Topic: Pope says Orthodox Church is Defective, Others Don't Even Rate

[GiC]

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...

If I have driven someone to drink, then I have done a good deed.

[Heorhij]

In celebration of the Feast of SS Peter and Paul, and after reading the recent inanity on this thread, I will proceed to prepare and imbibe a large Scotch & Soda, perhaps followed by another, and then maybe...

Thanks for the reminder!!! Really... I did not realize that you are an Old Calendarist, too, brother Aristokles... Great! Time to go home and pour myself something, too.

[Αριστοκλής]

Sounds like a very good idea.  BTW, is that today for Old Calendarists? I never can remember by how many days we are apart.

For those of us on the Julian calendar, yes. The 'Old Calendarists' by definition are on THE calendar also.

[Αριστοκλής]

If I have driven someone to drink, then I have done a good deed.

First one's away...next

Speaking of 'defective'...anyone remember Fr Guido Sarducci and his "Pope ona rope" from SNL (1980-ish)?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

For those of us on the Julian calendar, yes. The 'Old Calendarists' by definition are on THE calendar also.

Of course. I only meant to ask is today June 29 on the Old Calendar. I did not mean to suggest anything else. Forgive me if it sounded like I was trying to detract from the feast. Happy Ss. Peter and Paul Day to all.

[Αριστοκλής]

No offense taken. I like some of those 'walled off' folks. We're way to touchy here lately - relax!
have another drink!

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!

[Heorhij]

My wife just reminded me that in Ukraine, they now have an OFFICIAL SS Peter and Paul holiday on July 12! 

[scamandrius]

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!

Some of the best sketches on the old SNL were with him.  My favorite was when he was in Mexico gathering up relics like the femur bone of St. Augustine, which he didn't get because it was chipped, the High School graduation picture of Jesus before the long hair and beard, the bill for the last supper, which he couldn't afford so settled for the bill from the Last Brunch!  Classic!

[scamandrius]

http://www.kyivpost.com/bn/26935/

Romanian Orthodox Patriarch condemns Vatican document on other Christians
Jul 12 2007, 18:22

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) - The leader of Romania's dominant Orthodox Church condemned July 12 a Vatican document in which Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, describing it as "brutal" and saying it made inter-church dialogue difficult.

Patriarch Teoctist said the document, which claims that other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation, was pitting Christian churches against one other.

"We were stunned by such a statement, which troubles the entire Christian world. Such things do not make God happy," said Teoctist. "With such a brutal statement, it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church."

The document, which was published on July 10, also brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

On July 11, the cardinal in charge of relations with other Christians reacted to criticism by the Protestant churches saying the document contained nothing new and that there was no "objective reason for indignation or motive to feel themselves harshly treated."

Teoctist said the Romanian Orthodox Church had expected Pope Benedict XVI to continue his predecessor's efforts to reconcile the Christian churches to find "holy unity." He said the Romanian Orthodox Church was hoping for "rays of reason," including from the other churches, so that "we don't fall into chaos and to avoid crushing so brutally a (reconciliation) activity which has been carried out in recent decades."

Pope John Paul II was the first pope to visit predominantly Orthodox Romania in 1999, when he met with Teoctist and the two leaders called for the healing of divisions within Christianity. John Paul's visit was the first by a Roman pontiff to a mainly Orthodox country in nearly 1,000 years.

[lubeltri]

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.

[Veniamin]

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.

No, it merely seems that Patriarch Teoctist has mastered the language of religious declaration-speak, which similarly to diplomat-speak, hides one's true meaning beneath multiple layers of understatement and polite phrasing.

[Jakub]

relax!
have another drink!

Here's one to Fr Sarducci!


Grazie...

james

[The young fogey]

Some of the best sketches on the old SNL were with him [Don Novello as Fr Guido Sarducci].  My favorite was when he was in Mexico gathering up relics like the femur bone of St. Augustine, which he didn't get because it was chipped...

I've got the chip!

