OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 05:19:03 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is The Orthodox Church Roman?  (Read 22553 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
« on: May 06, 2009, 08:58:27 PM »

Topic split from this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20839.0.html
ozgeorge




even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents. 

You can't have it both ways. Smiley
Either you are roum, or that term is meaningless.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:13:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2009, 09:06:08 PM »

even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents. 

You can't have it both ways. Smiley
Either you are roum, or that term is meaningless.

George,

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, mosaics, jewelry work etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes!  Cheesy Wink


ps. wish I could have been there when they found these lovely earrings in Israel in the ruins of Byzantine home.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 09:18:04 PM by Tamara » 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 #2 on: May 06, 2009, 09:17:58 PM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 09:22:10 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2009, 11:11:22 PM »

even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents. 

You can't have it both ways. Smiley
Either you are roum, or that term is meaningless.

Well, actually you can.  I'm ruumiy when I'm with anyone but the Greeks.  Then I'm not ruumiy (by their definition).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 11:11:39 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
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2009, 12:00:50 AM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.


okay, I was baptized...did I make the cut? Grin

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2009, 12:04:07 AM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.


okay, I was baptized...did I make the cut? Grin

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2009, 12:14:28 AM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.


okay, I was baptized...did I make the cut? Grin



Indeed you do! But only if you remain Faithful to Christ.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #7 on: May 07, 2009, 12:16:36 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2009, 12:25:14 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.
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
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 #9 on: May 07, 2009, 12:28:02 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.

Well duh.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2009, 12:30:29 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.

Well duh.


Well then, don't mix your ethnicity/nationalism with your religion.
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
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 #11 on: May 07, 2009, 12:31:55 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.

Well duh.


Well then, don't mix your ethnicity/nationalism with your religion.

Huh
Roman is not an ethnicity, any more than New Yorker is.
Failed again.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2009, 12:51:00 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.

Well duh.


Well then, don't mix your ethnicity/nationalism with your religion.

Huh
Roman is not an ethnicity, any more than New Yorker is.
Failed again.


Well then, how do you define it?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2009, 12:59:44 AM »

The Romanian Church is.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2009, 01:01:24 AM »

LOL. Another difference.  Those Greek ruumiy don't cut; us Arab ruumiy do.  After all, we are Abraham and Ishmael's sons.

See, as long as you keep thinking that being Roum is genetically inherited, you understand neither Christianity nor what being a Roman is.

Christ wasn't a Roman.

Well duh.


Well then, don't mix your ethnicity/nationalism with your religion.

Huh
Roman is not an ethnicity, any more than New Yorker is.
Failed again.


Yes, we all know that Hellenism transcends nationalism.  The Chief Secretary of the EP told us so:
Quote
To this effect, the active participation of the lay element was, as we have seen, very important. We believe that the younger generations of the omogeneia are free of the past’s prejudices and complexes, according to which, if you wish to succeed in America you have to forget your cultural patrimony and your language in order to be left naked, so to speak, in the thorny desert of the Wild West. Today’s omogeneia has overcome that denial and has come to understand that the secret of the American civilization’s success does not lie in the obliteration of one’s cultural background...Our cultural heritage and our national conscience is not, by any means, an obstacle for our progress and for the successful witness to our faith, especially insofar as ecumenicity (οἰκουμενικότης) is the heart of Hellenism and by definition alien to any form of nationalism or cultural chauvinism...Examining, then, ourselves, I believe that we ought to be more careful towards the easiness with which we are ready to abandon our Hellenism, both as language and as tradition. As we have already said, it is nothing but a myth the opinion that Hellenism is an obstacle to the creative and successful incorporation in the American reality. Hellenism is identified with its ecumenical character and for that reason it can never be nationalistic for both of its manifestations, its culture and its Orthodox faith are concepts that transcend the boundaries of the national....At no point, the spirit of nationalism took hold of the Ecumenical Patriarchate because that is incompatible with the concepts of Hellenism and Ecumenicity (ecumenical character) as well as with the Christian Orthodox faith. The proof of this emerges in the most decisive manner throughout the 17 centuries of its history, during which it never Hellenized, not even attempted to Hellenize the nations to which it gave through its apostolic missions the undying light of Christ....That truth is testified by the fact that, although the Patriarchates of the East were virtually destroyed during the difficult times of the 17th and 18th centuries, nevertheless, the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taking the care to have a Patriarch elected for those Patriarchates, supporting their primates in every possible way....

