OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 03:51:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!  (Read 38726 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #315 on: April 10, 2009, 03:18:14 AM »

cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Cleveland !!    Shocked  Whodda thort it ??

Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.  Not only are they cannibals but they are not above spreading the odd rumour around..

.... but Cleveland !!   Whodda thort it ??
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #316 on: April 10, 2009, 08:34:35 AM »

Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.

Luckily you can ignore them and just read the thread, or better yet see how things operate in the real world.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #317 on: April 10, 2009, 09:06:10 AM »

Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.

Luckily you can ignore them and just read the thread, or better yet see how things operate in the real world.

It's always been a real regret that in my 30 years as a parish priest I lost contact with the real world.  Life has been devoted only to the aberrant world of unhappy immigrants and disoriented refugees, alcoholics and solvent abusers, those who are inclined to suicide or moral lapses.

If only I could have spent my life dealing with the real world of my youth - where families have two cars in the garage and annual holidays abroad, live in upperclass suburbs with swimming pools and drink $200 bottles of port.  Oh, for a return to the real world....!   Smiley
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #318 on: April 10, 2009, 10:00:09 AM »

Your point is taken, but I mean the real world of Orthodoxy (i.e. not the online world) where faction and rivalry are everywhere from the top down.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #319 on: April 10, 2009, 10:14:57 AM »


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #320 on: April 10, 2009, 10:16:04 AM »

cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #321 on: April 10, 2009, 10:24:58 AM »


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 

[edited to fix quote and add source]
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 10:25:59 AM by serb1389 » Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #322 on: April 10, 2009, 10:37:00 AM »

Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).


Quote
and are the only Canadian jurisdiction that has a podcast series (the local OCA parish does do a local radio show). They have an active national youth department and also a network for youth workers in their diocese.
I have heard the complaint in the OCA that "All America and Canada," the Canada is an afterthought.  I have heard, that change is coming though.

Quote
All in all I would say that the GOCC is a pretty good diocese. The lack of converts is more due to Canadian culture than the lack of effort by the Metropolitanate.

Like I said, I've only been to Canada once (actually twice, but a few hours in Winsor hardly count, and that was with Copts), and mostly in Quebec.  My sources, however, go frequently, especially to Toronto, and are otherwise trustworthy.  We are, however, mostly sympaticos.

Quote
More on topic....I fail to see how being autocephalous really makes a difference. My jurisdiction is autonomous, and I don't see any interference by Constantinople at all. At our Sobors yes there is an EP hierarch present, but that's it. Our Metropolitan has visited the EP in Constantinople and at that time the EP voiced his wishes to assist our jurisdiction in matters of concern. That's it. My local bishop is my ruling bishop and I love him. Above that is Metropolitan John and then Metropolitan Sotirios and then I would assume the EP himself.

You have to excuse me, as I am in the Sole-Ruled Antiochian Archidiocese of North America, where we have just been given a John Kerr lesson on how it really makes a difference.
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).

The sending of Met. Spyridon was another lesson that fortunately I didn' have to experience first hand.

I dare say, that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly by Moscow (something I am fully for), you will soon see what difference being  under the EP in "diaspora" it makes.

And no offense, but the Ukrainians, Greeks and EP have had a strange relationship ever since Holy Trinity Cathedral, to which your predecessor GOANSA traced its origin, hired the renegade Ukrainian hieromonk Ahapij as its first priest rather than get one from the OCA (to be anachronistic) bishop.  (the fact that an earlier parish in Galveston did get a priest from the OCA bishop might be why it is not mentioned by the EP: it still exists
http://www.orthodox.org/galveston/
now having passed on to the Serbs)

Quote
Y'all really think the EP has so much time on his hands that he needs to interfere in the lives of the North American Orthodox community??

LOL.  No, he's too busy in Estonia for one.  But he has his minions.

Ligonier.  Yes, the EP has time on his hands to interfere in the lives of the North American Orthodox community to block their formation of a fully canonical Holy Synod (the OCA Holy Synod is fully canonical, but, in flagrant violation of canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, is being blocked from exercising her authority in her territory and is being interferred with by uncanonical usurpation and encrochment).

Quote
You really think that with serious issues amongst ALL the jurisdictions here in North America, it is beneficial to be pushing for unity and autocephaly??
Tell me, given the prolems between the Quebecois and the Anglo-Canadians, the border disputes with the United States, the "Aboriginal" nations' claims, the rise of the progressives' social agenda etc. was it right for London to pass the British North America Act of 1867 and change it into the Constition Act in 1982?
(the question is rhetorical, not political).

As Met. Jonah pointed out, it is the EP who is pushing this agenda, as early as June, with the intention of doing so without the imput of those affected: it is not "to avoid the thorny issue of Estonia" that made the EP concede.  It was Moscow's insistence on "thorny issue" of the OCA's autocephaly: even under the "imperialist ideology of a forgotten empire" according to which the EP operates, the OCA would the automonous counterpart in Moscow to the EP's Estonia.  Hence the OCA would be showing up in June, at the PoM's invitation.

North America has an autocephalous Church.  It doesn't have to be pushed for, and the pushing against it has made time run out deferring to a later date.  The EP has set the clock ticking.

Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #323 on: April 10, 2009, 11:13:02 AM »


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

yes, I've been delayed to getting to that part of our program.

No, not several but ALL (with the possible exception of Cyprus and Albania) don't hold to it.

Moscow, Poland, Czech and Slovak, Georgia, and  Bulgaria and the OCA do not hold to it, by simple reason that they recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.

Antioch, Serbia, Romania have remained neutral.  But the fact that they maintian archdioceses in what the EP is claiming  is his terriotory, and in the case of Antioch and Serbia in North America freely admit that their archdioceses originated as arms of the OCA/Metropolia, and that with the Romania merger talks in North America, the issue/non-issue of the OCA's autocephaly didn't come up (correct me if I am wrong), they must be put in the Chief Secretary's heretic camp.

