Author Topic: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?  (Read 2548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« on: May 27, 2008, 02:45:11 PM »
Worse, we have a captive patriarch.  Much of his antics of late mirror those of the pope of Rome during similar (though less dire) circumstances during the Dark Ages, during which what we find so objectionable about the Vatican developed

Really, you think so?  Start a thread on this, and let's see you develop your line of thinking on this.

Here we go.
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

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,259
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2008, 02:47:28 PM »
Worse, we have a captive patriarch.  Much of his antics of late mirror those of the pope of Rome during similar (though less dire) circumstances during the Dark Ages, during which what we find so objectionable about the Vatican developed

Here we go. 

Well, I'm glad you followed part of my advice (i.e. "Start a thread on this")... how about the other part (i.e. "let's see you develop your line of thinking on this")?
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,031
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2008, 02:57:11 PM »
Interesting topic. I think the EP is displaying some similar actions to the Vatican of 1870 - not the Dark Ages- when the RC monarchs were slicing and dicing his see and papal estates (in forming Italy) and relegating the pope to a reduced role in general.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2008, 04:06:10 PM »
Interesting topic. I think the EP is displaying some similar actions to the Vatican of 1870 - not the Dark Ages- when the RC monarchs were slicing and dicing his see and papal estates (in forming Italy) and relegating the pope to a reduced role in general.

Actually, this is how I think he resembles the pope of Rome: when Rome was not the center of the universe anymore, and Rome had to get attention, and it do so by asserting that IT was the center of the universe.

The worse part for the EP is that his masters do not claim any loyalty to any church.  At least Rome was dealing with Arians and Catholics.

Constantinople's derived its primacy, more than Rome did, from her capacity as capital.  She has not served as the capital of anything for nearly a century, and not the capital of anything Christian for over 500 years. Keeping up pretenses, like the pope during the Dark Ages, is not working.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 04:09:25 PM by ialmisry »
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

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,259
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2008, 04:46:07 PM »
Actually, this is how I think he resembles the pope of Rome: when Rome was not the center of the universe anymore, and Rome had to get attention, and it do so by asserting that IT was the center of the universe.

I don't know if I'd agree that the Patriarchate is striving for attention.  Most (if not all) the actual disputes (i.e. Estonia and the like) can be traced back to its position as the hearer of appeals, which are things that come to the EP, not vice-versa.  It should also be noted that in cases like these the Patriarch doesn't act, but rather the Synod acts, so we should be careful about motives and persons.

The worse part for the EP is that his masters do not claim any loyalty to any church.  At least Rome was dealing with Arians and Catholics.

"His masters?"  Your cynicism doesn't aid you in this conversation.  You're much too good for it.  I'll agree that the Political leaders are not Christian, which does indeed hurt his case.  But they're secularists, which means it could have been much worse.

Constantinople's derived its primacy, more than Rome did, from her capacity as capital.  She has not served as the capital of anything for nearly a century, and not the capital of anything Christian for over 500 years. Keeping up pretenses, like the pope during the Dark Ages, is not working. 

Eh, more semantics: Constantinople derived its primacy from the Authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Spirit that acted through them.  It attracted its primacy and justified it through its being the capital.

I would also argue against the point "not the capital of anything Christian for over 500 years" bit.  Unfortunately it was - the Capital of the Christian division of the Ottoman Empire, with the EP as the ethnarch.  One must continue to remember that Patriarchs were killed for the political uprisings of the Christian people.  The loss of this sort of large Authority came thanks to the uprisings in Serbia, Greece, Romania, etc.

So what are the antics?  You have yet to spell those out here.  I'd like to hear what you think - there are a few (that come to mind at the moment) that I'll agree with you on, and probably a few I'll disagree on.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2008, 05:35:16 PM »
I don't know if I'd agree that the Patriarchate is striving for attention.  Most (if not all) the actual disputes (i.e. Estonia and the like) can be traced back to its position as the hearer of appeals, which are things that come to the EP, not vice-versa.  It should also be noted that in cases like these the Patriarch doesn't act, but rather the Synod acts, so we should be careful about motives and persons.

Let's deal with reality.

The Synod of Constantinople is not like any other governing Synod: it is a vestigiel organ, of a dying body, which is trying to life off living and breathing church bodies.  The bishops do not actually reside in their dioceses, or interreact with them, because there is nothing there but ruins.

The EP interpretation of canon 28 of Constantinople (I don't think I've seen him quote it without sticking "famous" before it) says all that needs to be said about deluding oneself.  That the Vatican shares in the induced delusional disorder for her own ends doesn't help matters.  Hence Ravenna.

The career of Melitios IV (of Constantionple, the Roman numeral changes with various stages of his wanderings) shows how things "come" to the EP, and its wasn't because he was minding his own business.

