Topic: Patriarch Wants Unity Between Orthodox Churches

[orthodoxlurker]

This assembly demonstates that the ancient design for Church order, can work in this day.   Conciliarity worked. 

I'm afraid neither is the case.

There would be no gathering of primates of autocephalias in ancient design, than all and every bishop would be free to attend and would vote. That would be ancient design and that would be conciliarity.

Regarding first among equals, nobody disputes the powers granted to Him by 2nd cannon of the 6th council, that canonized Sardica.

[Orthodoc]

'First AMONGST EQUALS' and 'Spiritual Leader of the world's Orthodox' are two different things.

True for us Orthodox; maybe not so for outsiders.

The EP is not now, nor will he ever be the SPIRITUAL LEADER of world Orthodoxy!

"Not now" I won't debate.
But "nor will he ever be" - really?  We pray for secular leaders, that they lead us well; why not do the same for Church leaders that we don't agree with?
If you had said "The EP is certainly NOT the SPIRITUAL LEADER of world Orthodoxy," that would be a bit more, say, reasonable, rather than "never will be."

I stand by 'never will be'.  There is not now, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO SUPREME PONTIFFS, one in the west and one in the east.  For that to happen we will have to cease being Orthodox Catholic.  The two words that come after "FIRST" in this title have a distinct meaning.  Too bad the EP doesn't seem to take that into consideration when he gives into the flatery he receives from Rome to build up his already inflated ego.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc

[GreekChef]

Perhaps if your Patriarch simply showed as much charity, respect  and humility to his equals WITHIN the Church as he does towards his pals in Rome OUTSIDE the Church he would not even need to raise this subject.

Brothers do tend to fight more ferociously with one another than with outsiders.  While it's not an excuse, it certainly does pertain to this situation.  And while they do tend to fight more, they are the only ones who sit together for dinner and say their evening prayers together.

I myself find it bizarre that so far in this thread it is only those looking to the EP for leadership that are amazed to find others not under his dubious guidance are not nearly as enamoured of him as they themselves  are. 

I don't know about "enamored," but whether "enamored" or not it's one thing to be critical, and another thing to wish ill.  Unfortunately it seems that people are more willing to do the latter to the EP, rather than the former.

I continue to repeat my objection that I've raised in other places, too - this time, in reference to "not under his dubious guidance."  You impugn too much power upon the Patriarch and ascribe too much influence. On the big decisions, he actually does have to get an entire synod of people who, contrary to popular opinion, don't agree with him at all times (I know people who work/worked at the Patriarchate who've told me stories of this); and he doesn't make any of the day-to-day decisions that affect life here in the jurisdictions connected to his see.  If you want to object to how things are run over here, it would be more appropriate to direct your comments to those leading here (bishops, clergy, lay leaders, etc.), rather than to the EP.

On an individual level, it is a bit troubling just to see vitriol directed at anyone - Orthodox or not, Patriarch or not.  It seems that we tend to feed into the "mob mentality" at times, whether it be anti-Catholic, anti-EP, anti-Old Calendar, anti-New Calendar, etc.  From what I've seen on the forum over the last 3-5 days, it's as if the Purple Demons of lent have forgotten what month it is, and have decided to tempt us all to become more angry and hateful than we really are.  I pray this is the case, and we all haven't just become more irritable.

I'm with you, Cleveland.  While I've only been on the forum about a year now, it seems like in the past few days, the level of ugliness, unkindness, vitriol, and anger has just escalated exponentially.  Or maybe it's that the same few people, whose hearts seem to be hardened like stone, are dominating a few threads and openly displaying their bitterness.  I'm reminded of St. Paul in 1Corinthians 13:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

This is the second time in two days that I've quoted 1Cor 13.  Guess I'd have to say it ranks up there as one of my favorites, and guess I'd have to say that I've seen a total LACK of love here the past few days. 

Whether one likes/agrees with the EP or not, did not Christ call us to love and pray for everyone?  Why is it that we'll love and pray for all manner of other people, but are so unwilling to love and pray for an Orthodox Bishop (the EP)?  If someone could answer this for me (with a real reason, rather than just more nastiness), I would be very grateful.  I'd like to try and understand, because right now my heart cannot understand what I'm reading, and it makes me so sad.

Lord have mercy on us.

Pray for me a sinner.

[GreekChef]

I stand by 'never will be'.  There is not now, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO SUPREME PONTIFFS, one in the west and one in the east.  For that to happen we will have to cease being Orthodox Catholic. 

I'm confused.  Where did two pontiffs come in?