[Timos]

my dad and I have gotten to talking about this whole issue and he seems to have been brainwashed into thinking that the Alexandrian Church (as a whole...whether byzantine or coptic) was THE ROME before the Western Rome or Constantinople came to power...he thinks that The Alexandrine Church was the original church due to its proximity to Jerusalem....but I tried explaining to him that the Apostles went everywhere around the Mediteranean, Middle East and Far East...and besides Antioch is even closer than Alexandria...

so my question for you  ecclesiastical history buffs out there is which patriarchate came to its powerful zenith first? Certainly not Constantinople...that came a lil later...but was it Antioch, Alexandria, or  Western Rome? I've read in history books that Antioch and Alexandria always vyied for power but which one was first? Alexandria took care of "All of Africa" and Egypt and surrounding area...but Antioch had under its omorphion all of the Middle East besides Egypt and including part of Persia (if not all of it) according to wikipedia...so my conclusion would be that Antioch was the 1st most powerful patriarchate quickly followed by Alexandria and then Constantinople and finally Rome...

[PeterTheAleut]

so my question for you  ecclesiastical history buffs out there is which patriarchate came to its powerful zenith first? Certainly not Constantinople...that came a lil later...but was it Antioch, Alexandria, or  Western Rome? I've read in history books that Antioch and Alexandria always vyied for power but which one was first? Alexandria took care of "All of Africa" and Egypt and surrounding area...but Antioch had under its omorphion all of the Middle East besides Egypt and including part of Persia (if not all of it) according to wikipedia...so my conclusion would be that Antioch was the 1st most powerful patriarchate quickly followed by Alexandria and then Constantinople and finally Rome...

I don't know for certain, but my knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts 11:19-26) suggests that the Church in Antioch became a major Christian center even before the fall of the Jerusalem Church in A.D. 70.  Rome being the commercial center, as well as being the capital, of the Empire, I'm sure any major religious movement would quickly gain a strong following in Rome, even without an as-of-yet apostolic foundation.  But if one looks only to apostolic foundation (Antioch with Ss. Peter and Paul--remember that Antioch was the community that ordained Paul for his apostolic ministry--; Alexandria with St. Andrew; later, Rome with Ss. Peter and Paul), I think Antioch has to be considered the first major Christian Church founded on the ministry of a resident Apostle.

[EkhristosAnesti]

In terms of prominence, I think it's rather hard to dispute the idea that the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew) lead the way in that regard. Alexandria was, well before Christianity was even introduced to Egypt, the intellectual centre of the world. The Alexandrian Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) was a reputably academically prestigious institution for intellectual elite. Alexandria’s intellectual atmosphere was also promoted by the Great Library which accompanied the Museum. Once Christianity was introduced into Alexandria, the Church continued the city's legacy through the Didascalia. In his Life of Athanasius, the Apostolic, Kamel Saleh Nakhla quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as saying, ‘The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.’

[PeterTheAleut]

the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew)

Thanks for correcting me on this.  (seriously; no sarcasm intended )

[EkhristosAnesti]

No problem. As far as I can recall, the foundation of the See of Constantinople is commonly attributed to St Andrew, but I think this is a rather late tradition so i'm not sure how much historical credence it possesses.

[Peter J]

"We were stunned by such a statement, which troubles the entire Christian world. Such things do not make God happy," said Teoctist. "With such a brutal statement, it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church."

It's hard to imagine why Patriarch Teoctist would say that the Catholic Church "does not even recognize us as a church". Did he simply misread the document?

Also, how is Patriarch Teoctist regarded within Orthodoxy in terms of ecumenism? I.e. is he considered ecumenically liberal?

Thanks,
Peter.

[jmbejdl]

It's hard to imagine why Patriarch Teoctist would say that the Catholic Church "does not even recognize us as a church". Did he simply misread the document?

Also, how is Patriarch Teoctist regarded within Orthodoxy in terms of ecumenism? I.e. is he considered ecumenically liberal?

Thanks,
Peter.

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church. I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

James

[Peter J]

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.

Thanks for the info, James. In the interest of fairness, let me add that the only thing I really find unusual about Teoctist's statement is the fact that it is coming from an Orthodox patriarch -- the attitude he expresses is one that I am used to seeing not only in complaints made against Catholics by ecumenically liberal Anglicans, but also against Orthodox by ecumenically liberal Catholics. So perhaps I should (as someone else has, I think, said recently) be pointing the finger first at people with whom I am in full communion.

