OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 05:14:56 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  
Poll
Question: Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing dialogue with RCC?
Yes, and he should resign from co-chairmanship of the commission immediately - 7 (29.2%)
Yes, and he should resign from co-chairmanship of the commission in a due time with a convenient excuse (other duties, health, etc.) - 0 (0%)
I'm still not sure - 1 (4.2%)
It's beyond my competencies - 2 (8.3%)
I have an opinion, but I will not say it - 1 (4.2%)
No, he did not derail the talks. - 13 (54.2%)
Total Voters: 24

Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing the dialogue with RCC?  (Read 14739 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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


« on: November 21, 2007, 07:24:37 AM »

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=interview&div=57

Quote
Metropolitan John of Pergamon [of the Constantinople Patriarchate] as co-president of the joint commission for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue is responsible for derailing the dialogue. His comments and the final text of the document work on which has finished in Ravenna without the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate may produce the impression that the Constantinople Patriarchate deliberately pushed the Moscow Patriarchate to withdraw from the dialogue so that decisions should be passed that would have been impossible with the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate.
What do you think?


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: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2007, 07:32:49 AM »

I'm not going to fill out your poll, because you don't have a "No" option up there.  I won't answer "yes" because the dialogue has not been "derailed."  Only the MP thinks it has.  I'm not going to answer "unsure," because I am sure.  I'm not going to answer "it's beyond my competencies," because it most certainly is within them.  And I want to state my opinion, which is why I won't pick the last option.

No, the Metropolitan is not responsible for some supposed "derailing" of the talks; if the MP representative is unhappy, then he's the only one who took himself out of the talks.  If he hadn't left, then he would have been there to discuss the text he was referring to, and more clearly voice his objections.  So personally I think there is a lot of propaganda in his statement, which is really not helpful.
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.
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 #2 on: November 21, 2007, 07:50:13 AM »

Was the Church of Estonia at the talks? I didn't think they were autocephalous.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 07:59:45 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2007, 08:17:22 AM »

Was the Church of Estonia at the talks? I didn't think they were autocephalous.


No, there're not, and that is why the stick in the eye of the MP.  Compare why the OCA doesn't get to attend any such function.

The EP was in Estonia recently causing trouble.  If he keeps it up, he risks finding out who is really isolated.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #4 on: November 21, 2007, 08:22:07 AM »

I'm not going to fill out your poll, because you don't have a "No" option up there. 
...
So personally I think there is a lot of propaganda in his statement, which is really not helpful.
Sorry, there was the possibility for five options only, so I couldn't post No as an answer. But that shouldn't prevent those who disagree with the question to say no.

Speaking about non helpfull propaganda, I think comment of Mrt. Zlizious should be quoted also:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10597&size=A%22

Quote
“Hilarion’s tough stance should be seen as an expression of authoritarianism whose goal is to exhibit the influence of the Moscow Church,” said Ioannis. “But like last year in Belgrade, all Moscow achieved was to isolate itself once more since no other Orthodox Church followed its lead, remaining instead faithful to Constantinople.” (NT)

Personally, I can't see MP is isolated.
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
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2007, 08:43:24 AM »


Speaking about non helpfull propaganda, I think comment of Mrt. Zlizious should be quoted also:

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=10597&size=A%22

Quote
“Hilarion’s tough stance should be seen as an expression of authoritarianism whose goal is to exhibit the influence of the Moscow Church,” said Ioannis. “But like last year in Belgrade, all Moscow achieved was to isolate itself once more since no other Orthodox Church followed its lead, remaining instead faithful to Constantinople.” (NT)
I think it pertinant to allow the good bishop to respond to the above

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#3

Quote
First, it was not only I who walked out. It was the entire delegation, which consisted of myself and Father Igor Vyzhanov. It was not my decision to walk out. It was the decision of the Russian Orthodox Church's Bishops' Council in the year 2000, which I could not disobey. Moreover, at the request of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas), I phoned Metropolitan Kirill to ask what I was supposed to do, and he said that both I and Father Igor had to leave. So, it was not my decision; it was the official decision. And it was not my ultimatum; it was that of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is very important to say this clearly. I do not think I was in any way responsible for the decision, which was not mine. But each of us represents our Churches.
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 #6 on: November 21, 2007, 09:24:56 AM »

Sorry, there was the possibility for five options only, so I couldn't post No as an answer.
Fixed it!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2007, 02:55:43 PM »

I think that work on the Ravenna Document should have been delayed until the Russian Church returned to the talks.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2007, 03:14:09 PM »

Sorry, there was the possibility for five options only, so I couldn't post No as an answer. But that shouldn't prevent those who disagree with the question to say no.

Well, 'yes' and 'no' are really the two most fundamental answers to a given question of opinion.

Quote
Speaking about non helpfull propaganda, I think comment of Mrt. Zlizious should be quoted also:

I think the Metropolitan is right on, if Russia doesn't want to be present, who cares?

I think that work on the Ravenna Document should have been delayed until the Russian Church returned to the talks.

They're a backwater bishopric without the Ancient pedigrees, the MP wasn't even around at the time of the schism, they shouldn't even be included in the talks. The representatives should come primarily from Rome and Constantinople, since those were the sees of the initial dispute, with possible input from Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus...the only Churches that were around in 1054; including such Churches as Russia simply unnecessarily complicates the prospects for reconciliation between Old and New Rome and, respectively, the Eastern and Western Christian Churches.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 03:14:47 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2007, 03:53:15 PM »

They're a backwater bishopric without the Ancient pedigrees...

You're a backwater bishopric without ancient pedigree.  nyah.   Tongue
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 03:54:07 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2007, 05:36:55 PM »

You're a backwater bishopric without ancient pedigree.  nyah.   Tongue

Well, I appreciate your attempt to elevate me to the episcopacy, but even I am too much of a traditionalist to accept such an ordination over a web forum. Grin Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,245



« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2007, 05:55:31 PM »

Why isn't there a "Who cares?" option.  I find that all of this discussion with the papacy and *her supporters* is worthless and that these documents all try to feed papal primacy in through some loophole or backdoor.  One need only look at the Balamand Agreement which is not worth the paper it is printed on.

The tensions between the EP and MP and any other sees, for that matter, should be resolved first before there is any more negotiations with Rome to give a clear and undivided witness of the Orthodox faith.



MODERATION:  Insulting language replaced with something more civil  - PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 01:37:22 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2007, 05:58:34 PM »

Why isn't there a "Who cares?" option.  I find that all of this discussion with the papacy and papists is worthless and that these documents all try to feed papal primacy in through some loophole or backdoor.  One need only look at the Balamand Agreement which is not worth the paper it is printed on.

The tensions between the EP and MP and any other sees, for that matter, should be resolved first before there is any more negotiations with Rome to give a clear and undivided witness of the Orthodox faith.

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2007, 08:13:44 PM »

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.

*yawn*
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,245



« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2007, 08:55:25 PM »

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.

Effective strategy?  Force her?  This isn't a game of chess!  This isn't even a competition of any sorts!  We're talking about what is best for Christ's Holy Orthodox Church and you're wanting to bully another patriarchate into submission to the EP (which, I grant, you didn't directly say, but I don't think I'm far off, am i?)!  In the words of some famous philosopher whose name I can't remember, "Get real!"
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2007, 09:13:49 PM »

Effective strategy?  Force her?  This isn't a game of chess!  This isn't even a competition of any sorts!  We're talking about what is best for Christ's Holy Orthodox Church and you're wanting to bully another patriarchate into submission to the EP (which, I grant, you didn't directly say, but I don't think I'm far off, am i?)!  In the words of some famous philosopher whose name I can't remember, "Get real!"

The best thing for the Church and the only long term solution to these problems at hand is for the Church of Russia to obey her tome of Autonomy and submit to her Mother Church of Constantinople.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2007, 09:37:23 PM »

The tensions between the EP and MP and any other sees, for that matter, should be resolved first before there is any more negotiations with Rome to give a clear and undivided witness of the Orthodox faith.
Well said.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2007, 09:39:53 PM »

How many Orthodox Christians live in the Ecumenical Patriarch's home territory?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2007, 09:46:02 PM »

How many Orthodox Christians live in the Ecumenical Patriarch's home territory?

I don't know, how many Orthodox Christians are there in the world outside of the areas immediately surrounding Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2007, 09:50:01 PM »

I believe that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 Orthodox Christians within the Ecumenical Patriarch's own territory, and there are no Christians living in Met. Zizioulas' diocese of Pergamon.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2007, 09:58:56 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2007, 10:00:58 PM »

Well, I appreciate your attempt to elevate me to the episcopacy, but even I am too much of a traditionalist to accept such an ordination over a web forum. Grin Wink


lol!!!!!  ha ha.   Cheesy
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2007, 01:32:11 AM »

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.

So we can make the EP pope of the East?  I'll pass.

Rome would love to use Constantinople to grind Russia into submission.  Not gonna happen.

Jerusalem might be a museum soon, due to mismanagement.  Wolves for shepherds.

If it was not for the MP, the Church of Antioch would be languishing like the Church in Jerusalem.  The Faithful of Antioch do NOT forget that.

And if the PoM isn't ancient enough, her daughter Church, Estonia (whose presence caused the walkout), certainly is not.

The best thing for the Church and the only long term solution to these problems at hand is for the Church of Russia to obey her tome of Autonomy and submit to her Mother Church of Constantinople.

The tome is AUTOCEPHALACY, not autonomy.

If submission is the aim of that tome, how is it a tome of autocephalacy?

Moscow got its autocephaly because Constantinople submitted at Florence.  Should Moscow (and the rest of the Orthodox) submit at Ravenna?
Logged

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2007, 04:58:57 AM »

So we can make the EP pope of the East?  I'll pass.

Rome would love to use Constantinople to grind Russia into submission.  Not gonna happen.

Well, Moscow could always schism against the Church...their loss.

Quote
Jerusalem might be a museum soon, due to mismanagement.  Wolves for shepherds.

The influence she can exert is completely irrelevant, what is relevant is her standing under the Oecumenical Synods.

Quote
If it was not for the MP, the Church of Antioch would be languishing like the Church in Jerusalem.  The Faithful of Antioch do NOT forget that.

Nor do they easily forget their ancient standing as an Imperial Patriarchate, that is to say the dignity of their See.

Quote
And if the PoM isn't ancient enough, her daughter Church, Estonia (whose presence caused the walkout), certainly is not.

Both of which were invited at the good pleasure of Constantinople, who is free to invite whoever she sees fit. If Russia is unable to accept the hospitality of Constantinople, her mother Church, she should stay at home...I don't really care whether she comes or stays, but if she does decide to come she needs to be respectful to Constantinople.

Quote
The tome is AUTOCEPHALACY, not autonomy.

A Church that has not been established by an Oecumenical Synod can never have 'Autocephaly' per se, the canons of the Oecumenical Synods which subject those lands to one of the six ancient Churches cannot be overturned without the force of an Imperial Synod.

Quote
If submission is the aim of that tome, how is it a tome of autocephalacy?

Have you ever actually read the Tome?

'[Moscow] is to be numbered with the other patriarchs, and is to rank and be commemorated after the Patriarch of Jerusalem; he is to be obliged to commemorate the name of the Oecumenical Patriarch and the other patriarchs and to hold and regard as his head and primus the Apostolic throne of Constantinople, as do the other patriarchs.'

(W. Regel, Analecta Byzantio-Russica, St. Petersburg 1891, p. 87; Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes, The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki 1976, p. 291)

It seems that the problem is that Russia is trying to defy the very tomos that gave it the privilege of electing its own Bishops and ignoring the status of her Mother Church as her 'head and primus'.

Quote
Moscow got its autocephaly because Constantinople submitted at Florence.  Should Moscow (and the rest of the Orthodox) submit at Ravenna?

Perhaps.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
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 #23 on: November 22, 2007, 06:14:28 AM »

They're a backwater bishopric without the Ancient pedigrees, the MP wasn't even around at the time of the schism, they shouldn't even be included in the talks. The representatives should come primarily from Rome and Constantinople, since those were the sees of the initial dispute, with possible input from Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus...the only Churches that were around in 1054; including such Churches as Russia simply unnecessarily complicates the prospects for reconciliation between Old and New Rome and, respectively, the Eastern and Western Christian Churches.

Yep. They did "unnecessarily complicate" it the last time, too, along with St. Mark of Ephesus.

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.

Well, the effectivness for MP to "fall" is said not to be sufficient without the presence of antichrist himself - the last liturgy will be served in Russia according to the prophecy. So, considering your strategy, did you take into consideration if the child has grown already?

The best thing for the Church and the only long term solution to these problems at hand is for the Church of Russia to obey her tome of Autonomy and submit to her Mother Church of Constantinople.

I've usually heard the words "obey" and "submit" in relation to ecumenical talks and reconcilliation pronounced by RC. Well, I guess we are all learning every day, aren't we?
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
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 #24 on: November 22, 2007, 06:15:06 AM »

I believe that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 Orthodox Christians within the Ecumenical Patriarch's own territory, and there are no Christians living in Met. Zizioulas' diocese of Pergamon.

Well, good to know not many present will be asked for the Church of Pergamon, once the time comes.

The results show that the majority on this forum thinks the talks are not derailed. As His Grace Hilarion pointed, we are to wait for the next session in 2008 to see if that's true or not. Unless, of course, we stand for the dialogue in the form as greekischristian advocated above - as the dialogue between Rome and Constantinopolis, with the minor assistance of other ancient Churches, where us newcomers have no place and say.

I wonder if any Synod of any Orthodox Church anywhere took into consideration the Ravenna statement? Synod of Serbian Orthodox Church that was supposed to be convened this autumn was cancelled, due to the illness of H.H. Patriarch Pavle.