The two words that come after "FIRST" in this title have a distinct meaning.  Too bad the EP doesn't seem to take that into consideration when he gives into the flatery he receives from Rome to build up his already inflated ego.

And you feel you are the proper person to cast judgement on the Ecumenical Patriarch?  How could you possibly know anything about his ego?  How could you possibly know why he feels so strongly about re-uniting the church?  Do you know his heart?  Are you the spiritual father of the Ecumenical Patriarch? 

My Grandma used to say, "Keep in mind when you point your finger at someone else that there are three more fingers pointing back at you."   

[Fr. George]

I stand by 'never will be'.  There is not now, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO SUPREME PONTIFFS, one in the west and one in the east.  For that to happen we will have to cease being Orthodox Catholic.  The two words that come after "FIRST" in this title have a distinct meaning.  Too bad the EP doesn't seem to take that into consideration when he gives into the flatery he receives from Rome to build up his already inflated ego.

Again, I think that the statement "never will be the spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy" is a bit too much; was St. John Chrysostom the spiritual leader of Orthodoxy as EP?  Or St. Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria?  Could the president of an Ecumenical Synod be called "spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy?"  There have been some fantastic, wonderful, saintly Patriarchs of Constantinople, even in the post-schism era; if they were the dominant personalities in the Orthodox world at their time, doesn't that make them "spiritual leaders?"

I actually think that the title "spiritual leader" is a slap by the RC's and the like, who try and make the bond between Orthodox Churches be less than administrative and tangible unity (which we do have, through the Communion of the Autocephalous Churches).

That's where my quarrel is - I don't know where you get the two pontiffs thing; if it was "two pontiffs," then he wouldn't be the "spiritual leader," but rather the "head of" or "chief bishop" or "Pope of the East."

Beyond that, I think your "inflated ego" comment is in bad taste, not because it's an insult to another human being (which it is), but because I think it's beneath you to be insulting.  You've been quite cordial to me, despite our differences of opinion; I'd hope to see the same consideration given to him, despite the fact that you don't speak directly to him as you do me.

[88Devin12]

Would it not be correct to say that while the Ecumencial Patriarch may be the "Spiritual Leader" (or Spiritual Father?) of the Orthodox Churches, he (unlike the Pope) doesn't have the ability to tell the other Patriarchs what to do and doesn't have the ability to make decisions for other Patriarchates?

I think you could say he is a spiritual leader, but not the administrative leader.

St. Peter was certainly a spiritual leader among the Apostles... Yet even in the Council at Jerusalem, he didn't have authority over St. James, who was the leader of the church there in Jerusalem and who oversaw the Council.

If we allow people to use this term "spiritual leader" would we also have to clarify that he isn't the leader of the Orthodox Church in the sense of authority and administration?

The Pope of Rome is the spiritual leader AND administrative leader of the Roman Catholic Church... Could we not also say that the "Pope" of Constantinople is the spiritual leader, but not the administrative leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Also I don't think spiritual leader also has to imply that he can make theological/doctrinal decisions for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes westerners could definitely misinterpret the term, but isn't it our job to make sure they know the differences anyway?

Why also would we have to call just the EP the spiritual leader? Because all of the Patriarchs are spiritual leaders, even though the EP is the "first among equals". We should be wary of giving the EP too much authority and credit, however, we must also be careful not to disregard him because of Romophobia...

[Heracleides]

I stand by 'never will be'.  There is not now, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO SUPREME PONTIFFS, one in the west and one in the east.  For that to happen we will have to cease being Orthodox Catholic. 

I'm confused.  Where did two pontiffs come in?

The two words that come after "FIRST" in this title have a distinct meaning.  Too bad the EP doesn't seem to take that into consideration when he gives into the flattery he receives from Rome to build up his already inflated ego.

And you feel you are the proper person to cast judgement on the Ecumenical Patriarch?  How could you possibly know anything about his ego?  How could you possibly know why he feels so strongly about reuniting the church?  Do you know his heart?  Are you the spiritual father of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

Are the Monks of Athos the EP's spiritual father? No? And yet they also have strong opinions regarding Pat. Bartholomew's highly dubious (some would even say quasi-heretical) dealings with the heterodox Roman church.  Perhaps after your current attempt to silence Orthodoc runs its course, you can turn your efforts towards shutting Athos up as well.

My Grandma used to say, "Keep in mind when you point your finger at someone else that there are three more fingers pointing back at you."   