Quote
"His masters?"  Your cynicism doesn't aid you in this conversation.  You're much too good for it.  I'll agree that the Political leaders are not Christian, which does indeed hurt his case.  But they're secularists, which means it could have been much worse.
Muslim secularists.  It is worse.

Quote
Eh, more semantics: Constantinople derived its primacy from the Authority of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Spirit that acted through them.  It attracted its primacy and justified it through its being the capital.

I quote:
Constantinople I c. III
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Chalcedon c. XXVIII
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.  And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Quote
I would also argue against the point "not the capital of anything Christian for over 500 years" bit.  Unfortunately it was - the Capital of the Christian division of the Ottoman Empire, with the EP as the ethnarch.  One must continue to remember that Patriarchs were killed for the political uprisings of the Christian people.  The loss of this sort of large Authority came thanks to the uprisings in Serbia, Greece, Romania, etc.
Sovereignty over collaboration any day.  The ethnarch had his position because the sultan didn't want too long a leash, and he got it by squashing the Serbian, Bulgarian, Arab, etc. churches.

Quote
So what are the antics?  You have yet to spell those out here.  I'd like to hear what you think - there are a few (that come to mind at the moment) that I'll agree with you on, and probably a few I'll disagree on.
For one, Ligonier.

The string of ultimatums (and recanonizations) up in Estonia.

The reorganization of the GOA, and sending Spyridon (there was a reason he was hand picked).

Just for starters.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 05:37:41 PM by ialmisry »
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

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,259
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2008, 06:05:22 PM »
Let's deal with reality. 

OK, let's.

The Synod of Constantinople is not like any other governing Synod: it is a vestigiel organ, of a dying body, which is trying to life off living and breathing church bodies.  The bishops do not actually reside in their dioceses, or interreact with them, because there is nothing there but ruins.

Lol.  Now you've stepped in it.  The Synod of Constantinople is made up of representatives of all the living, breathing, thriving diocese: New Zealand, Australia, the US, Central/South America & Canada, EU/Europe, and the areas of Asia Minor.  The Synod of Constantinople is also the body entrusted with the care of the lands of Northern Greece and many of the Islands.  You could have just restricted your claims to the Patriarch Himself, who has very few people within his own direct jurisdiction (i.e. his diocese); but instead you have to claim that the Synod is dead or dying?  C'mon.  As I've said time and again, your cynicism does you no justice or assistance here.

The EP interpretation of canon 28 of Constantinople (I don't think I've seen him quote it without sticking "famous" before it) says all that needs to be said about deluding oneself.  That the Vatican shares in the induced delusional disorder for her own ends doesn't help matters.  Hence Ravenna.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has been interpreting that Canon in that way since the question came into effect; it is hardly a "new" thing or something that is unique to the 20th Century.

The career of Melitios IV (of Constantionple, the Roman numeral changes with various stages of his wanderings) shows how things "come" to the EP, and its wasn't because he was minding his own business.

Meletios is a credit neither to the Church nor to Constantinople specifically.  However, he was an ambitious man, and any criticisms leveled at C'nople for him could easily be leveled at Athens and Alexandria as well.

Muslim secularists.  It is worse.

Eh - most of them are nominal Moslems, and the religious moslems of the country don't consider them moslems at all.

I quote:
Constantinople I c. III
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Chalcedon c. XXVIII
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.  And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

You still haven't proven that she "derived" her authority from being the capital.  Authority is derived from the source granting said authority - and the source of the authority in the Church was the Ecumenical Synod.  The honor bestowed by the Synod did not exist before it was bestowed by the Synod, and would not have existed without the Synod.  Hence, Constantinople derives its primacy from the body which granted it - in this case, the Ecumenical Synods.  Make whatever points you want to in boldface, but that still doesn't change the fact that all honors given to the See of Constantinople are derived from the authority which granted those honors - the Synods.  The Synods granted those honors for particular reasons, and stated clearly those reasons in the canons, but the authority came from the Synods.

Sovereignty over collaboration any day.  The ethnarch had his position because the sultan didn't want too long a leash, and he got it by squashing the Serbian, Bulgarian, Arab, etc. churches.

I said it was unfortunate, right?

For one, Ligonier.

The string of ultimatums (and recanonizations) up in Estonia.

The reorganization of the GOA, and sending Spyridon (there was a reason he was hand picked).

Just for starters. 

The reorganization of the GOA was probably needed, and it definitely changed the canonically strange situation the GOA was in previously.  I do not agree, though, with the forced retirement of Archbishop Iakovos, which essentially killed the movement at Ligionier - a movement which was largely powered by his driving personality, unparalleled influence, and ability to unite the persons in the room.  Sending Spyridon is a mistake he recanted on.  Estonia is an issue of appeal - they had a dispute with Moscow and appealed to Constantinople.  Your starters are more paltry than an overpriced appetizer at a trendy restaurant.  There are bigger issues out there, ones that I would definitely agree with you on... So far we're 1 for 3 on agreeing.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2008, 06:56:41 PM »
OK, let's.