Albania is neutral, but has her own problems now and since the OCA/Metropolia in fact created the Church of Albania (an odd history that would involve Albania, Greece, Alexandria, OCA, Russia, Serbia and the EP, of course as usual, coming last in line while maintaining its "primacy") which continues as the OCA Albanian Diocese as well as the recontructing CoA, it is a borderline case.

Cyprus has her own problems, and doesn't seem to get involved in the Greek Orthodox world, let alone the Orthodox world, in these types of matters, but follows the EP's lead.

That leaves Alexandria, Jerusalem and the CoG.  But since all three have had/have jurisdictions in the "diaspora," heresy according to the EP, and Alexandria didn't wait until "Mother (Church) may I?" before she claimed all of Africa (no, it was LOONG before the 2002 date the Chief Secretary gives, at least in Africa), the wrangling over the "New Lands" in Greece, and giving aid and comfort to the Old Calendarist Greeks (and others), well, they are definitely showing "heretical" tendencies.  It seems their support for the EP's 28th canon dogma extends only against the OCA.  Do as I say, not as I do.

Which leaves the EP, well, alone. La petite eglise.  (Sort of like Old Rome).

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 
Not according to the Chief Secretary.  Which was OL's point.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 11:18:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #324 on: April 10, 2009, 11:40:02 AM »

cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick

I was not serious.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #325 on: April 10, 2009, 11:41:50 AM »

cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick

I was not serious.

That's what happens when you forget to use your sarcasm tags.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,420


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #326 on: April 10, 2009, 02:30:23 PM »

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 02:30:46 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #327 on: April 10, 2009, 02:48:03 PM »


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

yes, I've been delayed to getting to that part of our program.

No, not several but ALL (with the possible exception of Cyprus and Albania) don't hold to it.

Moscow, Poland, Czech and Slovak, Georgia, and  Bulgaria and the OCA do not hold to it, by simple reason that they recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.

Antioch, Serbia, Romania have remained neutral.  But the fact that they maintian archdioceses in what the EP is claiming  is his terriotory, and in the case of Antioch and Serbia in North America freely admit that their archdioceses originated as arms of the OCA/Metropolia, and that with the Romania merger talks in North America, the issue/non-issue of the OCA's autocephaly didn't come up (correct me if I am wrong), they must be put in the Chief Secretary's heretic camp.

Albania is neutral, but has her own problems now and since the OCA/Metropolia in fact created the Church of Albania (an odd history that would involve Albania, Greece, Alexandria, OCA, Russia, Serbia and the EP, of course as usual, coming last in line while maintaining its "primacy") which continues as the OCA Albanian Diocese as well as the recontructing CoA, it is a borderline case.

Cyprus has her own problems, and doesn't seem to get involved in the Greek Orthodox world, let alone the Orthodox world, in these types of matters, but follows the EP's lead.

That leaves Alexandria, Jerusalem and the CoG.  But since all three have had/have jurisdictions in the "diaspora," heresy according to the EP, and Alexandria didn't wait until "Mother (Church) may I?" before she claimed all of Africa (no, it was LOONG before the 2002 date the Chief Secretary gives, at least in Africa), the wrangling over the "New Lands" in Greece, and giving aid and comfort to the Old Calendarist Greeks (and others), well, they are definitely showing "heretical" tendencies.  It seems their support for the EP's 28th canon dogma extends only against the OCA.  Do as I say, not as I do.

Which leaves the EP, well, alone. La petite eglise.  (Sort of like Old Rome).

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 
Not according to the Chief Secretary.  Which was OL's point.

Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?  Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.  He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #328 on: April 10, 2009, 03:18:42 PM »

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?

Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?
No.  I think that OL was stating quite plainly that CS (Chief Secretary) was declaring it was heresy.  And OL is right (see above).
Quote
Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.
OL or CS (Chief Secretary)?

Quote
He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

No.  He was saying that those who don't submit to the theology of the primos accepted at the council of Ravenna was a heretic.

Quote
Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 

I see. Thanks.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 03:27:05 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #329 on: April 10, 2009, 03:25:57 PM »

edit
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 03:27:23 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #330 on: April 10, 2009, 04:44:09 PM »

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

OMG, false accusations, exaggerations, what will be next!
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #331 on: April 10, 2009, 04:46:48 PM »

OMG, false accusations, exaggerations, what will be next!
Saints preserve this thread from such!  Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #332 on: April 10, 2009, 04:53:54 PM »

cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

At the moment AMM is in bondage to the Tiki gods so he may not be fully rational.   Grin 
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #333 on: April 10, 2009, 05:00:38 PM »

I'm not the one cheering people on who are telling untruths.

Which is not to say I'm rational....
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 05:03:04 PM by AMM » Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #334 on: April 10, 2009, 05:10:00 PM »

Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).

I find that funny, because I was actually told that TOTA is actually rather North American in nature. Not sure how much truth lies behind the allegation.


Quote
and are the only Canadian jurisdiction that has a podcast series (the local OCA parish does do a local radio show). They have an active national youth department and also a network for youth workers in their diocese.
I have heard the complaint in the OCA that "All America and Canada," the Canada is an afterthought.  I have heard, that change is coming though.[/quote]

Canada is indeed an afterthought in the OCA....and I don't know how fast the change is coming....

Quote
More on topic....I fail to see how being autocephalous really makes a difference. My jurisdiction is autonomous, and I don't see any interference by Constantinople at all. At our Sobors yes there is an EP hierarch present, but that's it. Our Metropolitan has visited the EP in Constantinople and at that time the EP voiced his wishes to assist our jurisdiction in matters of concern. That's it. My local bishop is my ruling bishop and I love him. Above that is Metropolitan John and then Metropolitan Sotirios and then I would assume the EP himself.
Quote
You have to excuse me, as I am in the Sole-Ruled Antiochian Archidiocese of North America, where we have just been given a John Kerr lesson on how it really makes a difference.
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).

We could have possibly had a similar situation in late 2008-early 2009 here in Canada. I certainly have no issues with the actions of the GG in the King-Byng affair.

Quote
I dare say, that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly by Moscow (something I am fully for), you will soon see what difference being  under the EP in "diaspora" it makes.

Being autonomous under Kyiv or the Phanar, makes no difference to me.

