifically dedicated to the pope's visit, one will find that the video for the Doxology FOR THE SAFE ARRIVAL OF THE POPE AT THE PHANAR ends with the same "pope_arrival_2006" as the link that Irish Hermit posted.  Here it is:
http://papalvisit.ecupatriarchate.org/media/pope_arrival_2006.php

And it is, as was said, seven minutes, five seconds into the video.  For me, this completely confirms that the commemoration in question happened NOT during the Divine Liturgy, but rather, during the doxology for the Pope's arrival.

So... this "commemoration" happened during a Doxology that was SPECIFICALLY to give Glory to God for the Pope's safe arrival!  OF COURSE they prayed for him!  It would have been completely inappropriate not to!  How can one thank God for the Pope's arrival without ever mentioning the Pope?!?!

Furthermore, while he WAS commemorated as archbishop and pope of Rome (his official title), he was NOT commemorated as "OUR" archbishop and pope of Rome, which is distinctly different (there was no "imon" used).  Neither did he acknowledge the commemoration with a blessing, as a bishop would, or as he would when he was in any service in the Catholic Church.  He did NOT bless, nor was there an "eis polla eti, despota" said for him.  The Patriarch WAS commemorated in the usual way, with the usage of "imon," he DID bless, and they DID say "eis polla eti, despota."  They commemorated the Pope in the same way they commemorate any visiting dignitary.  Nothing unusual about it.


Frankly (and I mean no offense to anyone), I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere useful.  We commemorate the president in every Divine Liturgy.  That doesn't mean that we acknowledge him as the leader of our Church.  It means we are praying for him.  Furthermore, we pray constantly in doxologies and Divine Liturgies and Trisagions, etc. for non-Orthodox people, like terrorist victims, victims of natural disasters, and other people for whom it has been established we should pray for specifically.  When we open conferences or retreats, we pray for the participants (even though they may not be Orthodox, such as at the opening of an educational conference of the World Conference of Churches, when it was held at Hellenic College Holy Cross).  It is our job, our responsibility as Christians, to pray for people.  Why would we not pray for the Pope?  They were praying for him for a specific time and a specific reason.  They prayed for him the same way as they would pray for anyone else.  And, considering the circumstances, I would say it would have been ridiculously inappropriate NOT to pray for him.

I pray I'm not causing any offense by my words.

Pray for me a sinner,
Presbytera Mari
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2009, 12:15:57 PM »

I can see how one could get confused;

Me too, I see the confusion, although I am not quite sure why my point is persistently ignored.


Can we separate out the arguments?


I thought I've already done it.

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

All of that regardless Fr. Ambrose's precise point.

I am not debating what had Benedict XVI worn, or what was said at what point of Liturgy. I am not Reader Rajic, I wasn't there, so ask him to explain if what he heard was pronounced by H.D.A.H. Bartholomew, some priest of his jurisdicion, or by some present Roman Catholic or an "Easterner-in-communion-whose-name-we-are-not-allowed-on-this-board".

The harsh criticism is expressed in two letters of Athonites. Beside the theological value, the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy. The quote letter contain certain qualifications, e.g. "...liturgical  embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer."

My point is that as long as there is no official response to the official and public letter of Athonites every one of us, even a layman, is free to repeat the qualifications from the letter.

Yet another point is that when the same or similar qualifications are brought by a hieromonk an Orthodox ought to show some manners even in the harshest dispute against these qualifications.

And the final point that bringing "the arguments" of youtube, wikipedia and Old Calendarist priests against Mount Athos and a hieromonk with decades of practice sound pathetic and ridiculous.


I hope I did clarify everything to you, because this was my best attempt at it and I don't think I can do any better.

Regards from a member of "synagogue of Satan headed by Patriarch Pavle", whose prayers interecede for my friend with cancer to be alive and good looking for a decade and a half.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 12:18:03 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: February 10, 2009, 12:20:53 PM »

They prayed for him the same way as they would pray for anyone else.  And, considering the circumstances, I would say it would have been ridiculously inappropriate NOT to pray for him.

May God bless him and convert him.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #105 on: February 10, 2009, 12:35:30 PM »

Me too, I see the confusion, although I am not quite sure why my point is persistently ignored.

Probably because it's irrelevant.

Can we separate out the arguments?

I thought I've already done it.

I think there must be some sort of language barrier, because you're not always as clear as you think you are.