A tired and worn out cliche invariably trotted out by those who are themselves in the midst of doing a bit of fingerpointing.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Would it not be correct to say that while the Ecumencial Patriarch may be the "Spiritual Leader" (or Spiritual Father?) of the Orthodox Churches, he (unlike the Pope) doesn't have the ability to tell the other Patriarchs what to do and doesn't have the ability to make decisions for other Patriarchates?

Yes, basically. The Patriarch is really just a bishop, and he is really only a leader of his diocese. The Patriarch doesn't have any real authority in other diocese even within his jurisdiction. He can request that the other bishops do things a certain way, but he cannot command it (or he could, but the other bishops would actually not be obligated to comply, unless voted upon by the council of all the bishops under that Patriarchate).

[GreekChef]

I stand by 'never will be'.  There is not now, NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO SUPREME PONTIFFS, one in the west and one in the east.  For that to happen we will have to cease being Orthodox Catholic. 

I'm confused.  Where did two pontiffs come in?

The two words that come after "FIRST" in this title have a distinct meaning.  Too bad the EP doesn't seem to take that into consideration when he gives into the flattery he receives from Rome to build up his already inflated ego.

And you feel you are the proper person to cast judgement on the Ecumenical Patriarch?  How could you possibly know anything about his ego?  How could you possibly know why he feels so strongly about reuniting the church?  Do you know his heart?  Are you the spiritual father of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

Are the Monks of Athos the EP's spiritual father? No? And yet they also have strong opinions regarding Pat. Bartholomew's highly dubious (some would even say quasi-heretical) dealings with the heterodox Roman church.  Perhaps after your current attempt to silence Orthodoc runs its course, you can turn your efforts towards shutting Athos up as well.

My Grandma used to say, "Keep in mind when you point your finger at someone else that there are three more fingers pointing back at you."   

A tired and worn out cliche invariably trotted out by those who are themselves in the midst of doing a bit of fingerpointing.

I also have never heard the Monks of Athos make any nasty slurs about the EP's ego?  Have you?  I'd love to see some citations on that one.  They don't make generalizations and assumptions regarding his heart.  Furthermore, they don't go around badmouthing him behind his back, they speak directly to him, they issue public statements, and they do it with love and respect.  Two things which are OBVIOUSLY lacking here.

I'm not silencing anyone.  Orthodoc and everyone else here are free to express their opinions as they wish (obviously).  But I, too, am allowed to express my opinion, am I not?  Did I once ask him to shut up?  No.  But if he's going to put things like that out there, full of disdain and disrespect, then you'd better believe that others will call him on it. 

A tired and worn out cliche?  You know, cliches are just that for a reason... because they are true.  I didn't judge Orthodoc.  I simply stated what my Grammy used to say to me, which I thought seemed applicable to the situation.  Sorry if you have a problem with that.

[Heracleides]

A tired and worn out cliche?  You know, cliches are just that for a reason... because they are true.  I didn't judge Orthodoc.  I simply stated what my Grammy used to say to me, which I thought seemed applicable to the situation.  Sorry if you have a problem with that.

Umm... ok... so, aside from this little online Orthodox community I am sure the wider Orthodox world could also benefit from such pearls.  Have you ever considered contacting Conciliar Press about publishing a collection of your Grammy's tired and worn out cliches?  Let me know and I can put you in touch with someone.

[GreekChef]

A tired and worn out cliche?  You know, cliches are just that for a reason... because they are true.  I didn't judge Orthodoc.  I simply stated what my Grammy used to say to me, which I thought seemed applicable to the situation.  Sorry if you have a problem with that.

Umm... ok... so, aside from this little online Orthodox community I am sure the wider Orthodox world could also benefit from such pearls.  Have you ever considered contacting Conciliar Press about publishing a collection of your Grammy's tired and worn out cliches?  Let me know and I can put you in touch with someone.

While I do appreciate the sarcasm, is the nasty tone really necessary?  My Grammy was a great lady (may her memory be eternal) who was wise, faithful, and wonderful.  Apparently I do her a great injustice by repeating the things she said to me on this forum.  I'll ask you to forgive me for the offense I seem to have done you by bringing her up. 

I know people at Conciliar Press and Light and Life.  If I need them, don't worry, I can call them myself.  But thank you for the offer.

[Orthodoc]

Comment:  Why also would we have to call just the EP the spiritual leader? Because all of the Patriarchs are spiritual leaders, even though the EP is the "first among equals". We should be wary of giving the EP too much authority and credit, however, we must also be careful not to disregard him because of Romophobia...
   