Quote
You really think that with serious issues amongst ALL the jurisdictions here in North America, it is beneficial to be pushing for unity and autocephaly??

Tell me, given the prolems between the Quebecois and the Anglo-Canadians, the border disputes with the United States, the "Aboriginal" nations' claims, the rise of the progressives' social agenda etc. was it right for London to pass the British North America Act of 1867 and change it into the Constition Act in 1982?
(the question is rhetorical, not political).
[/quote]

The Constitution Act of 1982 clearly was hastily done, and has resulted in almost three decades of stagnation on the issue of constitutional reform. it may very well rip Canada apart.


Quote
As Met. Jonah pointed out, it is the EP who is pushing this agenda, as early as June, with the intention of doing so without the imput of those affected: it is not "to avoid the thorny issue of Estonia" that made the EP concede.  It was Moscow's insistence on "thorny issue" of the OCA's autocephaly: even under the "imperialist ideology of a forgotten empire" according to which the EP operates, the OCA would the automonous counterpart in Moscow to the EP's Estonia.  Hence the OCA would be showing up in June, at the PoM's invitation.

The OCA is pushing their own agenda as well.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 05:28:07 PM by Ukiemeister » Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #335 on: April 10, 2009, 05:24:15 PM »

(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).


Her Majesty holds greaters powers here in New Zealand than she does in Australia.  This is because in 1974 we created the Royal Titles Act which gave her the status Queen and Sovereign of New Zealand.  She is our Head of State.

What we are is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic parliamentary system.

Her status as Queen of New Zealand enables her through her designated Governor-General to dissolve Parliament if there is serious cause such as a hung Parliament which cannot govern effectively but refuses to resign and call new elections.

Is this similar to Canada?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 05:25:06 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #336 on: April 10, 2009, 06:20:53 PM »

Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).

I find that funny, because I was actually told that TOTA is actually rather North American in nature. Not sure how much truth lies behind the allegation.

Actually they are very North American in culture.  In fact when the TOTA guys came down to HC to visit for OISM they bought all of our chant books and service books in english because they needed them for Canada (it was cheaper for them to buy it down south). 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #337 on: April 10, 2009, 06:28:33 PM »

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?

Quote
Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?
No.  I think that OL was stating quite plainly that CS (Chief Secretary) was declaring it was heresy.  And OL is right (see above).

Yah, im just not making the same connections you are.  For example when you underlined "me" in paragraph:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.

That's just taking it out of context.  He is using a very common phraseology, and NOT making a concerted point.  He is not DECLARING anything, just adding a point.  See how the connection you make is not necessarily there?  There are others...do you want me to get into it, or should we not hash it out...your call big brother.  Smiley


Quote
Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.
OL or CS (Chief Secretary)? [/quote]

CS (I thought I put the link up there...sorry for the confusion)

Quote
Quote
He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

No.  He was saying that those who don't submit to the theology of the primos accepted at the council of Ravenna was a heretic.

Yah...again, not making that connection.  I think a little bit more linearly than you do so this might get a little complicated.  If he doesn't outright say "this and that is a heresy because of revena and i as CS am making this declaration of heresy" the rest is hearsay. 

Quote
Quote
Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 

I see. Thanks.

you're welcome!  glad I could be of use  Wink Grin



« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 06:33:44 PM by serb1389 » Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #338 on: April 10, 2009, 06:36:25 PM »

(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).


Her Majesty holds greaters powers here in New Zealand than she does in Australia.  This is because in 1974 we created the Royal Titles Act which gave her the status Queen and Sovereign of New Zealand.  She is our Head of State.

What we are is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic parliamentary system.

Her status as Queen of New Zealand enables her through her designated Governor-General to dissolve Parliament if there is serious cause such as a hung Parliament which cannot govern effectively but refuses to resign and call new elections.

Is this similar to Canada?

Yes, although the GG does not necessarily exercise such powers as required....
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,420


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #339 on: April 10, 2009, 06:47:45 PM »

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?
Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #340 on: April 10, 2009, 06:57:46 PM »

I'm going to break this down, so as to be able to make manageable posts while giving the answer (i.e. full) that your post desearves.  I'm not going in the order of your OP, but in the order of importance/my time to answer:

And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country. 
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

I don't think that Greek dance troups and schools are weeds.  I would venture his beatitude doesn't either, but I can't speak for him.


I think he is speaking of this foreign ideology, expoused by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority

In other words, the foreign ideology that this is, or has been, terra incognita and "diaspora."

Note, that the Chief Secretary names no positive development in Orthodoxy in America, none that he does not damn with faint praise.

Anyway, I don't really think that's what His Beatitude was addressing.  The Chief Secretary's quote doesn't fall under the "foreign customs" that His Beatitude spoke of, or "nationalist and imperialist ideology."  I think it's nice of you to try and protect His Beatitude by asserting that the Chief Secretary's quote was what he was addressing, but I don't think it's correct.  Even if it was, the words "submission to a foreign despot" are still nothing more than slander, fear mongering, and insulting.

I couldn't go into detail, as the computer I was at couldn't read the transcripts.  Here is the paragraph from which the line we are speaking on is found:
Quote
I don’t think the Holy Fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a church, albeit, with separate administrations, but that has a common value of determining our own destiny.  A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.  A church which is united in its common commitment. Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  And that it’s that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that same commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country.  A church in which we value the diversity – and we value the unity equally.  A church in which we appreciate one another, and listen to the voice of one another, so that no person is devalued.  So that the traditions that our fathers in the faith have brought to this country are valued.  So that the efforts and the labor and the sweat and the blood and the tears of all those who have gone before us to establish the orthodox faith in America for over 200 years now, 215 years to be precise.  To acknowledge their sacrifice, and that it is upon their sacrifice, upon their martyrdoms, upon their sanctity that our church here was built.

To give it the context, which I believe explains what foreign ideology, etc. he was speaking of, I quote the sentence before and the sentence(s) after the above paragraph:
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Tlingit and the Aleut and the Yupik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land....