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

The "even more conservative than ROCOR" wasn't brought in as a support for the argument; I don't think you paid very close attention.

For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

See my point below.

All of that regardless Fr. Ambrose's precise point.

I am not debating what had Benedict XVI worn, or what was said at what point of Liturgy.

Then why debate it above, when you say:
For instance, the argument about Benedict's clothing is hollow.

It was not one place where I've read that he actually wore white liturgical vestment, tailored in Eastern fashion for the occasion, beneath that red stuff on top of it. Since it was white, no footage, or photo can show it. So the argument to see some youtube links, with wikipedia as spice, ought to make one laughing.

This is why you confuse people - you say you don't want to argue a point, but then you argue it, and then accuse others of distracting from the main point.

I am not Reader Rajic, I wasn't there, so ask him to explain if what he heard was pronounced by H.D.A.H. Bartholomew, some priest of his jurisdicion, or by some present Roman Catholic or an "Easterner-in-communion-whose-name-we-are-not-allowed-on-this-board".

You weren't there, but you can actually see what was said and heard through the magic of Internet and video, so don't claim to be ignorant; the links have been provided (originally intended by Fr. Ambrose, but updated by Greek Chef).

The harsh criticism is expressed in two letters of Athonites. Beside the theological value, the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy. The quote letter contain certain qualifications, e.g. "...liturgical  embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer."

You're going to have to prove that "the letter of Monasteries weights to an official document in Orthodoxy" - it is an assertion I've never seen before, and have never seen supported before.

My point is that as long as there is no official response to the official and public letter of Athonites every one of us, even a layman, is free to repeat the qualifications from the letter.

You don't know whether there is an official response or not; just because the Athonite monks made their letter public doesn't mean that the Patriarchate did also - maybe they don't want to dishonor the monks by arguing with them through letters back-and-forth.

Yet another point is that when the same or similar qualifications are brought by a hieromonk an Orthodox ought to show some manners even in the harshest dispute against these qualifications.

Well, the Administrators have already agreed to this point, by warning someone whom they felt had disrespected said hieromonk.  So now you're beating a dead horse and wondering why we're complaining about the smell.

And the final point that bringing "the arguments" of youtube, wikipedia and Old Calendarist priests against Mount Athos and a hieromonk with decades of practice sound pathetic and ridiculous.[/b]

Your statement assumes many points not in evidence (i.e. that are not concrete facts or proven correct beforehand): (a) that "Mount Athos" is absolutely right (which they may not be); (b) that the whole Holy Mountain is in agreement with what the Abbots wrote and signed; (c) that "a hieromonk" (Fr. Ambrose) is in full agreement with 100% of what was in the letter; (d) that if any of the facts were disproven from the letter (which is what people have been doing) that Fr. Ambrose wouldn't modify or change his position/opinion; (e) that the arguments with evidence from YouTube and Wikipedia are wrong because of their source.

I hope I did clarify everything to you, because this was my best attempt at it and I don't think I can do any better.

I hope you can indeed do better, or can gain assistance to do better; as I said earlier, I have a suspicion that English isn't your first language, and if this is the case, then it may be limiting your ability to fully express what you intend to.

Regards from a member of "synagogue of Satan headed by Patriarch Pavle",

Taking the comment out of context again.  You weaken your arguments by doing this, you know.

whose prayers interecede for my friend with cancer to be alive and good looking for a decade and a half.

I pray too that His Beatitude +PAVLE live many more years in God's grace on this earth, and for eternity in His Kingdom.
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.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #106 on: February 10, 2009, 12:37:07 PM »



The key is the Mt. Athos document states he wore his Omophorion/Pallium.  Which you can clearly see in the video that Pope Benedict XVI was clearly not wearing his Pallium during the Divine Liturgy.


Here is Pope Benedict XVI wearing a Pallium or what the Eastern Orthodox would call the omophorion.





You and Ozgeorge are correct. Pope Benedict was not wearing his pallium.

I would point out that the pallium Benedict wore at that point in his pontificate was different than the one you see above:



This is from the Mass Benedict celebrated at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Istanbul in 2006. The pallium is in a very ancient style. It was eventually dismissed as pointless archaeologizing and replaced with the pallium posted above. It also tended to get tangled:



The pallium had an evolution over the centuries:

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 10, 2009, 12:58:53 PM »

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.


Why do you keep accusing people of calling you an idiot? And then turn right around and call their arguments stupid and idiotic?