Reply:  I agree.   The word LEADER has a distinct and specific meaning especially when it it is put within the contends that the EP puts it - THE SPIRITUAL LEADER of the world's 300 million Orthodox!  Granted is is A SPIRITUAL LEADER but he is certainly not THE SPIRITUAL LEADER   of world Orthodoxy!  He has the authority to convene a pan Orthodox council and even preside over it.  But at that council he only has one vote the same as any other  Orthodox bishop at that council.  It would be much more appropriate for him to bill himself as A SPIRITUAL LEADER  or even spokeperson for world wide Orthodoxy (as long as what he speaks is the is what the voted majority of bishops have decided.)
   
Comment:  Could the president of an Ecumenical Synod be called "spiritual leader of world Orthodoxy?" 
   
Reply:  The correct usage would be for him to be called - A SPIRITUAL LEADER, not THE SPIRITUAL LEADER which is a whole different ball game.   
   
Comment:  Beyond that, I think your "inflated ego" comment is in bad taste, not because it's an insult to another human being (which it is), but because I think it's beneath you to be insulting.  You've been quite cordial to me, despite our differences of opinion; I'd hope to see the same consideration given to him, despite the fact that you don't speak directly to him as you do me.
   
Reply:  There is an old saying that goes - By their deeds they shall be known.  To me this certainly applies here.  So far the EP has caused interference problems in the MP, the JP, the AP,  in Northern Greece, as well as Europe, Asia, and North & South American.  Even though the cannons strictly forbid him from doing so.

Comment:  And you feel you are the proper person to cast judgement on the Ecumenical Patriarch?  How could you possibly know anything about his ego? 
   
Reply:  Some of his actions involving his brother Orthodox LEADERS speak for themselves.

================

Orthodoc

   

[orthodoxlurker]

Would it not be correct to say that while the Ecumencial Patriarch may be the "Spiritual Leader" (or Spiritual Father?) of the Orthodox Churches, he (unlike the Pope) doesn't have the ability to tell the other Patriarchs what to do and doesn't have the ability to make decisions for other Patriarchates?
...

I don't think so.

Basically, each Orthodox is supposed to have his Spiritual Father during growing up. Those who become Bishops/Metropolitans/Archbishops/Patriarchs, as well as experienced monks, don't get another Spiritual Father once they were grown-up and their Spiritual Father reposes.

The title Ecumenical Patriarch brings so much grandeur per se that it simply doesn't need any addition.

[Heracleides]

While I do appreciate the sarcasm, is the nasty tone really necessary?

Now, now - what was it you yourself said about making assumptions?  Had something to do with fingers I believe.   

I know people at Conciliar Press and Light and Life.  If I need them, don't worry, I can call them myself.  But thank you for the offer.

If those two leads don't pan out, perhaps you could try the Onion Dome.  You're most welcome.

[Fr. George]

Basically, each Orthodox is supposed to have his Spiritual Father during growing up. Those who become Bishops/Metropolitans/Archbishops/Patriarchs, as well as experienced monks, don't get another Spiritual Father once they were grown-up and their Spiritual Father reposes.

Hmmm.  Do you want to expand the second sentence here: are you saying that a bishop, once their spiritual father reposes, does not seek a new one?  From what I've seen and heard, from both experienced monks and bishops, they all have spiritual fathers, and will find new ones once their old ones repose, so as to always have spiritual guidance and a regular confessor.  Heck, sometimes they need to switch because of circumstances (moving to a new see or monastery, promotion/retirement of the old Spiritual Father, etc.).

[Fr. George]

Orthodoc: I fully agree with you on the "A Spiritual Leader" vs. "The Spiritual Leader" distinction.

As to:

Comment:  Beyond that, I think your "inflated ego" comment is in bad taste, not because it's an insult to another human being (which it is), but because I think it's beneath you to be insulting.  You've been quite cordial to me, despite our differences of opinion; I'd hope to see the same consideration given to him, despite the fact that you don't speak directly to him as you do me.
   
Reply:  There is an old saying that goes - By their deeds they shall be known.  To me this certainly applies here.  So far the EP has caused interference problems in the MP, the JP, the AP,  in Northern Greece, as well as Europe, Asia, and North & South American.  Even though the cannons strictly forbid him from doing so.

I suppose I see the comments as judgments of person or motivation, rather than of action.  A statement like "the EP has caused interference problems in the MP, JP, AP, Northern Greece, etc., possibly because of an inflated ego..." would sound less like judgment of character than accusing him of having an inflated ego.  That's one of those thin lines I seem to cross too often, especially on the 'net - judging someone, rather than their actions; and even then, judgment is a two-edged sword that must be wielded carefully.