Blah, blah, blah...

When one speaks Ρωμαίικα, he's not speaking Arabic.  Or Latin.  He's speaking Greek.

Its a ethnicity.  Which is the reason why the Romanians (or maybe that's not a ethiciy either) didn't rush to join Ypsilanti when started the War of Independence for Greece...in Romania.  Why the Greeks fought hard to keep an Arab to regain the throne of Antioch, and won't let one regain Jerusalem's.  In the latter instance, it is particularly egrecious, as the ruum are actually "yuunaan" who just came to carpet bag in the Holy Land.  Why the Phanar suppressed the Patriarchates of the Serbs and of the Bulgarians.
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
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 #15 on: May 07, 2009, 01:04:54 AM »

Well then, how do you define it?
The way St. Constantine the Great who gave us the title defined it when he granted it to all his Christian subjects.
But I guess if we have to keep the "United American Orthodox Church" happy a la Tamara and ialmisry style- (the Great Defenders of the Orthodox Church on OCnet who valiantly shout down any opposing view to the TruthTM) then the Orthodox Church will have to admit that the title "Roman" was not granted to us, but only to the Roman Catholic Church and your ancestors in the faith were lying phonies to call themselves such.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:07:11 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2009, 01:11:40 AM »

Well then, how do you define it?
The way St. Constantine the Great who gave us the title defined it when he granted it to all his Christian subjects.
But I guess if we have to keep the "United American Orthodox Church" happy a la Tamara and ialmisry style- (the Great Defenders of the Orthodox Church on OCnet who valiantly shout down any opposing view to the TruthTM) then the Orthodox Church will have to admit that the title "Roman" was not granted to us, but only to the Roman Catholic Church and your ancestors in the faith were lying phonies to call themselves such.

How did St. Constantine define it? I would title the church the Orthodox Church of North America. It would need to be a church for the whole North American continent (Canada, U.S., and Mexico).

Come on George, I don't shout down anyone. I was trying to throw a little levity with a bit of truth in that other thread on "who was here first." Where is your Aussie sense of humor?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:15:19 AM by Tamara » 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 #17 on: May 07, 2009, 01:17:53 AM »

How did St. Constantine define it?
See above (that thing you quoted).

I would title the church the Orthodox Church of North America. It would need to be a church for the whole North American continent (Canada, U.S., and Mexico).
That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2009, 01:24:45 AM »

How did St. Constantine define it?
See above (that thing you quoted).

How does being a Roman Orthodox Christian make you different than any other type of Orthodox Christian who is not Roman? Does it really make a difference in regard to our salvation?

I would title the church the Orthodox Church of North America. It would need to be a church for the whole North American continent (Canada, U.S., and Mexico).
Quote
That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?

How do you figure that last question/statement? Please explain yourself.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:25:27 AM by Tamara » 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 #19 on: May 07, 2009, 01:25:40 AM »

Where is your Aussie sense of humor?
It was killed by online American style Orthodoxy which seeks to divide the Church of Christ, publicly insult people's heirarchs, and says (in it's wisdom) that only the Latin Catholics are the true Roman Catholic Church of the Fathers of the Oecumenical Councils.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2009, 01:29:39 AM »

Where is your Aussie sense of humor?
It was killed by online American style Orthodoxy which seeks to divide the Church of Christ, publicly insult people's heirarchs, and says (in it's wisdom) that only the Latin Catholics are the true Roman Catholic Church of the Fathers of the Oecumenical Councils.

Come on George, I am not shouting you down. Explain what you mean. I am willing to hear you out if you speak plainly.
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 #21 on: May 07, 2009, 01:39:35 AM »

I would title the church the Orthodox Church of North America. It would need to be a church for the whole North American continent (Canada, U.S., and Mexico).
Quote
That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?

How do you figure that last question/statement? Please explain yourself.