Quote
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.

Now you are twisting and misrepresenting things completely. Besides I thought we weren't talking about Fr Ambrose's treatment? Did you think that only applied to the thread I unlocked?

Quote
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.

I don't know, but you are free to stop at any time.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 10, 2009, 01:00:05 PM »

The argument is that you (and others ignoring my point) are attaching your interpretation of the events. It is your interpretation that I refuse to accept regardless how many Old Calendarist priests whose jurisdiction is "even more conservative than ROCOR" are brought for support.

Stop bringing me up. I am really not that interesting.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 01:00:31 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 10, 2009, 01:09:06 PM »

For the record, I think that the visit of the Pope to the Phanar in 2006, and all previous visits, including being present in the liturgy with choir garb and all the dual blessings and being censed as a bishop, or visits to Romania where he wears a mitre while the patriarch is vested in mitre, Orthodox bishops at Assisi prayer meetings, etc etc etc are absolutely wrong.

My only objection was to being imprecise. We need to be very precise with our charges, or else we look foolish and our arguments lose force.  Passing links without checking to see if the link works first is not good procedure. It weakens the force.

The only reason I referred to my Old Calendarist affiliations was because I find it ironic that given that I do not support the EP, I found myself perturbed by the lack of procedure in evidence gathering (which was offensive to our EP posters). I do not claim to be any kind of authority. It is ironic though the position I found myself in.

Above all we need to be fair and accurate. That is a hallmark of charity.

The idea that my authority was invoked to support rudeness towards Irish Hermit is not true. In fact, I was against said treatment.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #110 on: February 10, 2009, 01:26:36 PM »

For the record, I think that the visit of the Pope to the Phanar in 2006, and all previous visits, including being present in the liturgy with choir garb and all the dual blessings and being censed as a bishop, or visits to Romania where he wears a mitre while the patriarch is vested in mitre, Orthodox bishops at Assisi prayer meetings, etc etc etc are absolutely wrong.

Noted, and well-received.

My only objection was to being imprecise. We need to be very precise with our charges, or else we look foolish and our arguments lose force.  Passing links without checking to see if the link works first is not good procedure. It weakens the force.

The only reason I referred to my Old Calendarist affiliations was because I find it ironic that given that I do not support the EP, I found myself perturbed by the lack of procedure in evidence gathering (which was offensive to our EP posters). I do not claim to be any kind of authority. It is ironic though the position I found myself in.

Above all we need to be fair and accurate. That is a hallmark of charity.

Amen.

The idea that my authority was invoked to support rudeness towards Irish Hermit is not true. In fact, I was against said treatment.

Originally, your "authority" (which was actually just your jurisdiction's theological leanings) was actually brought up as an example of how one can be opposed to wrong action but be cordial about it; precise in accusation without being inflammatory in language.
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.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #111 on: February 10, 2009, 01:57:51 PM »

For the record, it wasn't Fr. Atanasios whom brought up the "authority" of his "jurisdiction that is even more conservative than ROCOR", neither I claimed that anywhere, any place, any time. It was Cleveland who brought it.

For the record too, the statement quoted in my first post of his thread, with the link to it:

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

about the "unfounded accusation" which was "documented", along with the opinion that "the letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation" (I guess to him, as the final authority to judge what's proved and what's not) belongs exactly to him.

For the record, too, the same goes that both Fr Athanasios, Cleveland and Ozgeorge who persistently attempted to drag me into the discussion on the temporary unlocked thread where I promissed not to participate except to respond to their posts replying to mine, so I preferred to quote the remark of an Old Calendarist priest about his opinion about the weight of Mount Athos' letter in reviving this thread, where it was appropriate to debate it.

Since I exhausted all points of mine, and everyone can see and make one's own judgment, I'll silently keep eye on that interesting debate between Fr Athanasios, Lubelbri and Cleveland about Benedict's XVI phallium.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #112 on: February 10, 2009, 02:11:24 PM »

For the record, it wasn't Fr. Atanasios whom brought up the "authority" of his "jurisdiction that is even more conservative than ROCOR", neither I claimed that anywhere, any place, any time. It was Cleveland who brought it. 

And, yet, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.  My final statement on the matter:

Originally, your "authority" (which was actually just your jurisdiction's theological leanings) was actually brought up as an example of how one can be opposed to wrong action but be cordial about it; precise in accusation without being inflammatory in language.