I'm waiting for Russian Commission's comments on the statement. The announcement sounds pretty promissing...
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
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 #25 on: November 22, 2007, 06:15:40 AM »

If it was not for the MP, the Church of Antioch would be languishing like the Church in Jerusalem.  The Faithful of Antioch do NOT forget that.

Brother, please, I know I'm a hog, but could you expand this? I don't know about it at all.

I'm aware Patriarch Theophan of Antioch went to Kiev and performed hirotinia of bishops upon the call of hetman Petar Sagaydachny somewhere in 17th century, once all the bishops entered into union with Rome (the linked article at wikipedia refers to Theophan as Jerusalem Patriarch; I'm sure both Patriarch of Antioch and Patriarch of Jerusalem went there and performed hirotonias within several years). So, my Russ brothers do owe much not to the Mother Church of Constantinopolis only, but to the ancient Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem too.
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
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 #26 on: November 22, 2007, 06:27:00 AM »

Well, Moscow could always schism against the Church...their loss.
Would it sound appropriate to rephrase it and say that Mrt. Zlizious and his followers could always schism against the Faith...their loss?
Quote from: ialmisry
Moscow got its autocephaly because Constantinople submitted at Florence.  Should Moscow (and the rest of the Orthodox) submit at Ravenna?
Perhaps.
Well, some of us perhaps aren't as submissive as you are.

Do you do it often, or you just did it once and forever?
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 #27 on: November 22, 2007, 07:13:48 AM »

The best thing for the Church and the only long term solution to these problems at hand is for the Church of Russia to obey her tome of Autonomy and submit to her Mother Church of Constantinople.
*
Yes, absolutely.  Let Russia return to her pre-autocephalic status as a daughter Church of Constantinople.  This will bring the 180 Russian bishops into membership of the Holy Synod of the Throne of Constantinople.  Guess what nationality the next Ecumenical Patriarch will be when the votes are counted? 

His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Vladimir of Constantinople and All the Russias.


« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 07:16:37 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
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 #28 on: November 22, 2007, 07:23:26 AM »

...

His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Vladimir of Constantinople and All the Russias.




Father, could it be His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Diomid of Constantinople and All the Russias?
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 #29 on: November 22, 2007, 07:32:49 AM »

Jerusalem might be a museum soon, due to mismanagement.  Wolves for shepherds.
*

No, no!

The Church is Jerusalem is about to undergo an outstanding metamorphosis.  The Patriarchate will, in a generation or two, be no longer Greek but simultaneously Russian and Jewish.

Russian Orthodox Now the Majority in Patriarchate of Jerusalem

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary:

Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate -- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's former Secretary General. Some statistics indicate 300,000 while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they outnumber the Arab faithful.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2007, 07:38:10 AM »

Jerusalem might be a museum soon, due to mismanagement.  Wolves for shepherds.
*
The election of a Russian Patriarch of Constantinople is not science fiction.  Greeks in Istanbul number about 2,500 (but that may increase if/when Turkey enters the EU.)  Russians are estimated to be around 5000 in Istanbul but one imagines that the Greeks have the electoral system for a Patriarch system under tight control, at least for the moment.

The Russian community petitioned the Patriarchate to be allotted a church for the Russian community.  Has anybody heard what has come of that?  Did Constantinople assign one to them?

The election of a Russian Patriarch of Jerusalem is highly likely within two or three generations.  Russian Orthodox Christians in Israel now outnumber both the Greek and the Arab components of the Patriarchate.

The official version of the state of Christianity in the Holy Land is :"It is less than 2% of the entire holy land. Christianity in particular in Jerusalem subsists mostly of pilgrims. They visit only."

This is not in fact the case. The situation is looking quite optimistic, at least for the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. A web search will turn up information on the growing number of Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land and the concern it is causing to the Israeli Knesset.

"The Russians Are Coming" to rescue the Holy Land?

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/494/op1.htm

There have been significant changes to Israeli religious demographics over the last 10 years, thanks to the influx of more than 1 million Russians. One in 5 Israelis is now Russian, 20% of the population. A proportion of these are Jews by ancestry but Russian Orthodox Christians by religion. Today new Orthodox churches are being built throughout Israel and even on the kibbutzim! The Russians and the Arabs are brother Orthodox in Israel and together they will bring a new springtime of Christianity to the Mother Church of Jerusalem.


"I was recently given two startling pieces of information by a visiting Palestinian friend from Jerusalem. One was that there were several Russian Orthodox Christian churches being built in the southern Israeli town of Beersheba.... <snip>

"Just as remarkable is Lustick's observation that a significant number of the newcomers had registered themselves either as Christians or persons of no religion at all. As a result of this situation, the Russians, or to put it another way, non-Arab Christians are the fastest growing Israeli religious community and now constitute 8-9 per cent of the non-Arab population of the state... <snip>"
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/494/op1.htm

One factor with which the Jerusalem Patriarchate will have to come to terms in the near future is the large numbers of Russian Orthodox who are now part of its flock. These are Jews genetically and Orthodox Christians religiously. Jerusalem has set up a church department for the Russians but it seems inadequate for the numbers of Russians involved. In the years ahead the character of the Patriarchate will be altered by the Russian Orthodox influx.

Another article:

http://portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=33276

Last wave of immigration sharply increased
the number of secret Orthodox Christians in Israel


Although official statistics indicate that the number of Christians in Israel is constantly decreasing, in reality, EAI data shows that there is a large number of secret Christians among the Jews who arrived from Russia and Ukraine between 1989-1993.

Thus, the research conducted among 86,000 new immigrants in 1999 demonstrated that approximately 53% of them cannot be considered Jews in accordance with Judaic law. Available data suggest approximately 400,000 "unregistered Orthodox Christians" arrived with the last wave of immigration.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2007, 08:48:06 AM »

Here are the Jewish statistics for immigration from the Soviet Union/Russia, covering 1948 to 2006.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/FSU.html

It's a very high percentage of Israel's population of 6,400,000
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

As I have mentioned above, it is the influx of Russian Orthodox Christians who are genetically Jewish which will ensure the survival of Christianity in Israel. Although they are rarely mentioned, they already outnumber all the other Christians in Israel and are building churches. God is blessing the Orthodox in the Holy Land with great hope for the future.

These Russian Christian Jews use both Hebrew and Slavonic in their services. In time we will see a unique phenomenon emerging - a truly Jewish Orthodox Church and a Jew (of Russian background) sitting on the Throne of Saint James the Just as Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2007, 08:49:22 AM »

Father, could it be His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Diomid of Constantinople and All the Russias?
Who is Diomid?
Logged
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 #33 on: November 22, 2007, 08:52:32 AM »

Who is Diomid?
At present bishop of Chukotka (and something).
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 #34 on: November 22, 2007, 09:17:18 AM »

At present bishop of Chukotka (and something).
*
People in Chukotka still ride horses down the main street.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2007, 02:27:25 PM »

Would it sound appropriate to rephrase it and say that Mrt. Zlizious and his followers could always schism against the Faith...their loss?Perhaps.

Well, I guess that's a theoretical possibility, but only if His Eminence were to break off from the Oecumenical Throne, so long as he remains loyal to Constantinople he is incapable of schism.

Quote
Well, some of us perhaps aren't as submissive as you are.

Do you do it often, or you just did it once and forever?

Once and forever to the Oecumenical Throne and only in matters of ecclesiology.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2007, 02:28:49 PM »

*
Yes, absolutely.  Let Russia return to her pre-autocephalic status as a daughter Church of Constantinople.  This will bring the 180 Russian bishops into membership of the Holy Synod of the Throne of Constantinople.  Guess what nationality the next Ecumenical Patriarch will be when the votes are counted? 

His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Vladimir of Constantinople and All the Russias.

Actually a return to the status of the Church before the tomos simply means that Constantinople elects the Russian Bishops, they did not have a seat on the Synod of Constantinople, the Patriarch of which has to be a Turkish citizen anyway.

In any case, last count I heard there are approximately 190 Bishops within the membership of the Synod of Constantinople and Constantinople could always ordain 100 more or so to ensure that the Russian voting block was in the minority if, for some strange reason, they were allowed to sit on the Synod.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 02:36:22 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,194


Scheherazade


« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2007, 11:24:16 PM »

The best thing for the Church and the only long term solution to these problems at hand is for the Church of Russia to obey her tome of Autonomy and submit to her Mother Church of Constantinople.
I'm still fairly new to Orthodoxy and I've never heard anyone talk like this before, things I would expect from a Roman Catholic not an Orthodox. It calls to mind a column I read a couple of months ago about the prospects for a united American Orthodox Church.

From OrthodoxyToday.org.....

Quote
the last time a major question on the unity of the Church was approached primarily from the angle of submission to one church structure, we ended up losing the entire West.


P.S. to all of the CAF rejects I was also banned without notice or explanation and it's sure nice to read your posts again.

Yours in Christ
Paisius
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2007, 12:05:31 AM »

His Eminence Ioannis of Pergamon elicits strong reactions.  Here is one from an Italian Orthodox journal.  The quality of the English is rather poor but the points they wish to make deserve consideration.

Read on the Web at
http://digilander.libero.it/ortodossia/Zizioulas.htm

Is the Theologian Ioannis Zizioulas
proclaiming Orthodoxy?
   


 
This work is not based on empty inferences.
In Italy there are many articles of Zizioulas translated and publicized and also some book.
In Greece there are differents works of Zizioulas publicized. Recently Zizioulas has participated to a conference in Italy and he has spoken in manner absolutely catholic!
All this more the comments of some orthodox teologian from Romania, France and Greece  have pushed us to take this clear position. We must do this because there are orthodox countries where the Zizioulas' theology is beginning to create big problems to the same Orthodoxy creating lacerations and sufferings.
We hope that a day our readership, reading some work of Zizioulas and compares it with the thought of orthodox authors they will see that our writing is real!


I
 
In full sincerity, we have to distance ourselves completely from and express our disavowal of the “orthodox" theologian Ioannis Zizioulas. After having studied his recent “theology”, we are now utterly convinced his thinking thoroughly distorts and misrepresents Orthodoxy. Here are some points, which clearly vindicate our contentions:

 

1.          For Zizioulas the true “problem of ecumenicity”" seems to be an issue of structures or functions like, for example, that of the papacy. The fact that there is no papacy in Eastern Christendom pushes Zizioulas to search for substitutes because he presumes the papacy as an unreservedly acceptable and necessary principle underlying the foundations of all Christian Churches. In truth, the absence of the function of the papacy poses no problem to Orthodoxy. For a millennium, the Pope had been the first amongst the orthodox Patriarchs and nobody had felt such a thing was strange or alien to Orthodoxy. The true problem of ecumenicity is quite another: Orthodoxy cannot recognize in any Western form of Church life the Orthodox Way of life. Orthodoxy finds, instead, the single mentality of western Church life that pervades all kinds of Christian activities in Western Christendom to be far away from that Orthodox Way. In such a context, the papacy itself is a mere consequence of the absence of the Orthodox Way of life. Zizioulas appears unable to discern this clear-cut difference.

 

2.          The Orthodox Way of life does not imply uniformity. We see a legitimate diversity prevailing in customary issues amongst all Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Way of life appears to have a common base: the common faith, the common life under the uncreated Grace of God and not according to the wisdom of this world, the taste and experience of the uncreated gifts of God which offer true guidelines to human life in all its aspects. All these escape to a great extend western Christianity even to the point to feeling free to substitute typically human sentiments or securities for the uncreated gifts of God! This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as "Arian".

 

3.          As Zizioulas overlooks this serious problem, his perspective of ecumenicity becomes irreparably defective. His failure is comparable to someone’s attempting to join in wedlock a man and a woman with characters so far apart that they cannot stand each other; nevertheless, he imperturbably discusses the organization of their household and their accommodation details, such as where to place their bedroom, etc. Such a discussion is truly illusory and abstract and aims at deceiving its listeners. Such a discussion makes the listeners believe that, in fact, no substantial difference between Western Christianity and Orthodoxy did ever exist! What would Catholics and Protestants think of Zizioulas once they discovered that his account consisted of academic theories without any real and concrete foundations in history?

 

4.          By doing so, Zizioulas demonstrates a much greater love for himself that for the catholic world because he is obviously trying to gain support and approval of his own importance by choosing to speak the language the Catholics find to be music to their ears. If he did love the catholic world or the Reformed Christians, he would have duly the courage to unmask in front of them the false securities, which surround them. Once upon a time, the prophets did this same thing to the Israelites when the latter would not follow the ways of God, but those stemming from mere human wisdom.

 

Moreover, one can detect in Zizioulas’ s thought some considerable theological anomalies that either verge on or, to some point, identify with heresy. In fact, he is greatly indebted to it, at least in the following instances:

 

1.          Regarding a supposed correlative between the intimate life of the Trinity and the Church. Zizioulas asserts: "since the Trinity is communion, the Church must be communion too". This and similar parallelisms imply a primordial principle of analogy between created and uncreated reality (analogia entis), which is strictly forbidden in patristic theology. According to the Holy Fathers ’s teaching, there is no analogy whatsoever between the created world and the uncreated Trinity! In fact, we can say nothing about the life of the Trinity, save that the Father generates, the Son is generated and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. We cannot "put our nose in the Trinity", as saint Gregory the Theologian said!

 

2.           Zizioulas associates the concept of "communion" with that of "relation". Hence, for Zizioulas, a person in relation is a person in communion. This principle is born from personalistic philosophy and is contrary to the definition of the person the Fathers repeatedly cite in their writings. For them the Persons of the Trinity represent three "distinctions" within the Trinity, not three "relations" of the Trinity with Its own Self! Zizioulas does not consider this and he applies his philosophical principle of the person equally to both: the Trinity and all created human beings! Thus, his absolute philosophical principle renders incomprehensible and anomalous every human person, who is not in constant communion with other persons such as hermits, precisely because they are not "in relation" with the world! Consequently, Zizioulas promulgates a philosophical and sociological concept of the Church whereby each traditional element is reshaped according to this mentality or, if it cannot be reshaped, then it is abolished! Because of his Procrustean theological method, authorities such as saint Gregory Palamas or saint Maximos the Confessor create serious problems to his "theological system" and, therefore, he never quotes the former and the latter is quoted rarely!