Lol.  Now you've stepped in it.  The Synod of Constantinople is made up of representatives of all the living, breathing, thriving diocese: New Zealand, Australia, the US, Central/South America & Canada, EU/Europe, and the areas of Asia Minor.  The Synod of Constantinople is also the body entrusted with the care of the lands of Northern Greece and many of the Islands.  You could have just restricted your claims to the Patriarch Himself, who has very few people within his own direct jurisdiction (i.e. his diocese); but instead you have to claim that the Synod is dead or dying?  C'mon.  As I've said time and again, your cynicism does you no justice or assistance here.

According to his website:

HOLY AND SACRED SYNOD

The Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is presided over by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and is currently comprised of the following  Metropolitans 

  His Eminence Metropolitan Elder Athanasios of Chalcedon (24.09.1972)suburb of Istanbul.  No churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Evangelos of Perge (30.11.1970). Coastal town in Turkish Republic. No churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lystra (06.12.1970) Central Anatolian Town. No churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Konstantinos of Derkon (31.01.1971) City on the Bosphoros near Istanbul.  Maybe some aged churches, as the Vatican has some followers here.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Pandeleimon of Belgium (18.08.1974) Immigrant churches, yet churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Isaias of Denver (25.05.1986) Actually a thriving diocese.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Eugenios of Ierapetra and Siteia (14.06.1994) Towns in Crete.  Plenty of churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Apostolos of Moschonisia (26.11.1995) Island depopulated of Christian by population exchange.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Nikitas of Dardanels (14.12.1996) Far suburb of Istanbul, didn't see any churches when I was there.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadios of Sasima (01.06.1997). Central Anatolian site, no churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Theoliptos of Iconium (10.09.2000) Konya now, no churches.
  His Eminence Metropolitan Paisios of Leros, Kalymnos and Astypalaia (21.05.2005) Islands off the Anatolian coast, but on the Greek side of the border. Plenty of churches.


SECTION B:

OTHER METROPOLITANS

His Eminence Metropolitan Elder Joachim of Nikomideia (23.09.1973) Far suburb of Istanbul. No churches.
His Eminence Metropolitan Elder John of Nicaea (26.05.1969)  Ditto.  Ditto.  (a lovely countryside, dusty town)
His Eminence Metropolitan Damaskinos of Andrianople (06.12.1970) Large Turkish city. Some churches, not all Orthodox nor Greek.
His Eminence Metropolitan Germanos of Theodoroupolis (16.01.1972) Bulgarian city (otherwise, don't know the name).
His Eminence Metropolitan Germanos of Tranoupolis (14.01.1973) Where's this? Or where was this?
His Eminence Metropolitan Cyril of Imvros and Tenedos (27.10.1985) Islands controlled by Turkey. Still have a couple hundred Greek Orthodox.
His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos of Princes Islands (25.12.1987) Islands in Istanbul.  Christians in Instanbul have villas there.
His Eminence Metropolitan Dimitrios of Sevasteia (04.11.1990) City deep in Turkish/Kurdish Anatolia.  Any Christians here likely to be Armenian.
His Eminence Metropolitan Meliton of Philadelphia (28.10.1990) Near the Anatolian coast.  No churches.
His Eminence Metropolitan Irinaios of Myriofytos and Peristasis (21.11.1995) Don't know.
His Eminence Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Myra (25.11.1995).  Tourist churches.
His Eminence Metropolitan Paisios of Tyana (11.04.1998) (Abbot of the
Sacred Patriarchal and Stavropegial Monastery of St. Irene Chrysovalantou,
Astoria, NY) Central Anatolian city (Tyana, not NY).  No churches.

btw, the Vatican has a lot of titular bishops in the very same places as above.  About as realistic (actually more, they at least have some Christian presence/witness, as in Ephesus).


Quote
The Patriarchate of Constantinople has been interpreting that Canon in that way since the question came into effect; it is hardly a "new" thing or something that is unique to the 20th Century.
Yes, just like the Pope of Rome was acting as if the capital had not moved on, the EP keeps on acting as if the situation is that of the 4th century.  And no, the interpretation didn't give him free reign in Asia and the New World until the 20th century.

Quote
Meletios is a credit neither to the Church nor to Constantinople specifically.  However, he was an ambitious man, and any criticisms leveled at C'nople for him could easily be leveled at Athens and Alexandria as well.
The phanariot system is what made him possible.