For the record too, the statement quoted in my first post of his thread, with the link to it:

The issue about "unproved accusations" has been brought here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19628.msg290910/topicseen.html

Quote
Irish Hermit made an unfounded accusation against the EP which was documented. The letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation.

about the "unfounded accusation" which was "documented", along with the opinion that "the letter from Mt Athos did not prove the accusation" (I guess to him, as the final authority to judge what's proved and what's not) belongs exactly to him.

You're arguing circular logic, and using circular logic to prove it.  How priceless.

For the record, too, the same goes that both Fr Athanasios, Cleveland and Ozgeorge who persistently attempted to drag me into the discussion on the temporary unlocked thread where I promissed not to participate except to respond to their posts replying to mine, so I preferred to quote the remark of an Old Calendarist priest about his opinion about the weight of Mount Athos' letter in reviving this thread, where it was appropriate to debate it.

"Drag me in?"  I'm sorry - you made a statement, we responded; you asked to get a chance to counter-respond, which you were permitted to do, and you made your counter-statement, and said that we were open to reply.  We reply, and then you accuse us of "dragging you in."  Either my "second language" theory is correct, or your arguments are too weak to support themselves and so you resort to circular accusations and baseless attacks.

Since I exhausted all points of mine, and everyone can see and make one's own judgment, I'll silently keep eye on that interesting debate between Fr Athanasios, Lubelbri and Cleveland about Benedict's XVI phallium.

Hmmm, I don't think you've been paying attention, or "keeping an eye," on the current conversation, since you (a) can't spell Fr. Anastasios' name correctly and (b) can't spell "pallium," although it has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread and all you needed to do is copy and paste the word.

Your arguments have been weak, which is a shame.  You should just stay out of the discussions if your arguments are not able to keep up.  There is a case to be made against things that the Ecumenical Patriarchate have done over the years in the dialogue with the Roman/Western/Latin Catholics; however, you can't make the case if you're unwilling to get your facts straight.
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.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2009, 02:21:30 PM »

Either my "second language" theory is correct, or your arguments are too weak to support themselves and so you resort to circular accusations and baseless attacks.


Or, perhaps, there are numerous other possibilities, such as an epidemia of sudden incapability of understadning, since all three of you asked for clarifications of different parts of my statements.

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth, while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2009, 02:28:48 PM »

orthodoxlurker,

Why would I debate the pallium? I was not even posting in the latest round of this thread until you mentioned my name. I don't have any interest in Western liturgical garb.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2009, 02:57:16 PM »

Or, perhaps, there are numerous other possibilities, such as an epidemia of sudden incapability of understadning, since all three of you asked for clarifications of different parts of my statements.

Speaking of misunderstandings: "epidemic" not "epidemia;" "understanding" not "understadning."

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth,

"Cleveland's" not "the Cleveland's;" "pronouncement" not "pronounce."  You're providing more and more evidence for my theory.  Keep it up, please.

while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.

I encourage everyone in this thread and all over this site to use their God-given and God-inspired reason, logic, and intellect when reading this thread.  I don't think they'll have the reaction that you anticipate, Orthodoxlurker, but at least they'll be following your wishes.
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.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2009, 04:15:22 PM »

Anyway, some will certainly follow the Cleveland's pronounce about the truth, while those who prefer to use their own reason may actually check the link in my initial post.
Yes, I checked the link in your initial post.  The link takes us to another thread that YOU started to complain about how members of different jurisdictions treated each other, particularly how some of the moderators of the "EP's flock" treated Irish Hermit.  Hardly anything more worth reading than what we have discussed here.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,055


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2009, 05:58:29 PM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.



« Last Edit: February 10, 2009, 05:59:52 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: February 11, 2009, 12:33:53 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: February 11, 2009, 12:38:05 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar,

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 12:41:58 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,833


WWW
« Reply #120 on: February 11, 2009, 01:02:03 AM »

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.

Father, I've never heard of such a thing.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #121 on: February 11, 2009, 01:08:02 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,174


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: February 11, 2009, 01:12:00 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: February 11, 2009, 01:12:54 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?
How dare he pray!  Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,833


WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 11, 2009, 01:24:13 AM »

But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.

One can say that EP Bartholomew is standing at the right hand of Pope Benedict XVI, Christ's Vicar on Earth.  There is an example of context.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: February 11, 2009, 01:57:56 AM »

I remember Pope Benedict was the one who prayed the Our Father in Greek during the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of St. George. Is that not liturgical participation?