Guess you should have done some research first, hey?
Who convened the First Oecumenical Council Tamara? Was it St. Constantine the Great who established Constantinople, the New Rome?  Yes, that's right.
And what did he call all the Christian subjects of the Empire? "Romans"- thats right.
And which Empire held all of the Seven Oecumenical Councils? The Roman Empire.
Thus, the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils is the Roman Church. That is why you guys called yourself "Rum" and we call ourselves "Romioi" for centuries, even after the fall of New Rome to the Ottomans, and it means the same thing- "Roman", that is, a Faithful member of the Roman Church- not just a citizen of the Roman Empire.
After the Great Schism, Old Rome began to claim that it alone was the true "Roman Church" of the Oecumenical Councils and that we were schismatics. Hence, the entire history of New Rome was completely forgotten, as though all the Oecumenical Councils were held under Old Rome, and thus the Church of Old Rome was the "Roman Catholic Church".
And you agree with this.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 01:43:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2009, 02:08:34 AM »


Guess you should have done some research first, hey?
Who convened the First Oecumenical Council Tamara? Was it St. Constantine the Great who established Constantinople, the New Rome?  Yes, that's right.
And what did he call all the Christian subjects of the Empire? "Romans"- thats right.
And which Empire held all of the Seven Oecumenical Councils? The Roman Empire.
Thus, the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils is the Roman Church. That is why you guys called yourself "Rum" and we call ourselves "Romioi" for centuries, even after the fall of New Rome to the Ottomans, and it means the same thing- "Roman", that is, a Faithful member of the Roman Church- not just a citizen of the Roman Empire.
After the Great Schism, Old Rome began to claim that it alone was the true "Roman Church" of the Oecumenical Councils and that we were schismatics. Hence, the entire history of New Rome was completely forgotten, as though all the Oecumenical Councils were held under Old Rome, and thus the Church of Old Rome was the "Roman Catholic Church".
And you agree with this.
But a majority of the Orthodox Christians in the world are not Roman they are Russian. So this title wouldn't be a very authentic way of identifying a world Orthodox church. And since the Roman empire no longer exists in either the west or the east it means very little to the average unchurched human being who needs to hear what we have to share with them.
Logged
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2009, 02:30:46 AM »

I would venture the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in ruthlessness and financial strength. Did not the RCC grow out of what was left of the Pagan Roman Empire?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 02:35:40 AM by Myrrh23 » Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
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 #24 on: May 07, 2009, 02:42:06 AM »

I would venture the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in ruthlessness and financial strength. Did not the RCC grow out of what was left of the Pagan Roman Empire?

Didn't the East grow out of that same empire?
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
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 #25 on: May 07, 2009, 03:32:37 AM »

But a majority of the Orthodox Christians in the world are not Roman they are Russian.
Roll Eyes
So you continue to insist that Roman is an ethnicity (unless you're Roman Catholic).
It's pointless trying to discuss this with you.
Good luck with the "United American Orthodox Non-Roman Church"- I look forward to seeing it's website (vagantes are good at websites).
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 03:35:40 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2009, 03:53:41 AM »

Believe me, Italians can be very regionalised.  Roman is an ethnicity to us.   laugh   Wink
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2009, 05:47:14 AM »

Where is your Aussie sense of humor?
It was killed by online American style Orthodoxy which seeks to divide the Church of Christ, publicly insult people's heirarchs, and says (in it's wisdom) that only the Latin Catholics are the true Roman Catholic Church of the Fathers of the Oecumenical Councils.

Please don't label all of us online Americans as such.

But a majority of the Orthodox Christians in the world are not Roman they are Russian. So this title wouldn't be a very authentic way of identifying a world Orthodox church. And since the Roman empire no longer exists in either the west or the east it means very little to the average unchurched human being who needs to hear what we have to share with them.

The Holy Roman Church was Catholic Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism. In the fifteenth century a patriarch of Constantinople (I'm certain Isa will have me culling my library for exactly which) was bereft of a Royal Protector and upon crowning the Russian Tsar (with his  Metropolitan of Kiev in attendance) declared the Princes of Moscovy and Holy Russia to be the Third Rome. This is the source of the Russian claim to the title (and correctly so) and from that point onward the tsars used the Byzantine Double Eagle standard. This was not wordplay, but a blessing and a recognition of a fact.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 05:54:51 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2009, 07:49:38 AM »

I would title the church the Orthodox Church of North America. It would need to be a church for the whole North American continent (Canada, U.S., and Mexico).
Quote
That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?