[orthodoxlurker]

...
Hmmm.  Do you want to expand the second sentence here: are you saying that a bishop, once their spiritual father reposes, does not seek a new one? ... a regular confessor.  

I make a difference between the Spiritual Father and a Confessor. Hope everything is clear now.

[Fr. George]

...
Hmmm.  Do you want to expand the second sentence here: are you saying that a bishop, once their spiritual father reposes, does not seek a new one? ... a regular confessor.  

I make a difference between the Spiritual Father and a Confessor. Hope everything is clear now.

Right.  Thanks.

[GreekChef]

Orthodoc: I fully agree with you on the "A Spiritual Leader" vs. "The Spiritual Leader" distinction.

I absolutely agree with this as well.

Orthodoc,

I, as well, objected to the judgement it seemed you were making about the character of the EP.  I have no problem with objections to the actions of the EP, we are all entitled to our opinion about such things.  I think that was the point Heracleides was making bringing up the Monks of Athos as well.  I agree with that.  We are entitled to disagree with the decisions of our leaders and to voice them in love and respect.  What I disagree with is judgement of his character, as though we presume to know his heart.  I don't think any of us (myself included) can presume to know the hearts of others.  

If my posts sounded judgemental of you, I apologize.  I did not mean them in judgement.  I fully believe that we can discuss and debate and point out errors in eachothers reasoning with love and absent of judgement.  This is what I was striving for.  If I did not achieve that, then my sincerest apologies to you.

[Orthodoc]

Comment:  If my posts sounded judgemental of you, I apologize.  I did not mean them in judgement.  I fully believe that we can discuss and debate and point out errors in eachothers reasoning with love and absent of judgement.  This is what I was striving for.  If I did not achieve that, then my sincerest apologies to you.

Reply:  There is absolutely NO REASON for you to apologize to me.  You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.  I have not taken personal offense on anything you have said to me or about me.  The purpose of this website is to debate.  If we all agreed on everything it would become pretty damn boring.

You are now, and will forever remain my sister in Orthodoxy and Christ!

Since you mentioned you are familiar with Ligh-N-Life may I recommend a book written by Fr Conarsis (sp?) called 'What ever happened to the truth?'  I highly recommend it to everyone.  It's about how the latest trend is to be Politically Correct.  That it is more important not to offend when the truth can be offenseive to some.  That's poppycock!

Orthodoc
 

[GreekChef]

Comment:  If my posts sounded judgemental of you, I apologize.  I did not mean them in judgement.  I fully believe that we can discuss and debate and point out errors in eachothers reasoning with love and absent of judgement.  This is what I was striving for.  If I did not achieve that, then my sincerest apologies to you.

Reply:  There is absolutely NO REASON for you to apologize to me.  You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.  I have not taken personal offense on anything you have said to me or about me.  The purpose of this website is to debate.  If we all agreed on everything it would become pretty damn boring.

You are now, and will forever remain my sister in Orthodoxy and Christ!

Since you mentioned you are familiar with Ligh-N-Life may I recommend a book written by Fr Conarsis (sp?) called 'What ever happened to the truth?'  I highly recommend it to everyone.  It's about how the latest trend is to be Politically Correct.  That it is more important not to offend when the truth can be offenseive to some.  That's poppycock!

Orthodoc
 

Thank you for your kindness, and for your book recommendation!  I love Fr. Coniaris' books (currently I'm reading How To Actualize the Image of God in You).  I haven't read that one yet.  It's definitely on my list now, though!

[Islas Filipinas]

It’s so disheartening and it’s a shame to see people who called themselves Orthodox Christians and claimed to be part of the unadulterated Church and member of the one body of our Lord Jesus Christ engaging in this kind of activities, exchanging of unchristian words… who value so much of their opinion rather than what the Fathers of the Church says… this is what happen when the Holy Canons are being set aside… what the Holy Fathers promulgated to safeguard the Holy Orthodox faith.

May I ask the moderators to intermediate and possible close this discussion as this is not helping everyone but only creates anger and hatred among themselves…

People think here by posting their unchristian opinion placed them in the pedestal that they are the best and their patriarchates are the best and sinless.