 

3.           On the other hand, Zizioulas owes his theological formation to authors like Henry De Lubac. There are very many similarities between the two, there is even an Oxford thesis examining their striking similarities, a sign that Zizioulas has assumed many theological elements from the catholic theologian De Lubac, and assimilated them to his thinking thus becoming himself a thoroughly catholic theologian. The same concept of "Church - Eucharist" is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western. As the East emphasizes the life in the Spirit and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit (see saint Seraphim of Sarov) so the West emphasizes the Eucharist. Between the two emphases lies the huge difference in theological mentalities, which separate the two traditions. In the case of Orthodoxy, one discerns the freedom of man and the prominence of the Presence of God; in Western Christianity prominent is the human initiative in "achieving", "possessing" and "consuming" the Eucharist. As the Romanian theologian Dumitru Popescu has noticed: “By emphasizing the Eucharist in the typical manner pertaining to catholic theologians, Zizioulas has removed the vertical dimension of the Church and rendered the Eucharist from a means into an end in itself”. No wonder then, in the light of such startling similarities, that a profound sympathy has developed between Zizioulas and the catholic world, wherein, out of mutual responsiveness, Zizioulas’ s writings are constantly published and celebrated as expressive of the true spirit of Catholicism, as perceived by an "orthodox", recently rehabilitated into the catholic faith!

 

These remarks are meant to inform our readership. We are not against dialogue, nor against sincere and open comparisons. We believe, however, that comparisons must only show respectively the real positions of what orthodox and catholic Christians truly believe or experience. Only by doing so theologians are truly representative of their traditions; otherwise, they end up to representing only their own individuality of thought and they speak only for the sake of pleasing their friends’ ears.

But in the present case, our “theologian” has betrayed his listeners twice: a) by denying them understanding of what his tradition truly stands for and b) by snatching from them unjustifiable esteem and honours for improper “services” he has falsely rendered to them…

In addition, out of respect for the Catholic and the Reformed world we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries.


The editorial staff of the Magazine "Italia Ortodossa"



« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 05:06:09 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2007, 12:14:07 AM »

I'm still fairly new to Orthodoxy and I've never heard anyone talk like this before, things I would expect from a Roman Catholic not an Orthodox. It calls to mind a column I read a couple of months ago about the prospects for a united American Orthodox Church.

Well, if you continue to be involved in these matters you will find that, unlike amongst some of the more idealistic corners American Orthodoxy, the opinions I espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Just read anything on the matter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, or by the chief canonist for the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Panteleimon Rodopoulos, or by the late canonist and historian Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, or by anyone intimately involved in the Synod itself. I didn't pull these ideas out of thin air, they date back to Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos and before that to Leo VI the wise, and before that to the Synod of Chalcedon.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2007, 01:08:38 AM »

1.          For Zizioulas the true “problem of ecumenicity”" seems to be an issue of structures or functions like, for example, that of the papacy. The fact that there is no papacy in Eastern Christendom pushes Zizioulas to search for substitutes because he presumes the papacy as an unreservedly acceptable and necessary principle underlying the foundations of all Christian Churches. In truth, the absence of the function of the papacy poses no problem to Orthodoxy. For a millennium, the Pope had been the first amongst the orthodox Patriarchs and nobody had felt such a thing was strange or alien to Orthodoxy. The true problem of ecumenicity is quite another: Orthodoxy cannot recognize in any Western form of Church life the Orthodox Way of life. Orthodoxy finds, instead, the single mentality of western Church life that pervades all kinds of Christian activities in Western Christendom to be far away from that Orthodox Way. In such a context, the papacy itself is a mere consequence of the absence of the Orthodox Way of life. Zizioulas appears unable to discern this clear-cut difference.

His Eminence, as an objective student of history, understands the history of the Oecumenical Patriarchate within the Orthodox Church, up to the fall of the Imperial City and, indeed, even after that up through the 19th Century the Oecumenical Patriarchates maintained an actual authority within the Eastern Church that rivaled, and even often surpassed, the authority Rome was able to exert within her own Patriarchate. It was not really until Vatican I that Rome was able to consolidate her authority and exert it in the West in a manner approaching that of the Oecumenical Patriarchate within the East. Unfortunately, around this time rebellion from certain Slavic Churches (most notably Moscow) began an attemt to undermine the authority of Constantinople (though such Churches that are closer to Constantinople such as Serbia and Romania have remained more loyal). This rebellion has threatened to cause a rift within the Church as we increassingly see the distancing of the Greek and Slavic Churches from each other. His Eminence realizes that if this rebellion is unchecked it may very well lead to the schism of the Russian Church and a disastern unknown since the Great Schism between Constantinople and Rome.

Quote
2.          The Orthodox Way of life does not imply uniformity. We see a legitimate diversity prevailing in customary issues amongst all Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox Way of life appears to have a common base: the common faith, the common life under the uncreated Grace of God and not according to the wisdom of this world, the taste and experience of the uncreated gifts of God which offer true guidelines to human life in all its aspects. All these escape to a great extend western Christianity even to the point to feeling free to substitute typically human sentiments or securities for the uncreated gifts of God! This explains why orthodox people cannot help defining western Christianity as "Arian".

Fortunately His Eminence is more objective than this and better understands Western Christianity, he realizes that they do indeed maintain many of the Ancient Traditions of the Church, though they have altered them in different ways that the East over the years (though, don't be fooled, we have both allowed these customs to evolve); in the West there is a Christianity with which it is worth recognizing and worth dialoguing, it is not some heathen and graceless land, they are sisters and brothers in Church and we are all harmed by the continuing schisms.

Quote
3.          As Zizioulas overlooks this serious problem, his perspective of ecumenicity becomes irreparably defective. His failure is comparable to someone’s attempting to join in wedlock a man and a woman with characters so far apart that they cannot stand each other; nevertheless, he imperturbably discusses the organization of their household and their accommodation details, such as where to place their bedroom, etc. Such a discussion is truly illusory and abstract and aims at deceiving its listeners. Such a discussion makes the listeners believe that, in fact, no substantial difference between Western Christianity and Orthodoxy did ever exist! What would Catholics and Protestants think of Zizioulas once they discovered that his account consisted of academic theories without any real and concrete foundations in history?

Without any real and concrete foundations in history? If by this they mean that he dismisses the centuries of emotion and anger that has built up and simply focus on the real issues at hand, they would be absolutely correct. His Eminence, in his wisdom, does dismiss this emotional baggage, from both sides, and focuses on the real issues at hand; when this is done he recognizes that the differences are not as great as those entangled in the emotional issues may, on first glance, suggest. Because of this objectivity His Eminence, and others like him, are capable of moving on and making real progress in these dialogues; granted, we still must deal with this emotional baggage, but this is not the goal of ecumenical dialogue, these matters are internal affairs to be handled within the respective Churches: the Orthodox need to bring the radical and emotional elements in line with the Church, independent of the efforts of Rome, and Rome needs to bring the similar elements within their Church in line, independent of the efforts of the Orthodox.

Quote
4.          By doing so, Zizioulas demonstrates a much greater love for himself that for the catholic world because he is obviously trying to gain support and approval of his own importance by choosing to speak the language the Catholics find to be music to their ears. If he did love the catholic world or the Reformed Christians, he would have duly the courage to unmask in front of them the false securities, which surround them. Once upon a time, the prophets did this same thing to the Israelites when the latter would not follow the ways of God, but those stemming from mere human wisdom.

If His Eminence loved them he would not speak the truth in love, but rather in emotion and anger? This objection is almost laughable; His Eminence speaks the truth in love, in love which bears no grudges, no anger, no animosity, it seeks only the objective truth and does not bow to those who, ignoring the requirements of love, insist on closing their eyes to the same.
 
Quote
Moreover, one can detect in Zizioulas’ s thought some considerable theological anomalies that either verge on or, to some point, identify with heresy. In fact, he is greatly indebted to it, at least in the following instances:

If they object to the Orthodoxy of His Eminence, the proper forum to address this would be with a complain to his Synod, at which point the Patriarch could assess their claims and determine whether or not they have any basis in reality. As His All-Holiness would, in all likelihood, dismiss these unfounded claims an refuse to bring His Eminence to trial, these people seem to be contenting themselves with a libelous smear campaign against His Eminence.

Quote
1.          Regarding a supposed correlative between the intimate life of the Trinity and the Church. Zizioulas asserts: "since the Trinity is communion, the Church must be communion too". This and similar parallelisms imply a primordial principle of analogy between created and uncreated reality (analogia entis), which is strictly forbidden in patristic theology. According to the Holy Fathers ’s teaching, there is no analogy whatsoever between the created world and the uncreated Trinity! In fact, we can say nothing about the life of the Trinity, save that the Father generates, the Son is generated and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. We cannot "put our nose in the Trinity", as saint Gregory the Theologian said!

This objection is simply nonsense, St. Paul himself used such an analogy when he instructed husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. St. Ignatios of Antioch instructed one to revere and obey their Bishop as they would God. There is a long patristic history of using high theology to derive moral theology; in fact, this derivation and analogy, popularized by the School of Alexandria, is the very essence of any good moral teaching or theology. This particular objection, in fact, sounds very post-patristic and very protestant to me.

Quote
2.           Zizioulas associates the concept of "communion" with that of "relation". Hence, for Zizioulas, a person in relation is a person in communion. This principle is born from personalistic philosophy and is contrary to the definition of the person the Fathers repeatedly cite in their writings. For them the Persons of the Trinity represent three "distinctions" within the Trinity, not three "relations" of the Trinity with Its own Self! Zizioulas does not consider this and he applies his philosophical principle of the person equally to both: the Trinity and all created human beings! Thus, his absolute philosophical principle renders incomprehensible and anomalous every human person, who is not in constant communion with other persons such as hermits, precisely because they are not "in relation" with the world! Consequently, Zizioulas promulgates a philosophical and sociological concept of the Church whereby each traditional element is reshaped according to this mentality or, if it cannot be reshaped, then it is abolished! Because of his Procrustean theological method, authorities such as saint Gregory Palamas or saint Maximos the Confessor create serious problems to his "theological system" and, therefore, he never quotes the former and the latter is quoted rarely!

The persons of the Holy Trinity are not three 'distinctions' they are three distinct and personally independent Divine Persons, as three Humans are three independent Human Persons. Whoever wrote this article is demonstrating a strong Sabellian influence in their theology and thought, the trinity is not three 'modes' or 'distinctions' of a single divine person, it is indeed a relationship between three Persons. And, using this reasoning, this disciple of Sabellius has the audacity to criticize the Orthodoxy of His Eminence? Do I really have to take this heretical nonsense seriously?

Quote
3.           On the other hand, Zizioulas owes his theological formation to authors like Henry De Lubac. There are very many similarities between the two, there is even an Oxford thesis examining their striking similarities, a sign that Zizioulas has assumed many theological elements from the catholic theologian De Lubac, and assimilated them to his thinking thus becoming himself a thoroughly catholic theologian. The same concept of "Church - Eucharist" is also found in the Russian theologian Afanasieff, but it is typically western. As the East emphasizes the life in the Spirit and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit (see saint Seraphim of Sarov) so the West emphasizes the Eucharist. Between the two emphases lies the huge difference in theological mentalities, which separate the two traditions. In the case of Orthodoxy, one discerns the freedom of man and the prominence of the Presence of God; in Western Christianity prominent is the human initiative in "achieving", "possessing" and "consuming" the Eucharist. As the Romanian theologian Dumitru Popescu has noticed: “By emphasizing the Eucharist in the typical manner pertaining to catholic theologians, Zizioulas has removed the vertical dimension of the Church and rendered the Eucharist from a means into an end in itself”. No wonder then, in the light of such startling similarities, that a profound sympathy has developed between Zizioulas and the catholic world, wherein, out of mutual responsiveness, Zizioulas’ s writings are constantly published and celebrated as expressive of the true spirit of Catholicism, as perceived by an "orthodox", recently rehabilitated into the catholic faith!

WOW. One must ask if the author has actually read the Oxford thesis they are referencing (McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri De Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.). In this thesis Zizioulas goes to great effort to emphasize BOTH the vertical and horizontal relational aspects of the Eucharist and actually ties in the latter with the former. His Eminence and Henri De Lubac do agree on many points (which shouldn't surprise anyone that East and West have maintained rather similar understandings, but these people seem to suggest that it's unlikely based on nothing more than they fact that they do not want it to be so) and there are a few minor points of disagreement, which seems to be ignored here. Perhaps someone should tell this 'Journal' editor that reading a Bibliography is no subsitute for responsible academic research and, heaven forbid, actually reading the papers one wishes to use to condemn a Metropolitan of the Church. Roll Eyes

Quote
But in the present case, our “theologian” has betrayed his listeners twice: a) by denying them understanding of what his tradition truly stands for and b) by snatching from them unjustifiable esteem and honours for improper “services” he has falsely rendered to them…

As opposed to the editors of this 'Orthodox Journal' which espouse Sabellian theology and falsely present ideas supposedly found in works they have not even bothered to read?

Quote
In addition, out of respect for the Catholic and the Reformed world we must state that Zizioulas’ s theological style and argumentation can be proven deceitful, as he often stands too far from the truth. This man’ s individual thinking in no way represents the orthodox traditional theology but only personal and, at times, peculiar theological aspects having nothing to do with the common experience shared and faithfully practised by the great majority of orthodox believers down the Christian centuries.