How do you figure that last question/statement? Please explain yourself.



Guess you should have done some research first, hey?

She's not alone. Roll Eyes

Quote
Who convened the First Oecumenical Council Tamara? Was it St. Constantine the Great who established Constantinople, the New Rome? 

A Proto-Romanian (a Latin speaker from the Balkans).  What about him?

The Armenians were at Nicea, and the Syriacs too.  They weren't Roman, but they remained Christian.  Just ask Salpy.

Quote
Yes, that's right.

OK

Quote
And what did he call all the Christian subjects of the Empire? "Romans"- thats right.

Yes. And the pagan ones, and the Arian ones, and the Jewish and Samarian ones too.

The Emperor Caracalla was the one who made all the subjects of the Empire "Romans," by extending citizenship (Constitutio Antoniniana, it was a tax ploy).  Btw, he was almost all Semite: his paternal grandfather was Punic and Berber, his mother from a dynasty of Arab King-Priests from Syria incorporated into the senatorial class. His paternal grandmother was Italic. The dynasty, btw were the ones who tried to coopt Christmas for their ancestral Sun cult.

The Emperor Theodosios was the one who made Orthodox Christianity the state Creed.  The Jews (and I think the Samaritans) still remained citizen and Romans though.

Btw, the Roman emperor who celebrated the millenium of the city was Philip the Arab, according to the sources the first Christian emperor, but in secret.

Quote
And which Empire held all of the Seven Oecumenical Councils? The Roman Empire.

Not everyone at them were in the Empire.  But they were all Orthodox Christians.

Quote
Thus, the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils is the Roman Church. That is why you guys called yourself "Rum" and we call ourselves "Romioi" for centuries, even after the fall of New Rome to the Ottomans, and it means the same thing- "Roman", that is, a Faithful member of the Roman Church- not just a citizen of the Roman Empire.

I thought you were the one who abhorred mixing Church and state.  Autocephaly is an economia, etc.

So is that how this guy got called "Rumi?" (the only Turk worth something).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Rumi-enlarge.jpg


https://www.littletoncoin.com/LCC/html/images/5102-wc.jpg

I guess that's Roman on the coins.  I guess that's how the Ottoman became Keysar-i Rum "Caesar of Rome" in 1453.  Render unto Caesar....

Quote
After the Great Schism, Old Rome began to claim that it alone was the true "Roman Church" of the Oecumenical Councils and that we were schismatics. Hence, the entire history of New Rome was completely forgotten, as though all the Oecumenical Councils were held under Old Rome, and thus the Church of Old Rome was the "Roman Catholic Church".
And you agree with this.

You miss something?

The Romanian Church is.

In the fifteenth century a patriarch of Constantinople (I'm certain Isa will have me culling my library for exactly which
No need.  It was EP Joasaph II.  But it was the sixteenth century.  And the czar was his royal protector.
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/12898/1/12898.pdf
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 #29 on: May 07, 2009, 08:03:53 AM »

Thanks Isa. Working from memory, you know...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2009, 08:19:43 AM »

Thanks Isa. Working from memory, you know...

No problem, I had to look it up myself. Tongue
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
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 #31 on: May 07, 2009, 08:57:47 AM »

A Proto-Romanian (a Latin speaker from the Balkans).  What about him?
Uh huh.
So I guess it was the Romanian Empire....
 Roll Eyes
Nice picture too.
I'll make a note on ratemyprofessor.com
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2009, 09:23:27 AM »

A Proto-Romanian (a Latin speaker from the Balkans).  What about him?
Uh huh.
So I guess it was the Romanian Empire....

Could be.  In the Latin of the time and area, it was the same word.  As a matter of fact, at the time the word "Romania" had gained currency as the name of the empire.  Emperor Theodosius (a Latin speaker, but being from Spain you would expect that) does refer to his "desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness..."  No mention of the bishop of New Rome, to whom the edict was addressed. Oh, well.

Quote
Roll Eyes
Nice picture too.

Here are nicer ones.  Is that Greek?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/ConstantineCoin.jpg

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/

Render unto Caesar.