.....There are those that would, there are those there that would say that there was no canonical orthodox church in America until 1924 with the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Greek Archdiocese.  Excuse me.  The Russian Orthodox Church established their missionary work here in 1794.  

I believe the crux of the whole speech and the whole problem is that the EP cannot, it seem, recognize that that the Church in America has NEVER been a Church in "diaspora."  It was not conceived as one in "diaspora," it did not "develop" in diaspora, it was not groomed for autocephaly in "diaspora."  And this all transpired before the EP set foot on this continent.  

The reference in the paragraph to the Phanar I do not believe, and it would seem, is not accidental.  Constantinople is the See, not Istanbul, her See is in Hagia Sophia, not St. George's.  The Phanar symbolizes all the aberration that the Orthodox Church suffered during the Turcocratia, aberrations which the EP seems not to want to let go.  The Phanar is the district that capitulated to the Ottoman in exchange for safety.  It existed as the arm of the Ottoman state to control the Orthodox subjects. It is the only other arm of the Ottoman state that still exists (the Patriarchate of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher is another, and another problem).  The Turk cared only that the Orthodox knew their place (i.e. the bottom, or maybe above Jews) and paid their taxes, including in children (baptismal rolls were used). The EP tried to act as the heir of the Roman Emperor, but in reality he was just an administrator, the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet, the leash that the Sultan kept on his Orthodox subjects, as EP St. Gregory V found out when the Sultan used his slack on that leash to hang him at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence.  To make that administration more centralized as the Sultan liked it, the Caliph abolished all the patriarchates he could get his hand on and ordained his court chaplain the head of all Orthodoxy.

And so Bulgaria and Serbia lost their Churches in the Ottoman Empire, and Romania was prevented from developing hers.  The other members of the Pentarchy seemed harder to abolish, but here was little need, since they had no tax population to speak off, and they were useful: Jerusalem could more effectively milk the pilgrim milch cow, Antioch was full of Arabs who kept an eye on the Maronites, allies of the Crusaders.  Alexandria kept another eye on the province of Egypt, ever capable of rebellion, and countered the Coptic population there.  When the Arabs decided to be rid of both the near by Sultan and EP for the benefits of links to the powerful, and distant, pope of Rome, the EP and the Sultan retaliated by installing Greeks, until the Russians helped stop that at the turn of the last century, in the twilight of that forgotten empire on the Bosphoros.

So the EP got control of all the Orthodox for his master.  The Phanar might be a ghetto in the capital, but it was the metropolis of the Orthodox.  So the grandees there tried to keep up with the nobles of Istanbul, and Orthodoxy became a flock to be sheered for the Sultan, the Phanariots taking their share. A Church of Phanariots, by Phanariots, for Phanariots.  All power and administration in their hands.  The propogandists of dhimmitude, an alien ideology, used to enslave nations to plough under the Turkish yoke to serve the imperial ambitions of the House of Osman.  Not so benevolent despots whose position depended on enforcing subservience to their masters, squashing seperate identity of the Orthodox into a Hellenic monolith to serve as a Christian alter (or sub) ego to the Turkish Muslim body politic.

The Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant, or ignoring this history.  But Arabs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Albanians know it.  Bearing grudges? No.  Just my experience has been that when someone says "I never did that," what it means is "if given the opportunity, I will do it again."

So only Russia, having broke off the Mongol yoke and pushed back the Latin Crusaders, escaped this, and pursued her own destiny, finally reaching across Siberia and down into Northern California, where no Church had preached the Gospel before.  And when the Church came there, it was specifically because monks on the opposite end of that empire were told that there were peoples who had not heard the Gospel.  And so the monks went to baptize the natives, give them the alphabet while giving them the scriptures in their languages.  Natives were ordained, and a native Peter the Aleut sealed his Orthodoxy with the blood of martyrdom in San Francisco.  They were not Amerindian Millets, they were Orthodox Christians, with a native Church in their native tongue in their native land, the Russian government securing guarentees for them as such, both as to their citizenshiop and Church, from the U.S. government as terms of sale.  Nations continued to be converted AFTER the Russian government left.  When the U.S. government failed to live up to its promises, the self identifed "Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs" could, and did, demand their rights (with the support of their LOCAL Diocesan Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska, then resident in San Francisco) from the U.S. President, petitioning in all truth: "We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress. The Organic Act, providing a civil Government for Alaska."  Demands like the Protestant missions stop stealing their children (so they could be put in English only Protestant boarding schools), stop stealing their dead (so they could not be given Orthodox rites), stop stealing their icons so they could be piled in the village square and burnt.  They were not believers in the ideology of dhimmitude.  "With all this we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government."  Aliens in their own homes, the Chief Secretary spat on each and every one of these confessors for the Orthodox Faith when he refused to acknowledge their existence, because it conflicts with his world view of "diaspora."

Russian involvement brought the US into central CA, and hence into the US.  John Sutter built the nascent Californian State by buying Fort Ross, and when he started the Gold Rush by building his mill to pay off the price, the last Russian governor was there to patent a gold washing machine.  The Russian navy's champlains continued to serve the area.  Other governors of Russian America also settled in San Francisco, including the Imperial Russian consul in SF who picked up where the Russian Fort Ross governors left off, and who, as his beatitude also noted in his speech, with the GREEK consul, founded the first permanent Orthodox parish in SF proper, which was prepared to become the See of North America BEFORE Alaska was sold. This Greek consul, George Fisher, born Serb Đorđe Šagić, helped break the Ottoman (and Phanariot) yoke in the first Serb uprising, and fleeing to the US was a major settler in the South, in Texas (where he was on hand for the Texas revolution) and then, through Panama to Califiornia, ended up a Federal Judge that settled the Land claims of CA (including that the stemed from the sale by Russia to John Sutter). The first Greek Orthodox Church was in Galveston in 1862, and it would send for a priest (and get one) from the bishop in SF.  George Fishre, and many others, did not come "to the superpower called the United States": they created it.  And they bonded to the nation they were creating AND TO THE CANONICAL ORTHODOX CHURCH THERE THAT THEY WERE BUILDING UP.  But that doesn't fit into the Millet mentality of the Chief Secretary. In his speech, Orthodox only benefit, not actually build this nation.