Perhaps if His Eminence were to throw in some Gnostic and Sabellian theology into his papers he would be worthy of their esteem? There is no deceit, but when one unlearned and ignorant of the Theology of the Church reads something from an educated and intelligent Bishop that rubs their folkloric understanding of the Faith the wrong way, I can see how they would mistake truth for deceit.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
msmirnov
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Posts: 151


« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2007, 03:30:18 AM »

It may be a more effective strategy for us to first work on our healing of our relationship with Rome, then the five Ancient Patriarchates could stand undivided, against Russia, forcing Her to fall in line and respect her place amongst the Patriarchates.

Here, brother, you can read a brilliant shot fable written by Krylov:
http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Demo/texts/elephant_pug.htm

I belive that MP and our nation will always be on the side of Christ's Holy Orthodox Church. I'm really upset that the dialogue with Rome attracts Patriarch Bartholomew more than with Moscow. Together we stand, divided we fall.

Russian Orthodox Now the Majority in Patriarchate of Jerusalem

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Irish Hermit, Вы говорите по-русски?
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,083



« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2007, 04:25:13 AM »

Could someone please change the manner in which the metropolitan is referenced in the caption?  His name is Metropolitan John of Pergamon, his last name being "Zizioulas."

The answer is no.  Notwithstanding the Church of Russia's justification for leaving, these adults should take their disagreements into a private setting.  Constantinople should not have included an Estonian member of this commission, knowing full well how it would offend the Russian's, whether they are right or wrong in this stance.  However, the Russian's should not have publically, and while the meetings were in progress, bring the administrative disagreements among the Holy Churches of God into the open.  These esteemed hierarchs should show some maturity as they tackle the the various issues that separate churches who both trace their founding to the Apostles.  It's really embarrassing to see this type of behavior at such a high profile and significant forum.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2007, 04:35:42 AM »

Irish Hermit, Вы говорите по-русски?
*
Да, несмотя на то, что я родился новозеландцем ирландского происхождения, я являюсь священником (иеромонах) русского прихода в Новой Зеландии. 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2007, 04:58:35 AM »

Well, if you continue to be involved in these matters you will find that, unlike amongst some of the more idealistic corners American Orthodoxy, the opinions I espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Just read anything on the matter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, or by the chief canonist for the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Panteleimon Rodopoulos, or by the late canonist and historian Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, or by anyone intimately involved in the Synod itself. I didn't pull these ideas out of thin air, they date back to Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos and before that to Leo VI the wise, and before that to the Synod of Chalcedon.
As I said on another thread regarding papal primacy (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13495.msg187040.html#msg187040), we really must beware of any patriarch's interpretation of Tradition (be he the Patriarch and Pope of Rome or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) that gives the patriarch himself prerogatives of supremacy and authority that are not recognized from below, because such understandings are all too easily seen for what they really are:  imperialist grabs for power.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2007, 05:23:32 AM »

, the opinions I espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Just read anything on the matter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, or by the chief canonist for the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Panteleimon Rodopoulos,
I see that Rodopoulos quotes Zonaras in his "Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic Canon" and the implication seems to be that at the present time the Ecumenical Patriarchate is ailing in some way and acting aberrantly:

""Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member, who occupies the position of head, is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner."

Now if this is the case and the EP is indeed acting in a "disorderly and faulty manner" - whether in the Ukraine or Estonia or in its contacts with Rome - then we must be cautious in our own contacts with it and not allow the EP's aberrations to affect the entire body of the Church.

Changed spelling of Metropolitan's name in title
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 05:24:41 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
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 #46 on: November 23, 2007, 06:49:04 AM »

Well, if you continue to be involved in these matters you will find that, unlike amongst some of the more idealistic corners American Orthodoxy, the opinions I espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

I don't have the time now, but a short one is:  If that novelty, not to say heresy, is really "quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople", the outcome is quite predictible, I'm affraid.

I'll avoid choosing between my Russ and Greek brothers, since I can't say I love ones more than another, but Mrt. Zlizious doesn't speak on my behalf. And, of course, I've never encountered as shocking statements from an Orthodox as "greekischristian" stated. An average Serb faithful would tell you that the only thing you can do with your reasoning is to stick where the Sun never shines.

Ravenna statement is shamefull, it embraced fallacies of historical facts and I'm looking forward to read the Orthodox response to it. For your info, no statement from any bishop of Serbian Orthodox Church about Ravenna has been heard, since Serbs have other problems at the moment, including the illness of H.H. Patriarch Pavle, but the disgusst and outrage among the faithfull is mounting.
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
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 #47 on: November 23, 2007, 06:52:03 AM »

Could someone please change the manner in which the metropolitan is referenced in the caption?  His name is Metropolitan John of Pergamon, his last name being "Zizioulas."

Spelling in Serbian is Zlizious.
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
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 #48 on: November 23, 2007, 06:57:14 AM »

And just to add:

I don't give a d*rn wjat Zlizious is saying, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. I'll stick with St. Vincent of Lerins.

At the moment I'm speculating the actions I can undertake to contribute to the efforts Serbian Orthodox Church never participates again in any commission co-chaired by Mrt. Zlizious. Not much I can do, of course, but a small grain of resistance won't hurt.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 06:58:17 AM 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
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 #49 on: November 23, 2007, 08:13:28 AM »

Quote
1.          Regarding a supposed correlative between the intimate life of the Trinity and the Church. Zizioulas asserts: "since the Trinity is communion, the Church must be communion too". This and similar parallelisms imply a primordial principle of analogy between created and uncreated reality (analogia entis), which is strictly forbidden in patristic theology. According to the Holy Fathers ’s teaching, there is no analogy whatsoever between the created world and the uncreated Trinity! In fact, we can say nothing about the life of the Trinity, save that the Father generates, the Son is generated and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. We cannot "put our nose in the Trinity", as saint Gregory the Theologian said!
I disagree with the good Bishop on this point. The Church is, was and always will be the Icon of the Holy Trinity- Who Is the Community par excellence. Christ's prayer for the Church included the words: "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:21). Zizoulas' assertion that "since the Trinity is communion, the Church must be communion too" is therefore the same as Christ's prayer for the Church, and there is nothing "unOrthodox" in his assertion.
 

Quote
2.           Zizioulas associates the concept of "communion" with that of "relation". Hence, for Zizioulas, a person in relation is a person in communion. This principle is born from personalistic philosophy and is contrary to the definition of the person the Fathers repeatedly cite in their writings. For them the Persons of the Trinity represent three "distinctions" within the Trinity, not three "relations" of the Trinity with Its own Self! Zizioulas does not consider this and he applies his philosophical principle of the person equally to both: the Trinity and all created human beings! Thus, his absolute philosophical principle renders incomprehensible and anomalous every human person, who is not in constant communion with other persons such as hermits, precisely because they are not "in relation" with the world! Consequently, Zizioulas promulgates a philosophical and sociological concept of the Church whereby each traditional element is reshaped according to this mentality or, if it cannot be reshaped, then it is abolished! Because of his Procrustean theological method, authorities such as saint Gregory Palamas or saint Maximos the Confessor create serious problems to his "theological system" and, therefore, he never quotes the former and the latter is quoted rarely!
I also find this argument of the good Bishop problematic. Zizoulas' assertion that "a person in relation is a person in communion" is completely correct, and again, reflects the Holy Trinity. Not only does each Hypostasis of the Trinity have a relation to the other (Begetter, Begotten, Source, Procession, Father, Son etc), but for the good Bishop to assert that hermits are "not in relation" is strange, and in fact, bordering on unOrthodox. A hermit shows his/her relationship to the People of God who make up the Church every time they receive Communion. A hermit shows their relationship to the world every time they pray for the world. I think the good Bishop is confusing "constant contact" with "relationship".
 

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2007, 01:06:54 PM »

Well, if you continue to be involved in these matters you will find that, unlike amongst some of the more idealistic corners American Orthodoxy, the opinions I espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Just read anything on the matter written by the Oecumenical Patriarch, or by the chief canonist for the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Panteleimon Rodopoulos, or by the late canonist and historian Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, or by anyone intimately involved in the Synod itself. I didn't pull these ideas out of thin air, they date back to Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos and before that to Leo VI the wise, and before that to the Synod of Chalcedon.


The opinions you espouse are quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Rome.

You seem to accept Florance as an Ecumenical Council, because all your reasoning supports it.

Then why should we prefer Constantinople over Old Rome?  What's the reason?  None: all the Ecumenical Councils name Rome as the Head, not Constantinople.

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, unity at all costs, submission without question, then we have no need to sepearate ourselves from Rome, and should start commemorating Benedict XVI, and not Bartholomew.

The fact that you suggest that the EP appoint a number of bishops to lock out the voice of the Russians, if the Russians have to be seen only as an appendage to Constantinople, shows that it is just an issue of power, not piety, theology or Faith.  Luke 22:24-7.

It was just this Phanar mentality, a Church of, by and for the Phanar and the corollary of the Faithful just a flock for the fleecing that has decimated the Church of Jerusalem.  The irony that salvation is of the Jews in this case, as Fr. Ambrose has posted. (That still leaves a problem for the Arab Orthodox, not only in Palestine, but the sizable Church in Jordan, which is also under Jerusalem).

It also almost destroyed the Church at Antioch.  Like Jerusalem, the patriarchal throne was the property of the Phanar, who cared little for the Arab faithful who made up the vast majority of the Faithful.  The Russian Church stepped in and provided schools, social services, etc. to the Arab Orthodox which their own patriarch refused to do, and through the Russian Church the Phanar was forced to let the patriarchate of Antioch manage her own affairs.  In due course bishops from among the patriarchate's Faithful, and not carpet baggers, formed a majority of the Holy Synod which elected its own patriarch.  Even the Muslims recognized the import of this, and Sati al-Husry, himself a Muslim and a major architect of Arab nationalism, stated that the Arab Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch was the first victory of Arabism.

Somehow Alexandria has escaped this.  The Popes of Alexandria, although foreign Greeks, have responded to the increase of the Arab Orthodox in the Patriarchate, and doesn't seem to fear the idea of an African being elected Pope, whether Arab, Kenyans, Ghanan or whatever.  They keep on making bishoprics, and don't seem interested in stacking the deck in the synod in favor of the continuation of Greek rule (though myself I like the continuation of the Greek presence in Egypt).  Btw, Africa, ALONE among all continents, has none of the jurisdictional problems that plague us everywhere else. 

The Church of Sinai also seems to have escaped the Phanar mentality, being a major repository not only of Greek manuscripts, but Arabic (among other languages).

Your authorities are interesting.

Leo VI the Wise: wasn't this the same emperor, that when the EP refused to set aside the canons and recognize his fourth marriage, secured recognition from the Pope of Rome? (Ah, Henry VIII eat your heart out).

Balsamon: is this the same absentee Patriarch of Antioch, who, never setting foot in his patriarchate, received a delegation from Antioch, and, upon seeing their celebration of the Divine Liturgy accoring to the Apostolic rites of Antioch, issued a decree to suppress said rites, and ordered the immediate adoption of the recent rites of Constantinople?  (And we thought the Tridentine mass was the only one imposed by force).

Zonaras: this is the same private secretary of the Emperor Alexis I.  Do you have any info on his role in Alexis' role in welcoming the Crusades?'

Just read anything written on the matter by the supporters of Vatican I.  The problem is that the arguments you present can, and with more validity, be applied to the pope of Rome and his claims under Vatican I.
Logged

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2007, 02:55:13 PM »

I see that Rodopoulos quotes Zonaras in his "Ecclesiological Review of the Thirty-Fourth Apostolic Canon" and the implication seems to be that at the present time the Ecumenical Patriarchate is ailing in some way and acting aberrantly:

""Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member, who occupies the position of head, is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner."

Now if this is the case and the EP is indeed acting in a "disorderly and faulty manner" - whether in the Ukraine or Estonia or in its contacts with Rome - then we must be cautious in our own contacts with it and not allow the EP's aberrations to affect the entire body of the Church.

I believe you are misunderstanding the quote, in which there is some complexity in grammar (though it is perfectly gramatically correct), perhaps this minor change in punctuation would make it clearer:

'Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member (who occupies the position of head) is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner.'

(I separated the second nested dependent clause using parentheses)

Basically, His Excellency is saying that if the Head of the Church (i.e. the Oecumenical Patriarch) is not maintained or held in proper honour by the Body of the Curch (including the other Patriarchates), the Church functions in a disorderly and faulty manner; this is exactly what I was saying, the lack of obedience and loyality to Constantinople has caused the Church to become disfunctional and is threatening to tear it apart.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2007, 02:55:59 PM »

Not only does each Hypostasis of the Trinity have a relation to the other (Begetter, Begotten, Source, Procession, Father, Son etc), but for the good Bishop to assert that hermits are "not in relation" is strange, and in fact, bordering on unOrthodox. A hermit shows his/her relationship to the People of God who make up the Church every time they receive Communion. A hermit shows their relationship to the world every time they pray for the world. I think the good Bishop is confusing "constant contact" with "relationship".
I don't know, but I don't see the good Bishop asserting from his own opinion that hermits are "not in relation" to the world.  I think it possible that he may be merely restating what he believes Metropolitan Zizioulas's to be saying about hermits.
Logged
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 #53 on: November 23, 2007, 02:58:18 PM »

I disagree with the good Bishop on this point. The Church is, was and always will be the Icon of the Holy Trinity- ...

Well, theology of Metr. Zlizoius is another issue. Since we Orthodox never bothered make a deffinition of the Church, his opinion is valuable, but is just that - an opinion, with whom we may agree, or disagree.

But Ravenna statement, and his comments on walkout of Russians are shamefull.