I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

Interesting ... time will tell, I suppose.

-Peter.

[dantxny]

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church. I dare say his reaction is due to what he feels is rather a betrayal (it sounds very different to the sorts of things he was hearing previously from Rome). I'm very glad that the Pope made that statement and even more glad to see His Holiness' reaction. I was hoping it might temper our church's over-enthusiasm for ecumenism and certain rather unrealistic hopes and it looks like my hopes might be being fulfilled.

James

That's a good point, and an interesting way looking at it.

[The young fogey]

I've been pleased by most of the Orthodox responses I've read online - much mutual respect and understanding because the statement largely mirrors Orthodoxy's own teaching about itself and doesn't fall into mushy relativism/indifferentism (something many Orthodox wrongly equate with ecumenism). It doesn't say anything new and merely restates the main difference with Orthodoxy: the meaning and power of the papacy. Honesty. Which is always a good thing.

[Jakub]

I'm quite surprized that a little humorous diddy has not reached here yet, re; Rome's adjusted opening greeting, "To our defective brothers and sisters (or brethern) in Christ" instead of To our separated etc...

relax and have a cool brew...

james

[ma2000]

Sigh. . .do people not even read anymore? Somebody needs to cancel the Patriarch's subscription to the New York Times.

http://www.gandul.info/actual/patriarhul-teoctist-spera-biserica-catolica-revina-asupra-declar.html?3927;853539

The Patriarch admitted he didn't read the original document and hopes the document will bring some other ways of "dialog". Or somethig like that

„Credem că documentul original – pentru că acum ştim din ce s-a publicat în presă – când va fi expus şi comentat de congregaţia respectivă, poate va aduce alte posibilităţi, alte căi de comunicare, pentru ca să nu se zdrobească atât de brutal o activitate (dialog – n.r.) de atâtea decenii”,

[Timos]

In terms of prominence, I think it's rather hard to dispute the idea that the See of Alexandria (which btw, was established by St Mark, not St Andrew) lead the way in that regard. Alexandria was, well before Christianity was even introduced to Egypt, the intellectual centre of the world. The Alexandrian Museum (“Shrine of the Muses”) was a reputably academically prestigious institution for intellectual elite. Alexandria’s intellectual atmosphere was also promoted by the Great Library which accompanied the Museum. Once Christianity was introduced into Alexandria, the Church continued the city's legacy through the Didascalia. In his Life of Athanasius, the Apostolic, Kamel Saleh Nakhla quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as saying, ‘The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.’

Thanks Peter and EA for your thoughtful responses...EA I kinda thought youd think that...well I'm not denying the reputability of the Alexandrine School or Hellenistic culture that was thriving there but my dad says that because of this thriving culture Alexandria became the first church out of which all other churches grew out...now this is plain fantasy. The Apostles travelled many places...and founded the 5 patriarchates. There wasnt one See which founded all other sees...this theory is close to what Rome thinks about herself. A RC friend of mine actually told me that Peter moved His See from Antioch to Rome because of Rome's prominence and because Rome was the most cultured, advanced place which was once soo full of vices...that it was a miracle it eventually turned Christian...thats even more screwed up. St. Peter founded BOTH Antioch and Roman Sees right? Perhaps at different times but he didn't "move the church from Antioch to Rome" (to use my friends wording.

[Timos]

Forgot to add...my point really is: why the heck does it matter? It might've mattered a loong time ago socially etc...but why today? Can't we just all agree that all Patriarchates (including Rome) are equal and forget about numbering or ranking them...its just like a stupid race to see whos better. Of course the Pope would drop down dead before admitting to being equal to the Eastern Patriarchates. On almost every website of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, RC, they all try to talk of how much esteem and honour and how much greater their church is in compared to anyone else....that doesn't really seem like an (Apostolic) Christian attitude.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Timos,

I had never heard of the theory your father promotes before you mentioned it, nor do I agree with it. I agree with Peter's assessment that the Church of Antioch was indeed the first major Christian Church to be established. That is, I believe, the Scriptural testimony after all.