A priest, John Veniaminov, served in a kayak from Kamchatka in Siberia all the way down to the Church at Fort Ross, Sonoma CA, before he was recalled to Russia as her head, Met. St. Innocent of Moscow: as such he translated his works FROM the Amerindian languages into Russia, where they went through edition after edition. St. Innocent, at the helm of the Russian Church put missions at the top of the agenda, along with religious education.  And the revival and reform of the Russian Church, following in the footsteps of his predecessor and friend of St. Filaret (author of the Large Catechism and first Russian translation of the Holy Bible).  Including laity participation and education, and participation in election of bishops with more conciliar governance, you know, like Orthodoxy ecclesiolgoy is supposed to act at least on paper.  One of the fruits of St. Innocent's revival, St. Tikhon came to America.  Becoming a naturalized citizen, and the Czar and the Holy Synod ordering that the DL commorate the President of the United States, he traveled from New York to SF, to Alaska to the south.  He implimented the reforms of the Church in America, convened its first Sobor with the active participation of the clergy and laity, experience he would take back to Russia to the Sobor that elected him to restore the Patriarchate (cut short by the Bolshevik revolution).  He had vicar bishops for the Arab ethnicity (St. Raphael being the first), not its Millet, and prepared for ones for the Serbs, Albanians and others.  The rites were translated into English, WRO approved,  those returning from the Vatican welcomed back, monestaries and seminaries founded.  And all this before either the EP or the CoG set an episcopal foot on this continent.

The Chief Secretary prefers to ignore this history and prefers we be ignorant of it.  Interferes with the idea of all authority flowing from the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet.

So while the Phanar was busy making itself into a Greek episcopal cartel, the Russian were establishing a new diocese of North America.  While the Greek Phanariots were Hellenizing the Orthodox into subjects of the Sultan, the Russian mission was evangelizing new nations, the monks administrating the oath of allegiance to the Czar to them so as to extend their legal protection, protection that the Czar wrote into treaty obligations on the U.S.  While the EP was excommunicating the Orthodox as they threw off the alien ideology of dhimmitude and allegience to the Turkish despot, taking their destiny into their own hands, the Russian Church was placing the destiny of those in the lands of North America into their own hands, the Czar continuing to give gifts of vestments, Gospels and sacred implements even as he ordered his own replacement in the diptychs in favor of the authorities of THIS country.  Where unity was not a myth, as Met. Jonah points out, but a reality, until Bp/Arch/EP/Pope Meletius, the last hurrah of the Phanariot cartel came and started the tradition of ignoring that reality, a tradition on which the Chief Secretary stomps on our Fathers of these lands, as Met. Jonah points out.

Quote
Do you disagree with how the Chief Secretary describes the development of Orthodoxy in the US?

VEHEMENTLY!

Quote
Is it not true that the Orthodox in America organized themselves according to their national origin and not according to canon law?

No, it is not true: except for the EP's jurisdiction, something the GOA and the Chief Secretary admit.

Quote
It may not NOW be a diaspora, but it most certainly WAS when it developed.

Actually, no it wasn't.  Ever.

And I don't think the Chief Secretary makes your temporal distinction.  His words seem to indicate that he thought he was visiting some Crown Colony.

Quote
I don't think the Chief Secretary made that distinction clearly, but I do think that this is what he was trying to say.
 

I think I know what he wanted to say, as does Met. Jonah, but I don't think it is what you are thinking.

Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #341 on: April 10, 2009, 07:33:53 PM »

Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.


You mean, take the speaker at his word?

Quote
You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.



"Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead”.The correct interpretation of canon 28...[of] uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople...gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch....According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction..if Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities...Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions......[a] Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate... is not included in the diptychs of the Church...In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople...[In] ecclesiolog[y] in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person...the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity...because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected....Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy"

I put it together so there is no problem of reading between the lines.


 
Quote
Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

I'm glad that the CS seeing your Church as a non-Church, dependent on the good will of the EP rather than the grace of Jesus Christ doesn't bother you.

Don't be posting here in July "WHAT HAPPENED Huh Shocked Huh Shocked Huh?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 07:34:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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


« Reply #342 on: April 10, 2009, 08:17:41 PM »

Gads, man...I guess if one posts enough milarkey in massive quantities no one would dare try to refute this junk, here in the post above, and in most others of Isa's in this thread. Such bile-filled, barely concealed hatred of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is unseemly, an embarrassment.
If you feel so strongly, Isa, the patriarch will be in the USA in October. See him directly and spare us this vendetta you harbor.
I have not posted my opinion of what I think is happening here (not 'here' as in this thread, but in the circumstances leading up to this brouhaha). I will save those posts for after Holy Week.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GreekChef
Prez
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: Metropolis of Atlanta
Posts: 884



« Reply #343 on: April 10, 2009, 08:21:23 PM »

I'm going to break this down, so as to be able to make manageable posts while giving the answer (i.e. full) that your post desearves.  I'm not going in the order of your OP, but in the order of importance/my time to answer:



Well that's one view of history... a unique view...

Isa, my friend, I usually REALLY LOVE conversing with you.   I often find myself cheering at my computer screen when I read your posts. Smiley 

But, really, did you read what you wrote, just out of curiosity?  Just in case you didn't, I'll pull out a few of the choicest phrases for you to please note:

Quote
The Phanar symbolizes all the aberration that the Orthodox Church suffered during the Turcocratia, aberrations which the EP seems not to want to let go.

and

Quote
It existed as the arm of the Ottoman state to control the Orthodox subjects. It is the only other arm of the Ottoman state that still exists (the Patriarchate of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher is another, and another problem).

and

Quote
The EP tried to act as the heir of the Roman Emperor, but in reality he was just an administrator, the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet, the leash that the Sultan kept on his Orthodox subjects

and especially this particularly interesting one:

Quote
So the EP got control of all the Orthodox for his master.  The Phanar might be a ghetto in the capital, but it was the metropolis of the Orthodox.  So the grandees there tried to keep up with the nobles of Istanbul, and Orthodoxy became a flock to be sheered for the Sultan, the Phanariots taking their share. A Church of Phanariots, by Phanariots, for Phanariots.  All power and administration in their hands.  The propogandists of dhimmitude, an alien ideology, used to enslave nations to plough under the Turkish yoke to serve the imperial ambitions of the House of Osman.  Not so benevolent despots whose position depended on enforcing subservience to their masters, squashing seperate identity of the Orthodox into a Hellenic monolith to serve as a Christian alter (or sub) ego to the Turkish Muslim body politic.

The Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant, or ignoring this history. 

and this:
Quote
Aliens in their own homes, the Chief Secretary spat on each and every one of these confessors for the Orthodox Faith

as well as this:
Quote
The Chief Secretary prefers to ignore this history and prefers we be ignorant of it.  Interferes with the idea of all authority flowing from the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet.

and this doosy:
Quote
So while the Phanar was busy making itself into a Greek episcopal cartel... While the Greek Phanariots were Hellenizing the Orthodox into subjects of the Sultan...

and this one:
Quote
While the EP was excommunicating the Orthodox as they threw off the alien ideology of dhimmitude and allegience to the Turkish despot,

and this:
Quote
until Bp/Arch/EP/Pope Meletius, the last hurrah of the Phanariot cartel came and started the tradition of ignoring that reality, a tradition on which the Chief Secretary stomps on our Fathers of these lands

I mean, I took Byzantine History, I've read the books, I'm not ignorant of how the empire rose and fell, and how the patriarch became the ethnarch, and all of that... but the twists and spins!  Wow!!!  You must be great at Twister (one of my personal favorite games)!!!   Grin Wink Grin Wink

But seriously, folks... It is difficult to wade through all of this muck in order to continue the conversation, my friend.  Just please remember that there are many on this forum who personally know and love the people at whom you are aiming such spiteful words (and I'm not just speaking of the words in THIS particular post-- it seems to be a theme in your posts these days).  And those people know that both these men (yes, men, human and imperfect as the rest of us, but Orthodox brethren nonetheless) are quite different from the way you have characterized them (basically as evil, power-hungry, wannabe popes). 

I think we could still continue this conversation and have it bear much fruit.  Are you with me, my friend?  Any chance you could restate your points a little more clearly and absent of the... uh... spiteful and bitter propaganda, so that I can respond?   Wink  I just don't really think I can respond to them the way they are (I've actually tried for like the past half hour now).  I would be grateful if you could.

Forgive me a sinner.
With love and respect in Christ...
Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,493



« Reply #344 on: April 10, 2009, 08:26:09 PM »


Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

You are wrong to imply that the only way to interpret a person's meaning is if the person makes it explicit. That is the gold standard and nobody, who has arisen to the level of a doctorate, archimandrite, and the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, will likely blurt it out. However, even if the Chief Secretary had come out said "it is a heresy to disagree with my boss in this matter" and Isa reiterated what he said, there would still be folks saying, well that is YOUR interpretation.

As it so happens, we have deductive and inductive logic models that allow us to arrive at reasonable conclusions or interpretation. One may disagree with Isa, but one does not have the right to restrict his interpretation modality to "monkey see, monkey do."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,493



« Reply #345 on: April 10, 2009, 08:39:01 PM »

Hi y'all,

Down here in the South, folks have a habit of referring at the American Civil War by other names, such as the War of Northern Aggression or The Recent Unpleasantry.  laugh

What I am driving at is that Isa's grim history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is from a perspective that may not be shared by others (and obviously will not be by some of us). You can look at a glass as half full or half empty but you cannot deny some obvious facts: there is a glass and there is sufficient amount of water so that there is room for interpretation. The main problem here is really not what Isa said; the problem is whether there is some truth to what he said.

Now, he has undeniably been undiplomatic and used a broad brush. Nonetheless, I believe that he believes in the truth of what he has said. I am not going to get into the substance of what he said because I do not want to upset folks even more than they are. I hope and pray that we will all take a deep breath...at least until after Bright Monday.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 08:40:56 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #346 on: April 10, 2009, 08:47:29 PM »

I am sure that most of us, and especially the North Americans, are taking these matters to God in prayer.  There seem to be tectonic forces at work, pushing and shifting in the dark to remake the face of Orthodoxy in America.

It may in the long run have a positive outcome but it would certainly not be a waste of time and it would be a great blessing to spend time in prayer each day to the Saints of North America.  The work which they began as missionaries and which must still be close to their hearts cries out now for their involvement from heaven in the current decision-making.

All Saints of America, pray for us   

Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #347 on: April 10, 2009, 09:56:19 PM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 09:57:24 PM by AMM » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,272


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #348 on: April 10, 2009, 10:32:03 PM »

Hi y'all,

Down here in the South, folks have a habit of referring at the American Civil War by other names, such as the War of Northern Aggression or The Recent Unpleasantry.  laugh

What we've got here is, a failure to communicate.

What's so "civil" about war, anyway? Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #349 on: April 10, 2009, 11:10:45 PM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 11:11:57 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #350 on: April 10, 2009, 11:19:18 PM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #351 on: April 10, 2009, 11:20:48 PM »

I am sure that most of us, and especially the North Americans, are taking these matters to God in prayer.  There seem to be tectonic forces at work, pushing and shifting in the dark to remake the face of Orthodoxy in America.

I just spoke with a bishop who is involved in the midst of all this.  Yes, a clash of titans is in the works.

Quote
It may in the long run have a positive outcome

Of that there is not doubt.  As Fr. Carapi says, why do you worry about the world?  We know how the story ends. Smiley

I see that while you were posting this Father, I was reading the lection to my sons.  The ending of Genesis, where Joseph points out that what his brother meant for evil, God intended for good.  The problems of the OCA coming to a head, the Romanian jurisdiction talks in the US, the upcoming meeting of the Antiochians and then the meeting in Cyprus, coming on the heels of the reunion of ROCOR with Russia, and in the midst of the legal victory of the EP over the orphanage (not so much over the property, but the precedence it sets for legal personhood of the See of Constantinople: international legal incorporation is the solution of most, if not all, his problems there).  I have no doubt that men are implimenting their agendas and God is executing His designs.  I'm not worried about the outcome, just our responsibility to it.