Ecumenical Councils were not "gatherings of those bishops in communion either with Rome or with Constantinopolis" (paragraph 39). This is historical fallacy. Nicea (and I believe Ephesus 449) are just examples of that - the gatherings included those who were not in communion neither with Rome nor with Constantinopolis.

Not to mention falsely assigning the role of protos to Rome, since she was only the first in line according to the taxis. Protos was elected each and every time at the beggining of the Council, but Ravenna statement sounds like it was drafted by lausy schollars, whom never heard about the reference method.

One could argue that not only Metr. Zlizious is responsible for the statement, and that's true; yet, he is a co-chairman, "the first among equals" of Orthodox participants.

Here is an example of the impression created by such a statement, that is still binding no one among Orthodox. And, on such a statement RCC, as Cardinal Casper proclaimed, want to "build further" on that "agreement reached in Ravenna".

I need to recollect so called "Shambessy Agreement" (not that with non-Chalcedonians, the other one) back in 1990's, where two representatives of Serbian Orthodox Church signed a document by whom the entire diaspora of Serbian Church would be placed under the jurisdiction of Ecummenical Patriarchate. Once they faced castigue by their fellow bishops of Serbian Synod, they said they signed it: a) under the condition of subsequent approval of the Synod of Serbian Church; and b) because all other delegations signed, so they didn't want to differ and destroy the happyness of a moment of unity, while they knew their signatures were worthless without the approval of the Synod; since there was no approval, no damages were incurred so they were not so wrong to sign it under such a condition.

I bet I'll hear the similar explanation about Ravenna soon, since the very same two Serbian bishops that signed that Chambessy agreement (again, not that with Pre-Chalcedonians, which Serbian Church didn't sign, but another one, about the jurisdiction over diaspora, that never entered into force) signed the Ravenna Statement.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 02:59:52 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
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #54 on: November 23, 2007, 02:59:06 PM »

As I said on another thread regarding papal primacy (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13495.msg187040.html#msg187040), we really must beware of any patriarch's interpretation of Tradition (be he the Patriarch and Pope of Rome or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) that gives the patriarch himself prerogatives of supremacy and authority that are not recognized from below, because such understandings are all too easily seen for what they really are:  imperialist grabs for power.

Of course, Constantinople isn't inventng anything, it's simply objectively looking at the history of the Church, these perogatives claimed have traditionally been held by Constantinople since the Synod of Chalcedon. I would strongly recommend Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis' The Oecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church (Thessaloniki, 1976) as an excellent history that goes through the traditional role of Constantinople in the Church, analyzing and referencing numerous primary sources. I would recommend many of these primary sources as well, but they are mostly in Greek and much more difficult to come by.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #55 on: November 23, 2007, 03:00:23 PM »

I don't know, but I don't see the good Bishop asserting from his own opinion that hermits are "not in relation" to the world.  I think it possible that he may be merely restating what he believes Metropolitan Zizioulas's to be saying about hermits.

Well in my readings of His Eminence Met. John, I have found ideas about hermits and monasticism that relate much more to what George was saying; perhaps you have a reference from one of his works that suggests otherwise?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
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 #56 on: November 23, 2007, 03:03:17 PM »

Of course, Constantinople isn't inventng anything,...

Well, than it must be that the nick name greekischristian is inventing something.
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
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2007, 03:04:15 PM »

I don't have the time now, but a short one is:  If that novelty, not to say heresy, is really "quite common and quite popular within the Patriarchate of Constantinople", the outcome is quite predictible, I'm affraid.

I'll avoid choosing between my Russ and Greek brothers, since I can't say I love ones more than another, but Mrt. Zlizious doesn't speak on my behalf. And, of course, I've never encountered as shocking statements from an Orthodox as "greekischristian" stated. An average Serb faithful would tell you that the only thing you can do with your reasoning is to stick where the Sun never shines.

They can say what they want, but our history is clear.

Quote
Ravenna statement is shamefull, it embraced fallacies of historical facts and I'm looking forward to read the Orthodox response to it. For your info, no statement from any bishop of Serbian Orthodox Church about Ravenna has been heard, since Serbs have other problems at the moment, including the illness of H.H. Patriarch Pavle, but the disgusst and outrage among the faithfull is mounting.

Even when the Serbs disagree with the Oecumenical Throne they usually show more tact and much more respect than the Russians; they may very well disagree, or they may not, or they may decide to keep quiet on the matter, but I seriously doubt they will put forth a public show like was seen from the Russian delegation.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2007, 03:06:05 PM »

I disagree with the good Bishop on this point.

Excellent points, but a quick question, was the article in question written by a Bishop? I only saw it signed as 'The editorial staff of the Magazine "Italia Ortodossa"'.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2007, 03:06:43 PM »

I believe you are misunderstanding the quote, in which there is some complexity in grammar (though it is perfectly gramatically correct), perhaps this minor change in punctuation would make it clearer:

'Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member (who occupies the position of head) is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner.'

(I separated the second nested dependent clause using parentheses)

Basically, His Excellency is saying that if the Head of the Church (i.e. the Oecumenical Patriarch) is not maintained or held in proper honour by the Body of the Curch (including the other Patriarchates), the Church functions in a disorderly and faulty manner; this is exactly what I was saying, the lack of obedience and loyality to Constantinople has caused the Church to become disfunctional and is threatening to tear it apart.
But, on the flip side, this difficult-to-read statement (source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology) could also be read legitimately to mean that the EP's failure to act in a way in keeping with the honor due his position also brings disorder to the Church.  "... if the head does not maintain its activity in good health ..." = "if the head (the EP) does not act in a healthy manner" then the body (the Church) becomes sick and disordered.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2007, 03:08:36 PM »

And just to add:

I don't give a d*rn wjat Zlizious is saying, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. I'll stick with St. Vincent of Lerins.

His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...

Quote
At the moment I'm speculating the actions I can undertake to contribute to the efforts Serbian Orthodox Church never participates again in any commission co-chaired by Mrt. Zlizious. Not much I can do, of course, but a small grain of resistance won't hurt.

Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2007, 03:11:48 PM »

Of course, Constantinople isn't inventng anything, it's simply objectively looking at the history of the Church, these perogatives claimed have traditionally been held by Constantinople since the Synod of Chalcedon.
No, she's not inventing anything, but even an apparently objective look at Church history can be flawed and subjective.  That's why I customarily do not accept any prerogatives of primacy claimed by the primate himself.  What primacy all the Orthodox churches around the world grant to Constantinople, this I recognize and to this I willingly submit, but anything the EP claims beyond this I reject.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 03:25:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #62 on: November 23, 2007, 03:12:35 PM »

His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...
Let's not allow this discussion to digress into petty nationalisms. police
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2007, 03:17:08 PM »

Well in my readings of His Eminence Met. John, I have found ideas about hermits and monasticism that relate much more to what George was saying; perhaps you have a reference from one of his works that suggests otherwise?
Actually, I was speaking of the reaction to Metropolitan John's theological opinions in the "Italia Ortodossa" article Fr. Ambrose posted and ozgeorge's comments on a paragraph of the article.  So, in a way, you ended up just vindicating my statement.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 03:22:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
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 #64 on: November 23, 2007, 03:21:48 PM »

His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...
Perhaps that will surprise you, because it probably isn't in compliance with the belief you falsely presents as Orthodox Faith, but I'll go with whomever Orthodox Christian, regardless a Frenchmen, an Escimo, a Nigerian, a Gipsy, a Serb or a Greek, than with any heterodox opinion.

And Ravenna statement is at least the lausy scolarship under the auspicies of Metr. Zlizious.

I don't have time to comment on his theology now, it's not the topic of the thread.

Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.

Nobody is against the dialogue. But wait and see how many of us is about the pathetic lausy definitions of Ravenna statement. And you'll see how Russians "are getting isolated", so possibly Ecumenical Patriarchate will assign someone whom knows how to behave for future co-chairmanship. If H.H. Bartholomew holds the primacy of EP so dear, he should remember the last time you were so ecumenical MP got autocephalia. Now, continue down that path announced by Mrt. Zlizious, perhaps the Third Rome will get the primacy too.

And I'm tolerant, too. You are free to continue professing heterodoxy and open heresies, I'm too weak to help you. But just keep in mind that's not the Orthodox Faith.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 03:27:15 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
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: November 23, 2007, 03:24:13 PM »

Then why should we prefer Constantinople over Old Rome?  What's the reason?  None: all the Ecumenical Councils name Rome as the Head, not Constantinople.

Old Rome has the right of honour in liturgical precedence and as such maintains the right to be the first to sign any ecclesiastical documnet. New Rome is the Oecumenical Patriarch, the president of any General or Imperial Synod, she is the administrative head of the Church, whereas Old Rome is the liturgical head. I have no problem placing Rome first in the dyptics, allowing her to speak first in Synods after the address by the president (the Oecumenical Patriarch), allowing her to first sign agreements, allowing her to lead liturgies where she is present, etc. But on the other side of things, she should respect the role of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods. And both sees have the canonical right of an ultimate Sees of appeal, but Constantinople alone, as the Imperial See, has right to give her rulings with Imperial Authority making them binding both temporally and spiritually.

Quote
Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, unity at all costs, submission without question, then we have no need to sepearate ourselves from Rome, and should start commemorating Benedict XVI, and not Bartholomew.

One only commemorates their Bishop and the Patriarchates commemorate all the other Patriarchs, the argument is not over who to commemorate but in what order they are commemorated; and I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Rome should be denied her ancient honour of being listed first in the dyptics of the Church.

Quote
The fact that you suggest that the EP appoint a number of bishops to lock out the voice of the Russians, if the Russians have to be seen only as an appendage to Constantinople, shows that it is just an issue of power, not piety, theology or Faith.  Luke 22:24-7.

It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.

Quote
Leo VI the Wise: wasn't this the same emperor, that when the EP refused to set aside the canons and recognize his fourth marriage, secured recognition from the Pope of Rome? (Ah, Henry VIII eat your heart out).

He was a great Emperor and Lawgiver, respected in both Secular and Ecclesiastical circles; his decrees on everything from marriage to synodal order have formed the basis for Orthodox customs to this very day.

Quote
Balsamon: is this the same absentee Patriarch of Antioch, who, never setting foot in his patriarchate, received a delegation from Antioch, and, upon seeing their celebration of the Divine Liturgy accoring to the Apostolic rites of Antioch, issued a decree to suppress said rites, and ordered the immediate adoption of the recent rites of Constantinople?  (And we thought the Tridentine mass was the only one imposed by force).

Patriarchs of the conquered lands living in Constantinople were quite common at the time, I believe there was a span of over 200 years where the Patriarch of Antioch lived in Constantinople. Of course, the canons specifically protect Bishops that were incapable of going to their Sees because of the barbarian invasions. Balsamon was a great Patriarch and Canonists, his interpretations of the Canons of the Orthodox Church remain to this day the standard and traditional interpretations; to defy the interpretations of Balsamon is no less serious than defying the canons proper, for, indeed, in the view of our Canon Law the two are inseparable.

Quote
Zonaras: this is the same private secretary of the Emperor Alexis I.  Do you have any info on his role in Alexis' role in welcoming the Crusades?'

Another great canonist and lawyer. I am not sure what role Zonaras played in welcoming the Crusades, but after asking the west for help against the mohammedan scourge for centuries the military aid was long overdue, Europe had, at that point, lived in relative peace and been kept safe for centuries by the blood of the Roman Legions. That they betrayed us is unfortunate, but the inital goals were noble and right.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #66 on: November 23, 2007, 03:28:19 PM »

And I'm tolerant, too. You are free to continue professing heterodoxy and open heresies, I'm to weak to help you. But just keep in mind that's not the Orthodox Faith.

No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
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 #67 on: November 23, 2007, 03:30:39 PM »

Excellent points, but a quick question, was the article in question written by a Bishop? I only saw it signed as 'The editorial staff of the Magazine "Italia Ortodossa"'.

What difference would it make?
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,915


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #68 on: November 23, 2007, 03:30:57 PM »

No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
And I will take the teachings of the Faith of the whole Orthodox Church as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond the personal opinions of the Oecumenical Throne. Wink
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 03:35:06 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
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 #69 on: November 23, 2007, 03:32:05 PM »

No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
No offence, indeed!

You and me do profess different Faiths and are not brothers!

I'll stick with that Frenchman, St. Vincent of Lerins - the teaching of the Church, and you are free to stick with Nestorius and others.
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
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #70 on: November 23, 2007, 07:47:18 PM »

His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...

Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.

Please dont take this as a personal insult but from your bio you list Christian as a faith.  So, I need to ask this of you, and you of course can decline, but are you an Orthodox Christian?

No offense intended,

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #71 on: November 23, 2007, 07:57:54 PM »

But, on the flip side, this difficult-to-read statement (source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology) could also be read legitimately to mean that the EP's failure to act in a way in keeping with the honor due his position also brings disorder to the Church.  "... if the head does not maintain its activity in good health ..." = "if the head (the EP) does not act in a healthy manner" then the body (the Church) becomes sick and disordered.

Exactly the problem.  Greekichristian would have us believe that we must be lead by the nose to wherever the EP wants to lead, including it would appear heresy.  That's the ecclesiology of Vatican I.  We Orthodox were not at Vatican I.

It is quite sad to see the present state of Constantinople, on the one hand being ground down on by the Turk, on the other acting like an overbearing mother who refuses to acknowledge that her children have grown.  In Egypt we say, "When your son has grown, treat him as a brother."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #72 on: November 23, 2007, 08:00:24 PM »

His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...