May I ask everyone, what benefits these give us? Don’t you think you are the only people on this planet reading this forum? Don’t you think how people of other confession of faith look and laugh at us and say “Oh here they are… Orthodox Christians when they present their ecclesiology they say… we are all one… there are no differences between the Greeks, the Russians, the Antiochians, the Arab etc… but here, they act as if they don’t commune on the same cup, eat the same bread, share the same tradition and faith”

Your attitude and conduct only give unpleasant atmosphere among non-orthodox Christians in the new lands especially here in Asia.

I hope that people in the new lands will help and continue to pray for the ancient Patriarchates they may be continue be guided by the Holy Spirit and come to together in love and humility… the best thing we can do for them is to pray…

Again, I ask the moderator to stop this non-sensible discussion and I urge all the spiritual fathers involved in this forum to exercise their God given rights to educate and guide the people here of the proper attitude and conduct worthy to e called Orthodox Christians.

And I ask the participants here to talk more to your spiritual fathers rather than spending your time in this fruitless discussion.

Kyrie Eleison!

[Basil 320]

I don't know how many have read it, but I recommend reading His All Holiness' welcoming message to his brother primates.  I too have questioned the rather aggressive leadership he has demonstrated during his patriarchal tenure, e.g. making Met. Soterios of Toronto apologize to his flock for not commemorating the EP when celebrating the Liturgy in Athens, forcing the Holy Eparchial Synod of America to withdraw their signatures from the Ligonier unity documents; forcing Archbishop Iakovos to retire; prohibiting Archbishop Spyridon from appointing members to the Archdiocesan Council, etc.  This is especially in light of the purely spiritual leadership provided by his predecessor, Patriarch Dimitrios of Thrice Blessed Memory.

However, notwithstanding his "style" of leadership, and I know your critical comments are more directed toward his relations with the sister churches, rather than the eparchy's under his jurisdiction, the world is  desperate for the message of our Holy Orthodoxy.  Our church has, and needs a point of reference; one to coordinate "matters of common concern."  Perhaps he's learned a lesson about his taking a conciliar approach to inter-Orthodox relations.  To me, he addresses his critics in his welcoming message and we may be at a precipice of a more active conciliar approach to the pressing matters he refers to in his message. 

"For...the good estate of the Holy Churches of God and for the union of them all..."  "Lord Have Mercy."

[SolEX01]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

[Heracleides]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

[ialmisry]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

So the cardinals can come, but the OCA can't.

[username!]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

What exactly are you talking about in the above paragraph? 

[Heracleides]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

So the cardinals can come, but the OCA can't.

Exactly.  So much for the prattle about his desire for ORTHODOX unity.

[ozgeorge]

Comment:  Why also would we have to call just the EP the spiritual leader?

Actually, we don't have to.
The term "spiritual leader" came out of the Church of Greece when it was granted autocephaly. The strange relationship which evolved between the  CofG and the EP needed a new definition (since the autocephaly of the CofG was, and is, entirely irregular).

[ialmisry]

FWIW, there were at least 4 Roman Catholic Cardinals (observing, not participating) at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in the Phanar on October 12.

Picture with Cardinals.

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

So the cardinals can come, but the OCA can't.

Exactly.  So much for the prattle about his desire for ORTHODOX unity.

Well, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt while I wait for my pudding, as he might be facing the problem that he has painted himself in a corner.  If we can find out what was the situation with the Estonians.  As we haven't heard much, I'm going with the assumption that something is afoot, as previously the EP had called on Met. Cornelius (PoM) to be expelled, and I don't see Pat. Alexei (himself Estonian) backing down.  If they clashed, we would have heard something even in the mainstream media (conflict is the only time we appear on their radar).

As the EP's statement included the taboo wording of Ligonier, "so-called diaspora," after having led the charge to squash the incipit Holy Synod of America, All America, the camel's nose might be sticking under the tent.  I would hope that after the whole Spyridon debacle, he has learned his lesson.  A few years back, my priest stated, correctly, that the EP's adament statements that the American Church would never be independent meant that independence was on its way.

Btw, I don't know how Arbishop Hilarion of Vienna's name got mentioned in the contending for metropolitian of the OCA, but the OCA might do us all a favor and consider it, although I don't know why he would want it.

[ialmisry]

Comment:  Why also would we have to call just the EP the spiritual leader?

Actually, we don't have to.
The term "spiritual leader" came out of the Church of Greece when it was granted autocephaly. The strange relationship which evolved between the  CofG and the EP needed a new definition (since the autocephaly of the CofG was, and is, entirely irregular).

Irregular?  How so?

Since I think we have different views (how unusual ) on the CofG's authocephaly (I'd say take rather than granted for one), what is your account of the history of the title "spiritual leader."