Quote
but it would certainly not be a waste of time and it would be a great blessing to spend time in prayer each day to the Saints of North America.

My old priest said that when he would go to Russia during the days of communist repression, the old ladies used to ask him "do people pray in the United States?"  When he told them that yes they did, they would weep and thank him for letting them know that their prayers for the Americans weren't wasted: they feared the atheists had got them.  I've had the honor several times in Egypt, in areas where a cross can get you killed, of briniging the good news that yes, people in the U.S. do go to Church.  The Copts were quite worried that the Muslims had seduced the Americans. It is the prayers of such confessors that keeps us the pampered, who can take going to DL for granted, going.

Quote
The work which they began as missionaries and which must still be close to their hearts cries out now for their involvement from heaven in the current decision-making.


Quote
St. Tikhon, Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and North America
Farewell Sermon
Preached on the Sunday of Orthodoxy
at the New York City Cathedral

This Sunday is called “The Sunday of Orthodoxy” or “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” since on this day the Holy Church solemnly commemorates her victory over Iconoclasm and other heresies.  And this triumph of Orthodoxy took place not just a thousand years ago.  No – for due to the mercy of God, the Church up to this day, now here and now there, gains victory and is triumphant over her enemies – and She has many of them.

It is not a coincidence that the Church is likened to a ship, sailing amidst a ferocious, stormy sea which is ready to drown it in its waves.  And the further the ship sails, the harder the waves slam against it, the fiercer they attack it!  But the harder the waves hit the ship, the further they are thrown away and rejoin the abyss and disappear in it, and the ship continues its triumphant sailing as before.  For “the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), since the Church of Christ is built on an immovable rock, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).  

The Church of Christ is the kingdom not of this world.  It does not possess any of the attractions of the earthly world.  It is persecuted and slandered.  Yet it not only avoids perishing in the world, but grows and defeats the world!  This happens everywhere, and here in our land as well.  “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Act 4:20).  

It is true that our Church here cannot boast of the quantity of its members, neither of their erudition.  Just like the “preaching of Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23), for some it seems lowly and contemptible, and for others it seems simple and foolish, but in reality “God’s power and wisdom” [1 Cor. 1:24] are concealed in it.  It is strong and rich with the authenticity of the doctrine which has been preserved unaltered, with full adherence to the guiding regulations of the Church, a deep sense of liturgical service, and a plenitude of grace.  And with all of this it is gradually attracting the hearts of people, and it is growing and getting stronger more and more in this country.  

You brethren have witnessed and seen for yourselves the growth and strengthening of Orthodoxy here.  Just a mere twelve to fifteen years ago, we, aside from faraway Alaska, barely had any churches here.  There were no priests, and the Orthodox people numbered only in a few dozens and maybe a few hundreds.  And even they lived dispersed, far from one another.  

And now?  “The Orthodox are seen this day in this country.”  Our temples appear not only in big cities but in obscure places as well.  We have a multitude of clergy, and tens of thousands of faithful – and not only those who have been Orthodox for a while, but those who have converted from among the Uniates.  Schools are opened, the brotherhoods are established.  Even strangers acknowledge the success of Orthodoxy here.  So how can we ourselves not celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” and not thank the Lord who helps His Church!

But it is not enough, brethren, to only celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy.”  It is necessary for us personally to promote and contribute to this triumph.  And for this we must reverently preserve the Orthodox Faith, standing firm in it in spite of the fact that we live in a non-Orthodox country, and not pleading as an excuse for our apostasy that “it is not the old land here but America, a free country, and therefore it is impossible to follow everything that the Church requires.”  As if the word of Christ is only suitable for the old land and not for the entire world!  As if the Church of Christ is not “catholic”!  As if the Orthodox Faith did not “establish the universe”!  

Furthermore, while faithfully preserving the Orthodox Faith, everyone must also take care to spread it among the non-Orthodox.  Christ the Savior said that having lit the candle, men do not put it under a bushel but on a candlestick so that it gives light to all (Matt. 5:15).  The light of the Orthodox Faith has not been lit to shine only for a small circle of people.  No, the Orthodox Church is catholic; she remembers the commandment of her Founder, “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and teach all nations” (Mark 16:15, Matt. 28:19).  

We must share our spiritual richness, truth, light, and joy with others who do not have these blessings.  And this duty does not only lay upon the pastors and the missionaries but on the lay persons as well, since the Church of Christ, according to the wise comparison of the Holy Apostle Paul, is the body, and every member takes part in the life of the body.  By means of all sorts of mutually binding bonds which are formed and strengthened through the action of every member according to his capacity, the great Church body receives an increase unto the edifying of itself (Eph. 4:16).  

In the first centuries it was not only the pastors who were tortured, but lay persons as well – men, women, and even children.  And it was lay people likewise who enlightened the heathen and fought heresies.  And now in the same way, the spreading of the Faith should be a matter that is personal, heartfelt, and dear to each one of us.  Every member of the Church must take an active part in it – some by personal podvig spreading the Good News, some by material donations and service to “the needs of the holy persons,” and some by profuse prayer to the Lord that He “keep His Church firm and multiply it” – and concerning those unaware of Christ, that He would “proclaim the word of truth to them, open to them the Gospel of Truth, and join them to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  I have told this numerous times to my flock.  And today, upon my departing from this land, I once more command all of you to preserve and act upon this, and especially you brethren of this holy temple.  

You witnessed yourself last Sunday that “The foreknowledge of God drew you closer to the bishop’s cathedra, and that the awareness of this closeness elevates your Christian spirit and edifies the nature of your undertakings, inspiring you for everything good.”  Your temple is a Cathedral.  It is preeminent in the diocese.  And being its parishioners, you brethren must give others an example in everything good that concerns the life of the Church, including caring for the Orthodox Faith.  