Quote
Eh - most of them are nominal Moslems, and the religious moslems of the country don't consider them moslems at all.
Believe me (I've dealt with pleny, including in the Turkish Republic) the worse Muslim is not the religious one, but the one without faith.

Quote
You still haven't proven that she "derived" her authority from being the capital.  Authority is derived from the source granting said authority - and the source of the authority in the Church was the Ecumenical Synod.  The honor bestowed by the Synod did not exist before it was bestowed by the Synod, and would not have existed without the Synod.  Hence, Constantinople derives its primacy from the body which granted it - in this case, the Ecumenical Synods.  Make whatever points you want to in boldface, but that still doesn't change the fact that all honors given to the See of Constantinople are derived from the authority which granted those honors - the Synods.  The Synods granted those honors for particular reasons, and stated clearly those reasons in the canons, but the authority came from the Synods.

They weren't in Constantinople because of the convention rates.  Yes, the Synod gave the honor (in contrast to Rome, Alexandria and in part Jerusalem, whose honor was independent of, and not derived from nor dependent on, the Synods.

And yes, they stated why: the capital.

Quote
I said it was unfortunate, right?
Yes, you did.  Does Vichy France count as a capital?

Quote
The reorganization of the GOA was probably needed, and it definitely changed the canonically strange situation the GOA was in previously.

By making it stranger?

Quote
I do not agree, though, with the forced retirement of Archbishop Iakovos, which essentially killed the movement at Ligionier - a movement which was largely powered by his driving personality, unparalleled influence, and ability to unite the persons in the room.  Sending Spyridon is a mistake he recanted on.
Btw, Iakovos' forceful and prominent role in the civil rights movement is why hierarchs need to be local.

Quote
Estonia is an issue of appeal - they had a dispute with Moscow and appealed to Constantinople.

Sort of like how Cyprus appealed to Greece, and we have that situation now (except the Cypriots were in the right).

Since Patriarch Alexei of Moscow is born, breed, baptized, educated, ordained, elevated Estonian, who is "they"?

Quote
Your starters are more paltry than an overpriced appetizer at a trendy restaurant.  There are bigger issues out there, ones that I would definitely agree with you on... So far we're 1 for 3 on agreeing.

The Moscow situation is a big one.  Have I missed one bigger?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 07:10:00 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2008, 07:44:23 PM »
Worse, we have a captive patriarch.  Much of his antics of late mirror those of the pope of Rome during similar (though less dire) circumstances during the Dark Ages, during which what we find so objectionable about the Vatican developed

Sorry to be a pedant, but the correct non-anachronistic term is the Holy See or the Papacy. Vatican City has only existed since 1929, and the pope did not even reside on Vatican Hill until 1871.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2008, 08:39:13 PM »
Sorry to be a pedant, but the correct non-anachronistic term is the Holy See or the Papacy. Vatican City has only existed since 1929, and the pope did not even reside on Vatican Hill until 1871.

Actually, for what we are getting at, Papal State might be the correct non-anachronistic term.

One could argue (with justification) that Vatican is an anachronism, but it is like that of portraying early saints in present day vestments they never wore in their lifetime.  Historically, wrong, symbolically right.


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

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,488
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2008, 09:20:17 PM »
Yes, just like the Pope of Rome was acting as if the capital had not moved on, the EP keeps on acting as if the situation is that of the 4th century.

Well then, you should also consider this:

Quote from: Bishop Kallistos Ware
Moscow therefore had succeeded Constantinople as the Third and last Rome, the center of Orthodox Christendom. The monk Philotheus of Pskov set forth this line of argument in a famous letter written in 1510 to Tsar Basil III:

I wish to add a few words on the present Orthodox Empire of our ruler: he is on earth the sole Emperor (Tsar) of the Christians, the leader of the Apostolic Church which stands no longer Rome or in Constantinople, but in the blessed city of Moscow. She alone shines in the whole world brighter than the sun.… All Christian Empires are fallen and in their stead stands alone the Empire of our ruler in accordance with the Prophetical books. Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands and a fourth there will not be (Quoted in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium: an Introduction, p. 385).
- Peter Jericho

Online Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,259
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2008, 09:23:38 PM »
Well then, you should also consider this: 

So what's the difference?  St. Constantine actually moved Rome - he could do that, since he was a coronated ruing Roman Emperor.  Such a thing didn't happen with the fall of the City.

I'm just not into this discussion at the moment.  I'm finding it to be spiritually challenging for me.  I'll duck out temporarily, although I'm not avoiding ialmisry's points above...
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,350
Re: Captive EP: Vatican in the Making?
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2008, 04:11:58 PM »
Well then, you should also consider this:


And what?

The Pope of Rome didn't lose primacy when the capital moved.  Nor Constantinople when it fell. But the refusal to deal with the situation as it was had led to problems in both cases.
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