[Fr. George]

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

I didn't see even one the last time I was at the Phanar.  Nice try.

[Heracleides]

Doesn't the EP have at least a half dozen Roman Catholic Cardinals attached to his personal entourage on a permanent basis by now??? Perhaps the Pope, just for the sake of variety, should toss in an Eastern Catholic 'Patriarch' every once in awhile. 

I didn't see even one the last time I was at the Phanar.  Nice try.

Ah, but was the EP even present during your visit at the Phanar or were he and his entourage attending yet another function in Rome? 

I found the commentary of some of those present at this meeting to be interesting:

"The comments on the meeting are positive. Metropolitan archbishop Kyril of Smolensk says that the meeting was truly very important and was a good sign, for expressing the life of the local Orthodox Churches and of Orthodoxy in general. "I am happy," he added, "to be here to thank the ecumenical patriarch for his opening address," and he concluded that "the pan-Orthodox meeting of 2009 will provide the instruments to improve Orthodox life." The chairman of the Ukrainian Church, Cyril, tells AsiaNws that "there are differences, but not opposition," and that "the meeting in Kiev and the one today have marked a shift." The metropolitan archbishop of Pergamon, Ioannis Zizioulas, tells AsiaNews that "we are at a turning point, and we must not hesitate any longer," while Anastasios of Albania, referring to dialogue with Catholics, tells us that "the people are demanding this, and cannot wait for full communion." The archbishop from Greece, Ieronimos, tells us that "this was very important work, which will provide results not only for the Orthodox, but for all.".

Yes, I am SURE the handful of Orthodox in Albania are clamoring incessantly for full communion with the Vatican.

"An important Catholic figure present at the liturgy, who wanted to remain anonymous, comments that the speech by Bartholomew and the statement recalled a remark that Paul VI made while he was archbishop of Milan: it used to be that the bells would ring and the people would go to church, now the factory whistles blow and we must go there to find the faithful. He meant that the Church must not remain closed off in its places of worship, but must go to meet society, because the true Church is made up the faithful, and not only of priests."
.

Yes, and we all know how productive that Vatican II strategy has proved to be for the Roman Catholics. 

Source: Orthodox Churches begin journey toward their grand synod

[PeterTheAleut]

... the Church must not remain closed off in its places of worship, but must go to meet society, because the true Church is made up the faithful, and not only of priests."
.

Yes, and we all know how productive that Vatican II strategy has proved to be for the Roman Catholics. 

Uhhh, I hate to break this to you, but that's called evangelism, an activity to which ALL Christians--yes, even us Orthodox laypersons--are called.  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15)

[ozgeorge]

Are you having extra-pyramidal side effects? You seem to suffer frequent oculogyric crises. I suggest 2mg of benztropine stat.

[Heracleides]

... the Church must not remain closed off in its places of worship, but must go to meet society, because the true Church is made up the faithful, and not only of priests."
.

Yes, and we all know how productive that Vatican II strategy has proved to be for the Roman Catholics. 

Uhhh, I hate to break this to you, but that's called evangelism, an activity to which ALL Christians--yes, even us Orthodox laypersons--are called.  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15)

Of course it is... power to the people and all that hippy nonsense.  No doubt in the name of Vatican II 'evangelism' you will embrace liturgical dancing, 'extraordinary ministers', and clown liturgies with open arms.  

[Heracleides]

Are you having extra-pyramidal side effects? You seem to suffer frequent oculogyric crises. I suggest 2mg of benztropine stat.

Ozzy, I realize PtA beat you to your lines with his previous post, but this is reaching, even for you. 

[PeterTheAleut]

... the Church must not remain closed off in its places of worship, but must go to meet society, because the true Church is made up the faithful, and not only of priests."
.

Yes, and we all know how productive that Vatican II strategy has proved to be for the Roman Catholics. 

Uhhh, I hate to break this to you, but that's called evangelism, an activity to which ALL Christians--yes, even us Orthodox laypersons--are called.  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15)

Of course it is... power to the people and all that hippy nonsense.  No doubt in the name of Vatican II 'evangelism' you will embrace liturgical dancing, 'extraordinary ministers', and clown liturgies with open arms.  

And why do you think evangelism requires this, such that you now poo poo the whole idea of evangelism?


IOW, just because I agree with the statement you've highlighted doesn't mean I attach to the statement all the nonsense you attach, nor does it mean I will embrace such nonsense.  All it means is that I agree with the substance of the statement apart from any reading between the lines.