....yes, as the Frenchman (actually Gallic Roman would be more correct) espoused Orthodoxy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #73 on: November 23, 2007, 08:33:18 PM »

Old Rome has the right of honour in liturgical precedence and as such maintains the right to be the first to sign any ecclesiastical documnet. New Rome is the Oecumenical Patriarch, the president of any General or Imperial Synod, she is the administrative head of the Church, whereas Old Rome is the liturgical head. I have no problem placing Rome first in the dyptics, allowing her to speak first in Synods after the address by the president (the Oecumenical Patriarch), allowing her to first sign agreements, allowing her to lead liturgies where she is present, etc. But on the other side of things, she should respect the role of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods. And both sees have the canonical right of an ultimate Sees of appeal, but Constantinople alone, as the Imperial See, has right to give her rulings with Imperial Authority making them binding both temporally and spiritually.

Sooo, that authority would be the President of Turkey now, no?

I've been to Constantinople several times (my baptismal cross was blessed at the Patriarchal cathadral).  The emperor has not been there for some time.

The revisionism running around the Phanar now, relegating the pope of Rome a primacy of honor as the Orthodox say while arrogating (I chose the word carefully) to herself a primacy as those on the other side of the schism of 1054 have ascribed to Rome, has no basis in history.  It is arising out of the vulnerability of the Patriarchate.

What canon gives the EP "the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods"? (Lumen Gentium couldn't have said it better).  The EP didn't exist to open the First Ecumenical Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was opened by St. Meletios of Antioch.  Pope Cyril of Alexandria led the Third Council (the apologist in Rome keep insisting he was acting as the legatee of Rome, but perhaps you want to say he was acting as legatee of the EP.  Oopps! That was Nestorius. Just a little problematic for your "power to dismiss synods.").

I think I've made my point.

Quote
One only commemorates their Bishop and the Patriarchates commemorate all the other Patriarchs, the argument is not over who to commemorate but in what order they are commemorated; and I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Rome should be denied her ancient honour of being listed first in the dyptics of the Church.

The point is Old Rome is not in the diptychs for a reason, and the EP (again!) can put himself in a similar position.

Quote
It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.

How would a overabudance of Russian bishops constitute a "sack?"

That City has been quite good in inflicting suffering, as the Churches in the Middle East and Balkans can attest.

Quote
He was a great Emperor and Lawgiver, respected in both Secular and Ecclesiastical circles; his decrees on everything from marriage to synodal order have formed the basis for Orthodox customs to this very day.

Sorry, I hail from a part of the Orthodox world that wasn't under his rule, and had deeper roots.

Evidently not all his decrees: a fourth marriage is still forbidden.

Quote
Patriarchs of the conquered lands living in Constantinople were quite common at the time, I believe there was a span of over 200 years where the Patriarch of Antioch lived in Constantinople. Of course, the canons specifically protect Bishops that were incapable of going to their Sees because of the barbarian invasions. Balsamon was a great Patriarch and Canonists, his interpretations of the Canons of the Orthodox Church remain to this day the standard and traditional interpretations; to defy the interpretations of Balsamon is no less serious than defying the canons proper, for, indeed, in the view of our Canon Law the two are inseparable.

Canons protect Bishops from what, their flock?

Sorry, I don't ascribe infallibility to any patriarch, be it Rome, Constantinople or Antioch (including my present patriarch Ignatios, who actually has been to his See, despite the barbarians.  I've been there and seen the conditions).

Balsamon's supression of the rites of Antioch were without warrant, and we can't complain of forced Latinizations if Balsamon is our model.

Quote
Another great canonist and lawyer. I am not sure what role Zonaras played in welcoming the Crusades, but after asking the west for help against the mohammedan scourge for centuries the military aid was long overdue, Europe had, at that point, lived in relative peace and been kept safe for centuries by the blood of the Roman Legions. That they betrayed us is unfortunate, but the inital goals were noble and right.

And perhaps the EP might consider this history with his present actions in mind.

No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.

Only when he speaks ex cathedra. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 08:36:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2007, 09:43:36 PM »

I believe you are misunderstanding the quote, in which there is some complexity in grammar (though it is perfectly gramatically correct), perhaps this minor change in punctuation would make it clearer:

'Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member (who occupies the position of head) is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner.'

(I separated the second nested dependent clause using parentheses)

Basically, His Excellency is saying that if the Head of the Church (i.e. the Oecumenical Patriarch) is not maintained or held in proper honour by the Body of the Curch (including the other Patriarchates), the Church functions in a disorderly and faulty manner; this is exactly what I was saying, the lack of obedience and loyality to Constantinople has caused the Church to become disfunctional and is threatening to tear it apart.
*
Yes, that is precisely its meaning and that is precisely the situation we see in the modern world.

The Church of the Ecumenicial Patriarchate, which exists in America, in Australia and in Western Europe, does not hold its Patriarch in honour.  I shall not debate whether their reasons are justified or not.

As a result of this disrespect from the Church of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Constantinople has, as Zonaras writes, become unable to function healthily and he is making decisions which damage not just his Church but also other Orthodox Churches.

So Zonaras is proved correct from the empirical evidence - the head of the Church and the body of the Church are mutually inter-dependent and if one is ailing the other becomes ailing.
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 #75 on: November 23, 2007, 10:12:16 PM »

It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.
Actually, there seems to be a popular prophesy in Greece that this is precisely what will happen and will be the means by which the City will be returned to the Romans.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2007, 10:30:00 PM »

I'm not going to fill out your poll, because you don't have a "No" option up there.  I won't answer "yes" because the dialogue has not been "derailed."  Only the MP thinks it has.  I'm not going to answer "unsure," because I am sure.  I'm not going to answer "it's beyond my competencies," because it most certainly is within them.  And I want to state my opinion, which is why I won't pick the last option.

No, the Metropolitan is not responsible for some supposed "derailing" of the talks; if the MP representative is unhappy, then he's the only one who took himself out of the talks.  If he hadn't left, then he would have been there to discuss the text he was referring to, and more clearly voice his objections.  So personally I think there is a lot of propaganda in his statement, which is really not helpful.

Cleveland, excellent post! Great explanation. I absolutely agree with every word you wrote!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #77 on: November 24, 2007, 02:28:31 AM »

Sooo, that authority would be the President of Turkey now, no?

The Sultan had a claim of sorts and had he converted to Christianity he would have had an indisputable right to the Imperial Office, but it would be a stretch for a president to claim Imperial Authority.

Quote
I've been to Constantinople several times (my baptismal cross was blessed at the Patriarchal cathadral).  The emperor has not been there for some time.

And thus the Patriarch acts in his stead, as he has since the fall of the City.

Quote
The revisionism running around the Phanar now, relegating the pope of Rome a primacy of honor as the Orthodox say while arrogating (I chose the word carefully) to herself a primacy as those on the other side of the schism of 1054 have ascribed to Rome, has no basis in history.  It is arising out of the vulnerability of the Patriarchate.

No basis? Despite the fact that for centuries several other Patriarchs were elected by and served on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, despite the fact that the Endimousa Synods of Constantinople have weilded the authority of Imperial Synods, despite the fact that the Authority of Constantinople as the ultimate See of Appeal is so well respected even today that the Russians still do not dare deny it, though they may fight rulings on technicalities?

Quote
What canon gives the EP "the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods"? (Lumen Gentium couldn't have said it better).  The EP didn't exist to open the First Ecumenical Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was opened by St. Meletios of Antioch.  Pope Cyril of Alexandria led the Third Council (the apologist in Rome keep insisting he was acting as the legatee of Rome, but perhaps you want to say he was acting as legatee of the EP.  Oopps! That was Nestorius. Just a little problematic for your "power to dismiss synods.").

I think I've made my point.

I don't think you have, the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was held by several Sees in the past, prior to Chalcedon, but since Chalcedon (with Constantinople's final victory over Alexandria) it has been the undisputed right of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Imperial legislation as well as 1500 years of custom establish this as the role of the Oecumenical Throne within the Christian Church.

Quote
The point is Old Rome is not in the diptychs for a reason, and the EP (again!) can put himself in a similar position.

Dyptics that exclude the Oecumenical Throne are utterly meaningless, they would be the dyptics of a schismatic church.

Quote
Sorry, I hail from a part of the Orthodox world that wasn't under his rule, and had deeper roots.

To quote Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople (1395), 'The Basileus is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the Emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him...'

Quote
Evidently not all his decrees: a fourth marriage is still forbidden.

Actually it was his decree that established the limit of three marriages, which was given after his fourth marriage; this is just one example the decrees of Leo the Wise that to this day have force amongst the Orthodox.

Quote
Canons protect Bishops from what, their flock?

Or from the barbarians.

Quote
Balsamon's supression of the rites of Antioch were without warrant, and we can't complain of forced Latinizations if Balsamon is our model.

He was the Patriarch of Antioch, it was perfectly within his rights to regulate and define the liturgical activities of his See.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 02:28:49 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2007, 02:31:59 PM »

The Sultan had a claim of sorts and had he converted to Christianity he would have had an indisputable right to the Imperial Office, but it would be a stretch for a president to claim Imperial Authority.

Why not?  The holders of the Imperial Office from Augustus to Numerian did so in, offiically, a republic: Res Publica [hence Republic] Romana.

Btw, the courts of Europe did accord the Sultan imperial authority.  The king of Poland explicitely, for example, refused to recognize the title of Czar that the Duke of Moscow had assumed on the basis that only the so called Holy Roman Emperor and the Sultan had the title.

And the sultan did claim to be Keisar-i Rum.  As for the need for his converting, wasn't the slogan "better the Turkish turban than the Latin mitre?"

Was the Latin emperor at Constantinople legitimate?

Btw, as you probably know, the last fall of the old empire wasn't at Constantinople but Trebizond, on August 15, 1461.  By one of those ironies of history, because the emperor (of the same line as the Komnene dynasty of Constantinople) tried to stave off the Turks with other Turks, he married his daughter off to the Ottoman's rivals the Ak Koyunlu, who in turn became the matriarch of the Safavids, the dynasty that turned Iran Shi'ite and ruled to 1722.  The Western travelogues play up this "Christian" connection to the dynasty.

Quote
And thus the Patriarch acts in his stead, as he has since the fall of the City.

And if the emperor was the head of the Church, you might have a point.  But we're not Anglicans.

Render unto Caesar....., isn't the problems of the pope of Old Rome assuming the imperial mantle at the source, in part, of the claims he makes that are the reasons why he is not in communion with us now?

Quote
No basis? Despite the fact that for centuries several other Patriarchs were elected by and served on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, despite the fact that the Endimousa Synods of Constantinople have weilded the authority of Imperial Synods, despite the fact that the Authority of Constantinople as the ultimate See of Appeal is so well respected even today that the Russians still do not dare deny it, though they may fight rulings on technicalities?

In your last sentence, are you refering to the present dispute on the renegade bishop in Britain?

Yes, for centuries after the Muslim sultan ordained the EP ethnarch of his Christian dhimmis, the Phanar did the Ottomans bidding in centralizing appointments to please the Sublime Porte rather than the flocks they were to shepherd. From Central Europe to the Middle East, all Orthodox know what Phanariot rule meant.

And before that, after the problems of Chalcedon and the rise of the caliphate, a great number of the patriarchs preferred to stay courtiers at the court of Constantinople rather than go out and shephard their flock.

You leave out the fact that the imperial authority (Roman, Latin and Ottoman) backed (and often determined) the decrees of the Endimousa Synods (btw the English is Resident Synod).  And you also leave out that other Sees had other such important synods, like the one that Patrirach Dositheus held in Jerusalem, to denounce the Calvinism of the confession of the EP Cyril, which synod's authority that was recognized WITHOUT any imperial backing.  It did have wide support: bishops as far as Russia attended and signed its decrees.

As for well respected court of appeal, one need look at the history of the autocephalacy of the various Churches (not only the OCA) to see how well the recent EP have managed that, and the role of the EP in holding back the independence of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem (for reasons I've yet to fathom, Alexandria escaped these problems).

Quote
I don't think you have, the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was held by several Sees in the past, prior to Chalcedon, but since Chalcedon (with Constantinople's final victory over Alexandria) it has been the undisputed right of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Imperial legislation as well as 1500 years of custom establish this as the role of the Oecumenical Throne within the Christian Church.

The title Ecumenical Patriarch was held by no Sees in the past and was not awarded to Constantinople at Chalcedon.

The title came about over a century after Chalcedon, when the Imperial chancelary decided that ecumenical was the synomyn for imperial, and everything associated with the emperor had to have it, including the ecumenical barber.

Pope St. Gregory denounced it as an innovation, which it was.  While Rome was still with us, she refused to recognize the title.

The Church of Christ is not bound by imperial legislation, no matter the empire.

Constantinople's final vicotry over Alexandria?  Mark 9:33-4.  What game do you think we are playing?  Btw, the archbishop of Alexandria is still POPE (the original) and Patriarch of Alexandria.

Quote
Dyptics that exclude the Oecumenical Throne are utterly meaningless, they would be the dyptics of a schismatic church.

Your fondness for Florence is showing.  Would we commemarate a heretical EP?  Or are you now claiming infallibility for New Rome?  Old Rome beat you to it, and has a better, more logical, less convoluted record to back their claims (which are nonetheless, also false).

The unity of the Orthodox Church does not subsist in the EP.

Quote
To quote Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople (1395), 'The Basileus is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the Emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him...'

The reference to anointing is interesting: if I remember correctly, its a borrowing from the Latin stay in the East (the anointing of kings had developed there on OT models.  It wasn't at New Rome).

I'm afraid I don't know much about EP Anthony. Isn't he the same one who, when the Duke of Moscow said that there was now no emperor, replied "there can be no Church without the emperor"?  There's no emperor, not least since the March 15, 1917. Yet the Church remains.

I'm venturing to guess that EP Anthony didn't get out much, to test how true his words "everywhere" were.