[lubeltri]

And we certainly don't disagree with the age of the See of Antioch. But we do insist that St. Peter completed his apostolic witness in Rome, as God willed it, and was there crucified. And there his tomb rests, under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. St. Paul rests in Rome as well. But, then, that's why we are Catholics and you are Orthodox.

It's no slight to Antioch, of course, which remains one of the pentarchy, though it has FIVE patriarchs and isn't even located in Antioch. 


 

[GiC]

And we certainly don't disagree with the age of the See of Antioch. But we do insist that St. Peter completed his apostolic witness in Rome, as God willed it, and was there crucified. And there his tomb rests, under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica. St. Paul rests in Rome as well. But, then, that's why we are Catholics and you are Orthodox.

It's no slight to Antioch, of course, which remains one of the pentarchy, though it has FIVE patriarchs and isn't even located in Antioch. 

My response to this argument was always, so what? I really never got it and it really seems like stretching to argue primacy from something like this, especially in light of the real world, where superiority is determined by political influence and strong armies. Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land. Rome's position comes because of the reverence due to the City, it comes because of Lucius Junius Brutus, Scipio Africanus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc., etc. not because of St. Peter or St. Paul or any other St. Such and Such. It seems to me that Rome merely diminishes herself by distancing herself from her Imperial past, the glory that Rome once was and of which the Church is a continuation.

 Disparaging remarks against the Christian Faith, specifically:
"Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land."

[lubeltri]

My response to this argument was always, so what? I really never got it and it really seems like stretching to argue primacy from something like this, especially in light of the real world, where superiority is determined by political influence and strong armies. Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land. Rome's position comes because of the reverence due to the City, it comes because of Lucius Junius Brutus, Scipio Africanus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, etc., etc. not because of St. Peter or St. Paul or any other St. Such and Such. It seems to me that Rome merely diminishes herself by distancing herself from her Imperial past, the glory that Rome once was and of which the Church is a continuation.

Of course there are many more reasons why our Church considers the See of Rome as preeminent. And they have filled book after book for centuries. And Eastern Orthodox refutations have filled books for centuries. I am too lazy to rehash that stuff all over on an Internet forum, so forgive me for not mentioning them.

BTW, I wouldn't say Rome has always distanced herself from that imperial past. The papal tiara and floating throne were vestiges of that. So is the Swiss Guard. The cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, St. John Lateran, was a Roman basilica given to the Pope by no less than Constantine the Great. Pontifex Maximus, an ancient imperial Roman title, remains one of the Pope's titles. But, of course, as I mention above, Rome has also justified her place using other theological and historical reasons.

[PeterTheAleut]

Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land.

Somehow, Lubeltri, I don't think GiC was talking merely about Rome and her place in the Church.  The above statement, taken at face value and in the light of his many other similar postings on this site, appears to identify the whole of Christianity as nothing more than the cult of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.  How many times has GiC said that when Byzantium fell the Church fell with her?  How many times has GiC said that the Empire and the Church share the same glory?  In GiC's mind, the Church fell into darkness in 1452 and has never recovered, for to him the Church IS the Byzantine Empire.

[PeterTheAleut]

The cathedral of the Bishop of Rome, St. John Lateran, was a Roman basilica given to the Pope by no less than Constantine the Great.

You're not talking about the Donation of Constantine, are you?  I believe that document was proven fraudulent years ago, but  I could be wrong.

[Thomas]

No I believe he is correct, Constantine built St John as the  Cathedra for the patriarch/Bishop of Rome.  The  Cathedra in Rome for the patriarch of Constantinople was St Peters.

Thomas

[PeterTheAleut]

No I believe he is correct, Constantine built St John as the  Cathedra for the patriarch/Bishop of Rome.  The  Cathedra in Rome for the patriarch of Constantinople was St Peters.

Thomas

Okay.  I wasn't quite sure about this.  Thanks for the info.

[GiC]

 Disparaging remarks against the Christian Faith, specifically:
"Those who view Christianity, in any substantial form, as anything other than an Imperial Cult are simply living in a fantasy land."

