Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing the dialogue with RCC?

[Irish Hermit]

, 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

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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.
 

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".
 

[ialmisry]

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.

[GiC]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[GiC]

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.

[GiC]

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?

[orthodoxlurker]

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

Well, than it must be that the nick name greekischristian is inventing something.

[GiC]

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.

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.

[GiC]

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"'.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[GiC]

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...

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[GiC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[GiC]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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?

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[orthodoxlurker]

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.

[JoeS]

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,

[ialmisry]

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."

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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.

[Starlight]

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!

[GiC]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...'

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.

Canons protect Bishops from what, their flock?

Or from the barbarians.

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.


"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.

[AMM]

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.

[Sophia1925]

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).

[Irish Hermit]

MP

*

Sophia,

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

[Sophia1925]

*

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.

[Pravoslavbob]

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.

[GOCTheophan]

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: 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)

[Αριστοκλής]

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

[Pravoslavbob]

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!!!     Nothing's wrong with "Sophia".   Tell me, what does the date 1925 mean to you? 

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.

[GOCTheophan]

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

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.

[GOCTheophan]

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.”

[Pravoslavbob]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing the dialogue with RCC?