If the Latins were so respectful, they wouldn't have sacked the capital, nor would the emperor had to go around groveling (the reason perhaps for the Duke's comment) for aid at the time EP Anthony wrote these words.  At the time, the capital was in the midst of a prolonged seige.

Quote
Actually it was his decree that established the limit of three marriages, which was given after his fourth marriage; this is just one example the decrees of Leo the Wise that to this day have force amongst the Orthodox.

So do as I say, not as I do?

The fact that the EP refused to recognize his fourth marriage belies your claim that Leo initiated the limitation.  It is found in the Fathers long before, one (St. Basil?) stating that a third marriage makes one resemble a pig.

Quote
Or from the barbarians.

Away in the safety behind the walls of Constantinople these absentee patriarchs didn't need canons to protect them from the "barbarians."

Quote
He was the Patriarch of Antioch, it was perfectly within his rights to regulate and define the liturgical activities of his See.

So the EP Michael Celarios was quite wrong in denouncing Pope Leo IX abolitioning the DL of Ss John and Basil in South Italy, forcing the Faithful there to recite the filioque and forcing them to use unleavened bread?  My, I'm going to have to rethink 1054 all over.  All this time I thought we Orthodox were in the right. Tongue


"Patriarch" Balsamon might have more credibility if he acted as a patriarch, I mean, actually going to his See, rather than acting as an appendage to the EP, as he did.
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2007, 09:41:11 AM »

I haven't read the thread, but the answer to the question is no.  The dialog was derailed because Constantinople and Moscow are locked in a feud which has basically paralyzed the Orthodox Church's ability to do anything in a unified fashion as a whole.
Logged
Sophia1925
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: True Orthodox Church
Posts: 15


« Reply #80 on: February 05, 2008, 10:44:36 PM »

H
I belive that MP and our nation will always be on the side of Christ's Holy Orthodox Church. I'm really upset that the dialogue with Rome attracts Patriarch Bartholomew more than with Moscow. Together we stand, divided we fall.


MP and "our nation" always on the side of Christ's Holy Church...have you forgotten something like 80 years when your nation was behind global anti-Christianity and destorying Orthodox nations in "Great Patriotic War"?

MP was founded on treachery of Metropolitan Sergius and many Saints of Christ's Holy Orthodox Church died rather than have anything to do with it, many Saints would died rather than have the Passport of your nation (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

« Last Edit: February 05, 2008, 10:47:41 PM by Sophia1925 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #81 on: February 05, 2008, 10:57:14 PM »


MP
*

Sophia,

I see you belong to the True Orthodox Church.  Do you have a street address for that?
Logged
Sophia1925
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: True Orthodox Church
Posts: 15


« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2008, 04:54:42 PM »

*

Sophia,

I see you belong to the True Orthodox Church.  Do you have a street address for that?

Why are you interested in joining?

Sophia.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2008, 06:53:06 PM »

MP was founded on treachery of Metropolitan Sergius and many Saints of Christ's Holy Orthodox Church died rather than have anything to do with it, many Saints would died rather than have the Passport of your nation (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

That depends on your point of view.  But one can see from the self-righteous nature of your post and your screen name that you don't appear to be interested in looking too closely at nuances or different sides of issues.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #84 on: February 07, 2008, 03:16:37 PM »

That depends on your point of view.  But one can see from the self-righteous nature of your post and your screen name that you don't appear to be interested in looking too closely at nuances or different sides of issues.

Sophia's post is not self righteous(I found the post that she was replying to be so) it is however historically inaccurate. The Moscow Patriarchate was not founded by "the treachery of Met Sergius" but was formed by Joseph Stalin out of the Sergianist schism and the renovationist one as a propaganda tool to aid his blood stained imposition of militant atheism from Berlin to Peking (aka the Great Patriotic War). I notice how your ad homien aganist Sophia has gone unnoticed. Sophia means Wisdom in Greek- what is so objectionable about that?

The point of view of the Church it out laid below. The Russian Church in 1927 was given a straight enough choice between Christ and Satan. Most choose Christ to their eternal joy and were killed outright or imprisoned in gulags where they were worked to death. That the "Moscow Patriarchate" seems the de facto Russian Orthodox Church by means of its worldly power signifies nothing from the vantage point of Eternity.

The nuances of numbers or recognition by the powers of this world (which is under the authority of satan) mean absolutely nothing. The nuances of Jesuitical moral laxity mean even less if that were possible (for Sergianism is not only the sin of Apostasy but the sin of justifying the sin of Apostasy which makes it so much more grave). The Moscow Patriarchate is NOT and never has been the Russian Orthodox Church and given the amount of anguish and pain the HOLY New Martyrs endured to claim it is and as did the  post that Sophia was replying to amounts to blasemphy. It is also to spit on the memory of all those Serbs, Romanians, Bulgarians and yes even Poles and Germans who were subjected to the red terror in World War II.

"The world will rejoice but you call to be cast into sorrow but your sorrow shall be turned into joy which no man will be able to take from you".

The Lord of All.

Theophan.