WOW...warned for failure to support official propaganda. This is a degree of censorship taken to a whole new level on OC.net. I attacked no one personally (though somebody obviously took it personally), I didn't use any forbidden words, and I replied with a post entirely relevant to one I was responding to. Furthermore, I responded in line with an objective analysis of history, and am by no means the first to suggest that Christianity's growth and expansion was dependent on Imperial support, or even the first to suggest that without such support it is quite likely that Christianity would have suffered the fate of, say, the worship of Deus Sol Invictus. Furthermore, how can one say that the Church is NOT an imperial cult? We have Icons of Saints, who were only Saints because of their service to the Empire, in our Churches, our vestments were the dress of the Late Roman Aristocracy, we pray daily in our services for the victory of the Empire against the Barbarians, though the Barbarians have won long ago and the Empire is no more, our theology has been developed by Emperors who have summoned councils that have been expected to do their bidding...in one example where they did not, at the early sessions of Nicea II when the iconoclasts were strong, Empress Irene simply disbanded the council and resummoned it inviting only the bishops who intended to vote in her favour. Consider Chalcedon, it represented a change in Imperial policy from Ephesus II, they only reason we're not Eutychians today is because of a change in Emperors and a change in Imperial Policy. Bishoprics were long given to influential members of Roman Aristocracy, consider Balsamon, perhaps regarded as the greatest of all canonists in the history of the Church, he was Patriarch of Antioch, a political appointment, though he never actually visited the city throughout his whole life. The use of incense in the Church has been argued to be modeled after it's use in the veneration of the Emperor, they very doors to the altar are today called 'royal doors', not because of some divine royalty, but because by them the Emperor entered into the altar, being the only layman allowed to enter and commune there. There are countless examples of bishops being installed and deposed on account of the Imperial Authority, many heresies are heresies because they were opposed by the Empire, Church unity was a political goal and Church doctrine was a political means...this should hardly be controversial, I don't believe I had a single professor in seminary who would have argued otherwise. Up until Constantine we were a growing but relatively weak and splintered group, with St. Constantine came the Oecumenical Synods, came unity in the Church, and came the development of Christian dogma in ernest. What we believe, how we worship, who we are was defined from the time of the Emperor St. Constantine to the time of the Empress St. Theodora...we were defined during the golden age of the Empire, and were defined in relationship to the Empire. How is the Christian Faith not the greatest and most holy of cults the Empire has known? How is our cult not defined by the Empire?

And the funniest thing is that I was warned for making 'disparaging remarks' when I was actually making POSITIVE remarks

[GiC]

Something that just crossed my mind, that I didn't think about until reading through my response: I really hope that there's at least some substance to this complaint (strange though it may be) and not simply a knee jerk reaction based on the popular use of the word cult. If this is, heaven forbid, the case someone REALLY needs to invest in a dictionary. Just a thought, since I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could really take offence with what I said (disagree, perhaps, but not take offence).

[Nacho]

^^ Dam son, you should spend some more time at the pool or get out more often...   Maybe you were warned because throwing out heavy handed words such as 'christianity is an imperial cult' on a christian forum without extensive factual information to support such a controversial claim obviously is going to piss most people off.

[GiC]

^^ Dam son, you should spend some more time at the pool or get out more often...   Maybe you were warned because throwing out heavy handed words such as 'christianity is an imperial cult' on a christian forum without extensive factual information to support such a controversial claim obviously is going to piss most people off.

Oh, this is actually quite fun...it feeds my ego And I didn't offer too much supporting information because this the issue has already been discussed many times.

[minasoliman]

Consider Chalcedon, it represented a change in Imperial policy from Ephesus II, they only reason we're not Eutychians today is because of a change in Emperors and a change in Imperial Policy.

I'm sorry, but that assumption simply is not true.  Forgive me for saying this here, but by this you are assuming that we are Eutychians.  I think you should have the common respect that as much as Constantinople 553 "clarified" Chalcedon, so did our Ephesus 475 clarify Ephesus II (I'm surprised you haven't called it a "Robber's Council").

God bless.