Yes.  He read the Our Father as part of the Divine Liturgy and therefore it constitutes liturgical participation.

If we want to say that it was not part of the Liturgy, then what are we to conclude?  That the Liturgy was suspended for 2 minutes while the Pope read the Our Father?  That this particular Liturgy actually lacked the Our Father?   Smiley
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:00:57 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: February 11, 2009, 02:02:44 AM »

Perhaps the monks were confusing the papal stole with a small omophor?  In any case, while the Pope did not perform any liturgical function at the Divine Liturgy at St. George's Cathedral in the Phanar, at the Mass for SS. Peter and Paul in St. Peter's Basilica the Ecumenical Patriarch's deacon chanted the Gospel in Greek, then after the Gospel reading both the Pope and the Patriarch gave the blessing with Book of the Gospels which I am sure that is enough to run afoul of Athos and others.





This photograph portrays the kind of action which gives not just the Fathers of Athos but all Greek Old Calendarists the horrors.  And not just them, but many ordinary Orthodox Christians such as in Greece and Russia, Serbia, Jerusalem....
But how can you know exactly what went on just from viewing a photograph?  It's all about context.

Of course we already have much more context about this particular event than just this one photograph.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: February 11, 2009, 02:13:13 AM »

Looks like the goal post has been moved from "Commemoration" to "Participation".
Any reason will do I guess.......
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #128 on: February 11, 2009, 02:17:26 AM »

Is not the wearing of the stole or the pallium a symbol of liturgical participation?

It is precisely for this reason that the SCOBA ecumencial guidelines forbid clergy from wearing stoles when they attend such events.

Father, I've never heard of such a thing.


Indeed, it is prohibited by the member Churches of SCOBA.


GUIDELINES FOR ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS IN
ECUMENICAL RELATIONS


Published by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America and commended to the
clergy for guidance.

http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf

Here are a couple of examples of the prohibition against our priests wearing a stole, or any piece of liturgical apparel.

2. In services of an interfaith or interreligious nature, e.g., national feasts, public calamity
and mourning, Brotherhood Week, the dignity of the family, expressions for peace,
justice and the like, whether in a public building or a religious edifice, a form of dress
which is neither liturgical nor merely civil, viz. the rasson (cassock) may be considered
appropriate, together with pectoral cross (if so entitled), or academic dress when
indicated. No part of the liturgical vestments, such as stole, is proper.


b) An Orthodox priest should not wear liturgical vestments at such services.
The rasson and pectoral cross (if so entitled), or academic dress are appropriate.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #129 on: February 11, 2009, 02:20:30 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #130 on: February 11, 2009, 02:22:11 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
And isn't it an Orthodox Organisation?
I didn't realize the Pope was a member.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: February 11, 2009, 02:23:44 AM »

Looks like the goal post has been moved from "Commemoration" to "Participation".
Any reason will do I guess.......

Yes, Deacon Lance brought in the matter of participation with the photograph of the Pope and the Patriarch at a Mass in Saint Peter's.  He was not speaking of "commemoration" since none took place there, but he was giving us a visual image of "participation."  

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness he is not wearing any liturgical vestment, neither epitrakhilion nor omophorion.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #132 on: February 11, 2009, 02:25:36 AM »

Isn't SCOBA a North American organization?  Oh wait?  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas. 
And isn't it an Orthodox Organisation?
I didn't realize the Pope was a member.

Did somebody really write that the Pope is a member?!   Shocked
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #133 on: February 11, 2009, 02:36:02 AM »

To be fair to His Divine All-Holiness

 Shocked
I guess there's a first time for everything! Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #134 on: February 11, 2009, 02:38:26 AM »

orthodoxlurker,

Why would I debate the pallium?

For the same mysterious reason you debated the fashion allowed to an Orthodox hieromonk to mention the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

For the same mysterious reason you debated the scope and significance of the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

For the same mysterious reason you debated permissibility to Orthodox faithful to repeat the stance expressed in an official document of Mount Athos?

What makes you less authoritative to debate whether Benedict XVI should have held it on the right or the left side? Everybody is authoritative in debating esthetics.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Tags: Athos ecumenism Ecumenical Patriarchate Infallibility Greek Phanar Vatican False Apparitions roman catholic 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.192 seconds with 74 queries.