"The defenders of Sergius say that the canons allow one to separate
> from a bishop only for a heresy which has been condemned by a
> council.
> Against this one may reply that the deeds of Metropolitan Sergius
> may
> be sufficiently placed in this category as well, if one has in view
> such an open violation by him of the freedom and dignity of the
> Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic."
>
> - St. Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd (d. 1938),
> Letter to an Archimandrite of Petrograd, 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "If you are helpless to defend the Church, step aside; clear the
> space
> for someone stronger than you."
>
> - St. Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsk (d. 1936)
> (Locum Tenens of the Patriarchate)
> Letter to Metropolitan Sergei, 1930
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "... You are nothing other than a continuation of the so-called
> 'Renovationist' (Living Church) movement, only in a more refined
> and
> very dangerous form ...
>
> "All this imperatively compels us to boldly raise our voice and
> cease
> our now already criminal silence over Your mistakes and incorrect
> actions and, with the blessing of Dimitry, Bishop of Gdov, to
> disassociate ourselves from You and those who surround You. Leaving
> You, we do not depart from the lawful Locum Tenens, Metropolitan
> Peter, and we shall give ourselves over to the judgement of a
> future
> council."
>
> - Letter of the Clergy and Laity of Serpukhov to Metropolitan
> Sergei, 1927
> Possibly written by St. Maxim, Bishop of Serpukhov (d. 1931)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "As for me, acknowledging my responsibility before God for the
> flock
> entrusted to me, I have declared on January 10/23 of this year to
> Bishop Sophronius, who has been assigned to the See of Great Ustiug
> by
> [Sergius'] Synod, that my flock and the clergy of Nikolsk -- except
> for the cathedral clergy, who have been rejected by the people --
> cannot accept him because we have separated from Sergius and his
> Synod. And on the other hand I have informed Metropolitan Joseph
> that
> I canonically join to him the clergy and laity of the Diocese of
> Great
> Ustiug, in accordance with the blessing of Vladika Irinarch, whose
> lawful Substitute I am at the present time for the whole Diocese of
> Great Ustiug. ...
>
> "... I propose that my epistle be read and considered at assemblies
> of
> the faithful, so that all might know the way the matter stands and
> freely enter into unity with me, remaining faithful to the Locum
> Tenens of the Patriarchal See, Metropolitan Peter, and to the
> entire
> Orthodox Russian Church; concerning which I request you to send me
> a
> written statement.
>
> Only the clergy of the Cathedral of the Lord's Meeting in Nikolsk
> ...
> are in a state of excommunication from me until they shall show
> sincere repentance in the form established for Renovationists, or
> until a complete council of bishops shall judge the case of
> Metropolitan Sergius and those who are with him (10th Canon of the
> Holy Apostles)."
>
> I place before you these hirelings, who see the wolf approach and
> flee; do not follow them, my brethren and children ..."
>
> - St. Hierotheus, Bishop of Nikolsk (d. 1928)
> Letter to the clergy and laity of the Diocese of Great Ustiug, 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "After the historic Petrograd Delegation Metropolitan Joseph, then
> already banished, raised Bp. Dimitry to the rank of Archbishop and
> temporary head of the Petrograd Diocese. Metropolitan Sergius
> thereupon placed Archbishop Dimitry under interdict ...
>
> "Archbishop Dimitry, fearlessly following in the footsteps of
> Metropolitan Joseph, refused to accept this or any other decrees
> coming from Metropolitan Sergius, recognizing that by his
> 'adaptation
> to atheism' he had placed himself in schism from the Russian
> Church."
>
> - I.M. Andreyev on St. Dmitri, Archbishop of Gdov (d. 1938)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "... I accept you into communion in prayer with myself and under my
> archpastoral leadership .. until such time as a complete Local
> Council
> of the Russian Church, at which there will be represented the
> entire
> active episcopate -- i.e., the present exiles-confessors -- shall
> justify by its conciliar authority our way of acting, or until such
> time as Metropolitan Sergius will come to himself and repent of his
> sins not only against the canonical order of the Church, but also
> dogmatically against her person ... "
>
> - St. Dmitri, Archbishop of Gdov (d. 1938)
> Letter to the priests of the Petrograd Diocese, 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "But if the temporary substitute of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens
> will
> stubbornly continue in his scheme, and will not free his post, we
> will
> depart from him as a whole Church, for the episcopate has the right
> and the foundation to deprive him of the authorty in which it
> clothed
> him for building up and not destroying (II Co. 10:Cool the life of
> the
> Church. ...
>
> "But if Metropolitan Sergius disobeys the voice of the Church and
> will
> stubbornly continue in his policy and pretend to the authority of
> the
> chief hierarch, then he of course will turn out to be a church
> rebel
> and schismatic."
>
> - St. Pachomius, Archbishop of Chernigov (d. 1937)
> and St. Averky, Archbishop of Zhitomir (d. 1938?)
> Epistle of 1927
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "We, the bishops of the Yaroslav church region, acknowledging the
> responsibility which lies on us before God for those things which
> have
> been entrusted to our pastoral guidance -- the purity of the Holy
> Orthodox Faith, and the freedom for the ordering of the inward
> church-religious life which Christ has given us as a testament --
> in
> order to calm the disturbed conscience of the faithful, having no
> other way out of the fatal situation which has been created for the
> Church, from this time onwards separate from you and refuse to
> acknowledge for you and your Synod the right to the higher
> administration of the Church."
>
> - St. Agafangel, Metropolitan of Yaroslav (d. 1928)
> St. Seraphim, Archbishop of Uglich (Vicar of the Yaroslav Diocese,
> former Substitute of the Locum Tenens) (d. ca. 1935)
> St. Barlaam, Archbishop of Perm (temporarily governing the Lyubinsk
> Vicariate) (d. 1942)
> St. Eugene, Bishop of Rostov (Vicar of the Yaroslav Diocese) (d.
> 1937)
> Letter to Metropolitan Sergei, 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Bishop Philip (Gumilevsky) [was] shot to death in the Krasnoiarsk
> prison in 1934 for refusing to accept the authority of Metropolitan
> Serge."
>
> - Archpriest Michael Polsky
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Let the whole visible world perish; let there be more important in
> our eyes the certain perdition of the soul to which he will be
> subjected who presents such outward pretexts for sin.
>
> "But if the hardness of your heart has gone far, and there remains
> no
> hope for repentance, even for this outcome we have a text to
> enlighten
> us: Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith
> the
> Lord, and touch not their uncleanness; and I will receive you, and
> will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters,
> saith the Lord Almighty."
>
> - St. Victor, Bishop of Glazov (d. 1934),
> Letter to Metropolitan Sergei, 1927
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "With what joy I gave over to you my own rights as Substitute of
> the
> Locum Tenens, believing that your wisdom and experience would
> cooperate with you in the governance of the Church.
>
> "But what happened? Can this fatal act really not be corrected?
> Will
> you really not find the courage to acknowledge your error, your
> fatal
> mistake, the issuance by you of the Declaration of July 16/29,
> 1927?"
>
> - St. Seraphim, Archbishop of Uglich (d. ca. 1935)
> Letter to Metropolitan Sergei, 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Concerning the modernized church or concerning Sergian
> 'Orthodoxy',
> I, a sinner, believe that, as regards such church activists, we
> must
> call them not only heretics and schismatics, but as those who have
> apostasised from God. After all, Metropolitan Sergius brings into
> the
> church service a heresy unheard of in the history of the Church,
> the
> heresy of modernized apostasye from God, - of which the natural
> consequence has been confusion and schism in the Church. Can one,
> after this, affirm that the declaration and activity of
> Metropolitan
> Sergius concerns only the external life of the Church, and do not
> touch in any way the essence of the Church's Orthodoxy? In no way
> can
> this be said. Metropolitan Sergius, by his self-wise and
> evil-worshipping declaration and the anti-Church work which
> followed
> it, has created a new renovationist schism or Sergian renovation,
> which while preserving for the 'little ones' a fiction of Orthodoxy
> and canonicity is even more criminal than the first two
> renovationisms
> of 1922 and 1925. And so Metropolitan Sergius has trampled on not
> only
> the external, but the very inner essence of the Orthodoxy of the
> Church, since his 'hosanna' to Christ and Antichrist, which is now
> being performed in Christian churches, touches the very essence of
> Christian Faith and presents by itself clear apostasy, falling away
> from the Faith, and departure from God."
>
> - St. Paul, Bishop of Starobela
> Epistle of 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "By his actions against the spirit of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan
> Sergius
> has torn himself away from unity with the Holy, Catholic and
> Apostolic
> Church, and has forfeited the right of presidency in the Russian
> Church."
>
> - St. Alexei, Bishop of Kozlov (administering the Diocese of
> Voronezh)
> (d. 1936)
> Epistle of 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> ". . . it is essential for an Orthodox Bishop or priest to refrain
> from communion with Sergianists in prayer."
>
> - St. Cyril, Metropolitan of Kazan (d. 1937?)
> Epistle of 1934
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "The chief priest of Soviet Russia, the head of the Moscow Orthodox
> Church, Bishop Andrew referred to as a betrayer of Christ."
>
> - Testimony of a fellow prisoner regarding St. Andrew, Bishop of
> Ufa
> (d. 1937)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "All followers of the lying Metropolitan Sergei, are themselves
> filled
> with lies and evil, and have fallen away from the truth of Christ
> they
> have fallen away from Christ's Church. The Holy Catholic and
> Apostolic
> Church-is somewhere, in some other place, but not with Metropolitan
> Sergei, not with 'his synod.' ...The holy Church will remember with
> horror the sins of Sergei and his fellow activists, having placed
> his
> name next to the names of ecumenical pseudo-Patriarchs Nestorius,
> Dioscorus, and other terrible traitors to Orthodoxy."
>
> - St. Andrew, Bishop of Ufa (d. 1937)
> quoted in Zelenogorsky, Life and Work of Archbishop Andrew
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Concerning the modernized church or concerning Sergian
> 'Orthodoxy,'
> I, a sinner, believe that, as regards such church activists, we
> must
> call them not only heretics and schismatics, but as those who have
> departed from God. Metropolitan Sergei brings into the Church
> service,
> a heresy unheard of in the history of the Church, the heresy of
> modernized departure from God, -of which the natural consequence
> became confusion and division in the Church. Can one, after this,
> affirm that the declaration and the activity of Metropolitan Sergei
> concerns only the external life of the Church, and do not touch in
> any
> way the essence of the Church's Orthodoxy? In no way can this be
> said.
> Metropolitan Sergei, by his self-wise and evil-worshipping
> declaration
> and the anti-Church work which followed it, has created a new
> modernized schism or Sergian modernism, which while preserving for
> the
> 'little ones' a fiction of Orthodoxy and canonicity is even more
> criminal than the first two modernizations of 1922 and 1925. And so
> Metropolitan Sergei has put under his feet not only the external,
> but
> also the very inner essence of the Orthodoxy of the Church. Since
> his
> 'hosanna' to Christ and Antichrist, which is now being performed in
> Christian churches, touches the very essence of Christian Faith and
> presents by itself clear apostasy, the falling away from the Faith,
> and the departure from God."
>
> - Bishop Paul (Kratirov)
> quoted in Ivanov, The New Martyr of the Russian Church Hierarch
> Paul
> (Kratirov)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "If looking from afar I still supposed that there were some
> circumstances justifying his behavior, I have completely lost this
> belief."
>
> - St. Damascene, Bishop of Glukhov (d. ca. 1935)
> After meeting with Metropolitan Sergei in 1928
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "And we must not only teach others, but ourselves also fulfill,
> following the examples of the Moscow saints, whom we have
> commemorated
> today. They stand before us as Orthodox Zealots, and we must follow
> their example, turning aside completely from the dishonesty of
> those
> who have now occupied their throne. Oh if they could but arise;
> they
> not only would not recognize any of their successions, but rather
> would have turned against them with severe condemnation."
>
> - Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) (d. 1965)
> Address to the Sobor of Bishops, 1959
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Those hierarchs who have compromised the freedom of the Church by
> allowing themselves to be subservient to the State have committed
> in
> the words of Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), one of the first Russian
> confessor bishops to speak out against Sergianism, 'a sin that is
> not
> less than any heresy or schism, but is rather incomparably greater,
> for it plunges a man immediately into the abyss of destruction,
> according to the Unlying Word: "Whosoever shall deny Me before men,
> him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven'
> (Matt.10:33)."'"
>
> - Sister Maria (Stephanopoulos)
> quoting from Andreev, Russia's Catacomb Saints
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Bishop Hilarion, formerly of Smolensk, was a most irreconcilable
> enemy of the declaration of Metropolitan Sergei of 1927; he denied
> the
> sacraments when performed by Sergites, and for a second time
> baptized
> infants and married those already married in a 'Soviet Church.'"
>
> - Protopresbyter Michael Polsky, New Martyrs of Russia
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "We, the free bishops of the Russian Church, do not want a truce
> with
> Satan, although you are trying to obscure the question by calling
> our
> hostile relationships only a policy ...
>
> "Here, we offer you the salutary oil of faith and loyalty in the
> Holy
> Church. Do not refuse it, but reunite with it as in 1922 ..."
>
> - Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) (d. 1936)
> Letter to Metropolitan Sergei, 1933
> (Alluding to Sergei's return to the Church from the Renovationist
> schism)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "It is noteworthy that several hierarchs and their flocks, for the
> most part Russians, have already fallen away from the Ecumenical
> unity, and to the question: 'What dost thou believe?' reply with
> references to self-proclaimed heads of all sorts of schisms in
> Moscow,
> America and Western Europe. It is clear that they have ceased to
> believe in the unity of the Church ...
>
> "Those who have cut themselves off from her deprive themselves of
> the
> hope of salvation, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council
> teach concerning this, having recognized the renegades as being
> totally devoid of grace ...
>
> "Unfortunately, some Orthodox laymen, even, alas, many priests (and
> hierarchs) have subjected themselves to this state of
> gracelessness,
> although still retaining the outward appearance of the church
> services
> and the apparent performance of the Mysteries."
>
> - Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) (d. 1936)
> Paschal Encyclical, 1934
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "The mystical desert-like catacomb Church has anathematized the
> Sergians and all that are with them."
>
> - St. Maxim, Bishop of Serpukhov (d. 1931)
> quoted in Polsky, New Martyrs of Russia
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Since the Moscow Patriarchate initially was directed by a man like
> Patriarch Sergius with such undoubted intelligence, but,
> simultaneously, with a flexible conscience, it rejected the crude
> violations of Orthodoxy which could be recognized by the simple
> faithful. ... But Patriarch Sergius also, perhaps unwillingly in
> the
> beginning, put the Church at the disposal of apostasy."
>
> - Protopresbyter George Grabbe (later Bishop Gregory) (d. 1995)
> "The Dogma of the Church in the Modern World"
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? ...
>
> "Because his activity took place outside of the true Church ...
>
> What then is the 'Soviet church'? Archimandrite Constantine has
> often
> and insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the
> God-hating regime has done in Russia is the creation of the 'Soviet
> church,' which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true
> Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the
> catacombs
> or into the concentration camps.
>
> "This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness
> Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the
> Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not
> been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can only
> be
> lifted by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor ...
>
> "When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration,
> then
> the faithful children of the Church immediately separated
> themselves
> from the Soviet church, and thus the Catacomb Church was formed.
> And
> she, in her turn, has anathematized the official church for its
> betrayal of Christ."
>
> - Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) (d. 1985)
> Letter Concerning Father Dmitri Dudko, 1980
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "But you know that the new church is a lawless church."
>
> - St. Arseny, Metropolitan of Novgorod (d. 1936)
> Refusing to join the Sergianist schism.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Then the True Church went into the catacombs, into a position of
> illegal existence. From that time to this day the Soviet Moscow
> Patriarchate is liable to judgment, and until that future true
> council
> there can be no kind of contact, not even in everyday matters, as
> Metropolitan Anatasy, reposed in God, commanded us in his last will
> and testament."
>
> - Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Vitaly (Ustinov) (b. 1910)
> On Father Dmitri Dudko, 1981
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "This being the case, which of us is really the schismatic?
>
> "Of course it is not those in the spirit of traditional Orthodoxy,
> but
> those who have apostasized from the true faith of Christ and
> rejected
> the genuine spirit of Christian piety; even though all the
> contemporary patriarchs, who have altered our age-old, patristic
> Orthodoxy, may be on the latter's side ..."
>
> - Archbishop Averky (Taushev) (d. 1976)
> "Are the Terms 'Christian' and 'Orthodox' Accurate in Our Times?"
> (1975)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "In an edict of Metropolitan Sergei, concerning Bishops Dimitry
> Gdov
> and Sergei Korporsky, it is written that Bp. Dimitry had called
> 'those
> churches which commemorated Metropolitan Sergei as "innovative"'
> and
> those Orthodox priests as without grace; and moreover, that one of
> such churches, he publicly called 'a temple of satan.'"
>
> - Monastery Press
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "According to many canonical rules, all of the so-called bishops,
> archbishops and metropolitans of the Moscow Patriarchate, being KGB
> agents, are apostates from Christ. The 62nd Apostolic Canon
> deprives
> them of these titles, and if they repent, it calls for them to be
> accepted as laymen and not to be ordained. Similar orders are found
> in
> numerous (24) canonical rules. From this, we see that the Divine
> Canons do not admit the Divine Gifts to apostates - KGB agents. "
>
> - Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles
> "Last Will and Testament" (1995)
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "Archbishop Nikodim was approached by one of the faithful who said
> to
> him ' But Vladika, these poor people in Russia have no other Church
> to
> go to but the Patriarchal ones!' the bishop replied to her 'Better
> no
> Church than a Soviet church!'"
>
> - from a conversation with a seminarian now a Synodal Priest
> (Monastery Press)
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #85 on: February 07, 2008, 03:43:41 PM »

I guess we can be like ECafe but instead of a "World Orthodox" forum we have a "Walled-off Orthodox" one... Roll Eyes
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #86 on: February 09, 2008, 12:18:37 AM »

I notice how your ad homien aganist Sophia has gone unnoticed. Sophia means Wisdom in Greek- what is so objectionable about that?

You think that's an ad hominem?  lol!!!   laugh  Nothing's wrong with "Sophia".   Tell me, what does the date 1925 mean to you?  Roll Eyes

Quote
The point of view of the Church it out laid below.

Yeah.  Right.  You know, I don't think I want to get into this discussion with you.  You appear to be cut from the same cloth.  It must be so nice to live in a world where everything is so clearly black and white.   Never mind the fact that you've simply said, although not in so many words, that all these millions of poor souls who didn't join ROCOR or some other group were just completely cut off from any sacramental life.   Never mind the fact that political allegiance has never been defined as a way of identifying one's Orthodoxy, until the 1920's, and that only by a minority, not the "majority" that you claim.  Never mind the fact that the czarist regime was not a great defender of the Russian people, but almost as great an oppressor of her as the bolsheviks.  So don't bother starting a long monologue here in which you just post the same opinion over and over again.  I can see ROCOR's point of view to some degree, but yeah, I also see that there's another side to the story.  It's obvious to me that you're not interested in discussing that, so just never mind.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #87 on: February 09, 2008, 06:53:35 AM »

You think that's an ad hominem?  lol!!!   laugh  Nothing's wrong with "Sophia".   Tell me, what does the date 1925 mean to you?  Roll Eyes

The date 1925 means to me the year when the apostate Archbishop of Athens and the revolutionary goverment in Greece sent out their police armed with cudgels and guns to attack those celebrating the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross according to the Calendar of the Orthodox Church and just as they were about to fall upon the faithful the Byzantine Cross of our Lord and Saviour appeared shining in the sky and brought them to repentance. Something similar also happened at the beginning of the Arian crisis.

What does it mean to you?

Theophan.
Logged
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #88 on: February 09, 2008, 07:04:02 AM »

Y Never mind the fact that political allegiance has never been defined as a way of identifying one's Orthodoxy, until the 1920's, and that only by a minority, not the "majority" that you claim. 

There you are just plain wrong.

In God's eyes there is no better authority than the authority of an Orthodox Tsar'.

-- Ven. Seraphim of Sarov
   
The Tsar' [on earth] is the living eikon of the Tsar' of Heaven.

-- Ven. Maxim the Greek

God granted unto Christians two supreme gifts: the Priesthood and the Monarchy, by means of which earthly affairs are governed like unto Heavenly ones.

-- Ven. Theodore the Studite
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20031122171229/romanitas.ru/eng/AUTOC.htm explains the DOGMATIC significance of Orthodox monarchy.

Also in 1918 the Russian Orthodox Church ANATHEMIZED all Soviet Power and all those who co-operated with it.

“The Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia in his epistle to the beloved in the Lord archpastors, pastors and all faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ has drawn the spiritual sword against the outcasts of the human race – the Bolsheviks, and anathematised them. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church adjures all her faithful children not to enter into any communion with these outcasts. For their satanic deeds they are cursed in this life and in the life to come. Orthodox! His Holiness the Patriarch has been given the right to bind and to loose according to the word of the Saviour… Do not destroy your souls, cease communion with the servants of Satan – the Bolsheviks. Parents, if your children are Bolsheviks, demand authoritatively that they renounce their errors, that they bring forth repentance for their eternal sin, and if they do not obey you, renounce them. Wives, if your husbands are Bolsheviks and stubbornly continue to serve Satan, leave your husbands, save yourselves and your children from the soul-destroying infection. An Orthodox Christian cannot have communion with the servants of the devil… Repent, and with burning prayer call for help from the Lord of Hosts and thrust away from yourselves ‘the hand of strangers’ – the age-old enemies of the Christian faith, who have declared themselves in self-appointed fashion ‘the people’s power’… If you do not obey the Church, you will not be her sons, but participants in the cruel and satanic deeds wrought by the open and secret enemies of Christian truth… Dare! Do not delay! Do not destroy your soul and hand it over to the devil and his stooges.”


Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,184


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #89 on: February 09, 2008, 12:41:15 PM »

There you are just plain wrong.

As I said, I will not discuss this further with you.  Go ahead and feel good about being "right".  You are also of course welcome to harbour erroneous views about the nature of monarchy and government.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2008, 12:42:58 PM »

As I said, I will not discuss this further with you.  Go ahead and feel good about being "right".  You are also of course welcome to harbour erroneous views about the nature of monarchy and government.

Ouote one Saint in favour of democracy or Marxism and it will be enough.
Logged
Tags: ecumenism Troll roman catholic EP Bashing 
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.355 seconds with 120 queries.