Furthermore, your parish is Russian, almost entirely consisting of people who came from Russia.  And to this very day Russia has been famous as a holy Christian land, whose adornment is the Orthodox Faith, the piousness of her people, and her temples of God.  So brethren, uphold here in a foreign land the glory of your motherland.  Manifest yourselves before the non-Orthodox as the Russian Orthodox people.  

I can say with comfort that in these days, with your zealous attendance at our temple, you’ve made a good impression on the local residents.  And you have especially gladdened my heart and expelled the sadness and grief which was felt not only by me in other places at the sight of empty temples during the feastday Church services.  

May the Lord strengthen you to excel in the Orthodox Faith more and more – my last prayer is about this . . . Today I depart from you.  And so, farewell, fathers and brethren of this holy temple, who are close to me not only in spirit but in our joint prayers, labors, and residence!  Farewell to you, the rest of my flock scattered across the wide horizon of this land!  Farewell, all those of you wandering in the deserts, working in the mountains and in the depths of the earth, and those on the islands far out in the sea!

Farewell to you, my Cathedral temple!  You are dear and close to me.  It has been during the time of my service that you were opened, you were adorned during my time as well, and you were made a cathedral during my time.  Perhaps for some who have seen the large, magnificent temples in Russia, you might seem small and modest, and you do not shine with gold and silver and precious gemstones like those temples do.  But for Russian Orthodox people, who suffered here for a long time without a temple, you represent a precious treasure, and they rejoice that they have you – like the Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity rejoiced at the time of the construction of the second temple, even though it was not as splendid as that of Solomon.  So:

“Oh Lord, the God of Israel!  May Thine eyes be open toward this house night and day, that Thou mayest hearken unto the prayer of Thy people when they shall pray in this place! . . . Moreover, concerning a stranger that is not of Thy people, when he shall come and pray in this house, hear Thou him from Heaven, Thy dwelling place!” (3 Kingdoms 8:26-27, 39-41).

Farewell to you, this country!  For some you are the motherland, the place of birth; for others you gave shelter, work, and well-being.  Some received the freedom to profess the right Faith in your liberal land. God spoke in ancient times through the prophet, “And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall you have peace” (Jer. 29:7; Hebrew text).

And so, let us pray to the Lord that He send this country “a plenitude of the earthly fruits, fair weather, timely rain and wind, and preserve it from the cowardly, flood, fire, sword, invasion of foreigners, and civil strife.”

Let God’s blessing be upon this country, this city, and this temple.  And let “the blessing of the Lord, with grace and love for man,” rest upon you all, “now and ever and unto the ages of ages.  Amen.”
http://oca15aac.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/st-tikhon-of-moscow%E2%80%99s-last-sermon/

Quote
All Saints of America, pray for us   

Amen!

Always loved that icon.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 11:23:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #352 on: April 10, 2009, 11:35:30 PM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]

Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,899


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #353 on: April 10, 2009, 11:43:03 PM »

Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:

Heck, I went to theological school with them (one was one of my closest friends there).  Great hearts, great zeal.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #354 on: April 11, 2009, 12:13:56 AM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]

Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif

I know they exist. That's why I said it. Wink
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,183


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #355 on: April 11, 2009, 12:15:02 AM »

I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And by Hanukah the Oecumenical Throne will end his rank of disobedience and give Coptic Alexandria the honor!

And then by New Years, we'll party at the Tiki gods' place.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,420


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #356 on: April 11, 2009, 03:24:57 PM »

Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.

You mean, take the speaker at his word?
What word?  The one you gave him?

Quote
You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.



"Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead”.The correct interpretation of canon 28...[of] uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople...gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch....According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction..if Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities...Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions......[a] Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate... is not included in the diptychs of the Church...In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople...[In] ecclesiolog[y] in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person...the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity...because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected....Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy"

I put it together so there is no problem of reading between the lines.
Yes, I have read the text of this speech and your interpretations of this text three times now.  I am quite capable of reading it correctly without your help.  You see, I don't read between the lines as you do.  That which constitutes nothing less than heresy, according to the speech, is the understanding that primacy need not be embodied in the person of a primus.  NOWHERE in the speech is this term "heresy" applied directly and explicitly to anyone's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28.  If you have to read it into the speech, as you very clearly do, then it just ain't there.

Quote
Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

I'm glad that the CS seeing your Church as a non-Church, dependent on the good will of the EP rather than the grace of Jesus Christ doesn't bother you.
non sequitur, since I said no such thing.  Just another piece of evidence that you are just incapable of reading anyone's words according to their literal meaning, that you have to read your own prejudices and conclusions into everything anyone else says.

Don't be posting here in July "WHAT HAPPENED Huh Shocked Huh Shocked Huh?
Who cares?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,420


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #357 on: April 11, 2009, 03:33:15 PM »


Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

You are wrong to imply that the only way to interpret a person's meaning is if the person makes it explicit.
Actually, I never said or even meant to imply this.  Within the context of my debate with Ialmisry, which is how the statement to which you responded is to be understood, I needed to refute his assertion that Fr. Elpidophorus called disagreement with the EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28 heresy.  Fr. Elpidophorus said no such thing, nor do the words of his speech even imply this.  In this particular case, Ialmisry's interpretation of the text is dead wrong, and I needed to tell him so.

That is the gold standard and nobody, who has arisen to the level of a doctorate, archimandrite, and the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, will likely blurt it out. However, even if the Chief Secretary had come out said "it is a heresy to disagree with my boss in this matter" and Isa reiterated what he said, there would still be folks saying, well that is YOUR interpretation.

As it so happens, we have deductive and inductive logic models that allow us to arrive at reasonable conclusions or interpretation. One may disagree with Isa, but one does not have the right to restrict his interpretation modality to "monkey see, monkey do."
Whether I have the right to do so or not is irrelevant.  Ialmisry's interpretation of Fr. Elpidophorus's recent speech is flat out wrong and needs to be corrected.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #358 on: April 11, 2009, 03:39:21 PM »



Proverbs 1:24-33
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
iustinos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 57

OC.net


« Reply #359 on: April 11, 2009, 03:42:01 PM »

For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815
Logged
Tags: EP Bashing 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.256 seconds with 73 queries.