[Heracleides]

... the Church must not remain closed off in its places of worship, but must go to meet society, because the true Church is made up the faithful, and not only of priests."
.

Yes, and we all know how productive that Vatican II strategy has proved to be for the Roman Catholics. 

Uhhh, I hate to break this to you, but that's called evangelism, an activity to which ALL Christians--yes, even us Orthodox laypersons--are called.  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15)

Of course it is... power to the people and all that hippy nonsense.  No doubt in the name of Vatican II 'evangelism' you will embrace liturgical dancing, 'extraordinary ministers', and clown liturgies with open arms.  

And why do you think evangelism requires this, such that you now poo poo the whole idea of evangelism?

I don't "poo-poo" the whole idea of evangelism, but rather the Roman Catholic Vat. II implementation of it.  You might want to read the original citation more carefully while paying particular attention as to exactly who was being quoted and in what context. 

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't "poo-poo" the whole idea of evangelism, but rather the Roman Catholic Vat. II implementation of it.  You might want to read the original citation more carefully while paying particular attention as to exactly who was being quoted and in what context. 

Nah!  In this case, the decision to take the highlighted quote out of context is intentional.  I had hoped to show you the gem of truth spoken in said statement if you don't attach to it such meaning as the original speaker may have intended to communicate.  (IOW, the meaning you read is not stated clearly in nothing more than the text of your quote.  One has to know your mind to understand what you mean to express by quoting such text, and, though I've come to know pretty well how you think, I'm still not a mind reader.)

[Heracleides]

I don't "poo-poo" the whole idea of evangelism, but rather the Roman Catholic Vat. II implementation of it.  You might want to read the original citation more carefully while paying particular attention as to exactly who was being quoted and in what context. 

Nah!  In this case, the decision to take the highlighted quote out of context is intentional.  I had hoped to show you the gem of truth spoken in said statement if you don't attach to it such meaning as the original speaker may have intended to communicate.

Uh... yeah.  You are aware who Paul VI was and the role he played in Vat. II and its implementation, right?  (He is, afterall, the person being referenced by the nameless Catholic 'observer' in the quotation.) If not, then this little sidebar with you is rather pointless.


P.S. It would help in responding to you if you would desist from altering/adding to your thoughts once you post something.  Or should I perhaps simply give you a ten minute window to complete your thoughts after your initial (and apparently incomplete) posts before replying?

[orthodoxlurker]

...

Source: Orthodox Churches begin journey toward their grand synod

This was actually RC propaganda tool I referenced at some another thread.

We are yet to see who is "at the turning point".

[ozgeorge]

P.S. It would help in responding to you if you would desist from altering/adding to your thoughts once you post something.  Or should I perhaps simply give you a ten minute window to complete your thoughts after your initial (and apparently incomplete) posts before replying?

 
« Last Edit: Today at 03:23:08 by Heracleides » 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't "poo-poo" the whole idea of evangelism, but rather the Roman Catholic Vat. II implementation of it.  You might want to read the original citation more carefully while paying particular attention as to exactly who was being quoted and in what context. 

Nah!  In this case, the decision to take the highlighted quote out of context is intentional.  I had hoped to show you the gem of truth spoken in said statement if you don't attach to it such meaning as the original speaker may have intended to communicate.

Uh... yeah.  You are aware who Paul VI was and the role he played in Vat. II and its implementation, right?  (He is, afterall, the person being referenced by the nameless Catholic 'observer' in the quotation.) If not, then this little sidebar with you is rather pointless.

But even the Jewish high priest spoke truth unwittingly when he said the following, even though he didn't understand the significant meaning of his own prophecy:

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.  (John 11:49-53)

P.S. It would help in responding to you if you would desist from altering/adding to your thoughts once you post something.  Or should I perhaps simply give you a ten minute window to complete your thoughts after your initial (and apparently incomplete) posts before replying?

Yeah, I do that a lot, don't I? Sorry to goof you up like that.  What if I were to add thoughts by quoting myself in later posts?

[Heracleides]

P.S. It would help in responding to you if you would desist from altering/adding to your thoughts once you post something.  Or should I perhaps simply give you a ten minute window to complete your thoughts after your initial (and apparently incomplete) posts before replying?

 
« Last Edit: Today at 03:23:08 by Heracleides » 

 

Yes Ozzy - I replied to PtA's initial post, saw that he had made substantial additions to his initial post, and added my P.S.  You're such astute moderator, what would we do without you.   And with that I am off to work.

P.S. And yes, I am having trouble with one of my contact lenses this morning.  Can't get anything past you.