[GiC]

I'm sorry, but that assumption simply is not true.  Forgive me for saying this here, but by this you are assuming that we are Eutychians.  I think you should have the common respect that as much as Constantinople 553 "clarified" Chalcedon, so did our Ephesus 475 clarify Ephesus II (I'm surprised you haven't called it a "Robber's Council").

God bless.

I'm not really making that assumption, and I believe that you are missing my point. My point is really that the difference between Nestorian, Eutychian, and Chalcedonian Christianity are not substantial enough cause division and schism; and it was most certainly in the best interest of the Empire to maintain unity. That was the point of Chalcedon, the Emperor and Senate simply wanted union, they looked for a compromise between Eutychianism and Nestorianism, a middle road everyone could follow (though I'm sure the preference would have been for these issues to just go away). Of course, there were other cultural factors that made certain Egyptian and Syrian bishops not want to get along with each other, much less the Empire, thus the political manoeuvring wasn't entirely successful. Later the Empire tried again with Monothelitism giving a clarafication of theology to hopefully heal the schism between the two sides in the schism over Chalcedon (by this time the Nestorians were almost entirely beyond the bounds of the Empire and thus of little significance to Imperial politics), but Coptic nationalism and rebellion against the Empire succeeded again and the theological system was scrapped when it started causing more problems than it was fixing. My point was simply that political considerations (on both sides) drove doctrinal development.

[John of the North]

You know I had a strict "no alcohol" rule until I joined this forum and started reading GiC's posts. If I didn't have to work the next six days straight......aw heck.....where's the bottle??

[Salpy]

I'm not really making that assumption, and I believe that you are missing my point. My point is really that the difference between Nestorian, Eutychian, and Chalcedonian Christianity are not substantial enough cause division and schism; and it was most certainly in the best interest of the Empire to maintain unity. That was the point of Chalcedon, the Emperor and Senate simply wanted union, they looked for a compromise between Eutychianism and Nestorianism, a middle road everyone could follow (though I'm sure the preference would have been for these issues to just go away). Of course, there were other cultural factors that made certain Egyptian and Syrian bishops not want to get along with each other, much less the Empire, thus the political manoeuvring wasn't entirely successful. Later the Empire tried again with Monothelitism giving a clarafication of theology to hopefully heal the schism between the two sides in the schism over Chalcedon (by this time the Nestorians were almost entirely beyond the bounds of the Empire and thus of little significance to Imperial politics), but Coptic nationalism and rebellion against the Empire succeeded again and the theological system was scrapped when it started causing more problems than it was fixing. My point was simply that political considerations (on both sides) drove doctrinal development.

I'm confused.  Are you, or are you not, calling St. Theodora, who accepted Ephesus II and rejected Chalcedon, a Eutychian?       (I'm so glad the EO's love her too.)

With regard to your point that politics on both sides drove doctrinal development, am I the only one here who thinks this may be a good topic for the private discussion board?  Things have been too quiet there.  Perhaps someone would like to carry this discussion over there so we can go into it more thoroughly.

[minasoliman]

The thing is GiC that we also condemn Eutyches.  That is why it does not make any sense you would call us Eutychians.  Perhaps, if it wasn't for the emperor, you can say you would be "non-Chalcedonians" or "Miaphysites" or "Cyrillians" or even "Dioscorian/Severian," but not Eutychian.  To us, that is an insult.

God bless.

[Peter J]

Patriarch Teoctist has been very friendly (I would say far too friendly and he's the Patriarch of my church) with the Roman Catholic Church.

James (and everyone),

To try to elucidate my own feelings on ecumenism and ecumenists, I would not say really that I have a problem with ecumenism in principle. (And note that I'm not saying I'm 100% for it, just that I don't have a problem with it.) But I often have a problem with it in practice because of the selective application of it by many "ecumenists".

A simple example is the Catholic ecumenist Fr. Robert Taft.

While discussing the possibility of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarchate, an interviewer asked Fr. Taft "So the Catholic church is never going to persuade the Orthodox to accept the patriarchate?", to which Fr. Taft replied "No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow." (The entire interview is available here.)

This makes you wonder whether Fr. Taft is "ecumenical" only towards those who are as liberal as he is.

(This makes me think of something C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity: "Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from the borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.")