Quote
I'll make a note on ratemyprofessor.com

is there a ratemytherapist?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 09:36:05 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
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 #33 on: May 07, 2009, 09:27:15 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 09:27:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2009, 09:37:53 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.


I was refering to the language in the inscriptions.  Romane? Latine? Romanesti?
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
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 #35 on: May 07, 2009, 09:40:58 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.


I was refering to the language in the inscriptions.  Romane? Latine? Romanesti?

Who cares?
Was the Church of the Roman Empire Greek? Seriously: what's your point? I'm curious.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2009, 09:57:32 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.


Chuckle...it is Latin. Empire did not officially switch to Greek until mid-6th century.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
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 #37 on: May 07, 2009, 10:00:19 AM »

I see. So, all these pretty pictures and strange messages were to tell me the bleeding obvious were they?
"News Flash- the Roman Empire was not Greek". Well fancy that!  And there I thought Milan was a coastal suburb of Thessaloniki and that "Constance" was a Greek noun.
You guys should go on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2009, 10:01:55 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.


I was refering to the language in the inscriptions.  Romane? Latine? Romanesti?

Who cares?

Quite obviously, you do.

Quote
Was the Church of the Roman Empire Greek?

As Pontiff St. Damasus was Portuguese (or if you prefer, Lusitanian) and Pope Peter II of Alexandria was Coptic, and Theodosius' (himself a Spaniard/Hispanian) decree was in Latin, I guess not.


Quote
Seriously: what's your point? I'm curious.

That ruumiy is an ethnicity.  I though I made that clear.

When one speaks Ρωμαίικα, he's not speaking Arabic.  Or Latin.  He's speaking Greek.

Its a ethnicity.  

I knew I had.

What's your point, George?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 10:04:00 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2009, 10:03:01 AM »

I see. So, all these pretty pictures and strange messages were to tell me the bleeding obvious were they?
"News Flash- the Roman Empire was not Greek". Well fancy that!  And there I thought Milan was a coastal suburb of Thessaloniki and that "Constance" was a Greek noun.
You guys should go on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."


Naw, they probably call it the "Byzantine Empire."
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
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 #40 on: May 07, 2009, 10:05:19 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.


I was refering to the language in the inscriptions.  Romane? Latine? Romanesti?

Who cares?

Quite obviously, you do.
No Isa. You think I care. And because of that you make the following blunder:

Quote
Was the Church of the Roman Empire Greek?
As Pontiff St. Damasus was Portuguese (or if you prefer, Lusitanian) and Pope Peter II of Alexandria was Coptic, and Theodosius' (himself a Spaniard/Hispanian) decree was in Latin, I guess not.
I guess you missed this post.
I see. So, all these pretty pictures and strange messages were to tell me the bleeding obvious were they?
"News Flash- the Roman Empire was not Greek". Well fancy that!  And there I thought Milan was a coastal suburb of Thessaloniki and that "Constance" was a Greek noun.
You guys should go on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 10:08:33 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2009, 10:18:48 AM »

Is that Greek?
Roll Eyes Er, no.  It's Roman.
That's what we're talking about remember? Try and stay focussed.
I was refering to the language in the inscriptions.  Romane? Latine? Romanesti?
Who cares?
Quite obviously, you do.
No Isa. You think I care. And because of that you make the following blunder:

Was the Church of the Roman Empire Greek?
As Pontiff St. Damasus was Portuguese (or if you prefer, Lusitanian) and Pope Peter II of Alexandria was Coptic, and Theodosius' (himself a Spaniard/Hispanian) decree was in Latin, I guess not.
I guess you missed this post.
I see. So, all these pretty pictures and strange messages were to tell me the bleeding obvious were they?
"News Flash- the Roman Empire was not Greek".

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 10:25:42 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
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 #42 on: May 07, 2009, 10:26:33 AM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2009, 10:27:40 AM »

Is this where or when we make a thread entitled, "Isa thinks Not Enough Discussions Are Being Derailed by Greek-bashing"?  Wink
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2009, 10:27:55 AM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.
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
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 #45 on: May 07, 2009, 10:29:04 AM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.

Which is what exactly?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #46 on: May 07, 2009, 10:30:06 AM »

Is this where or when we make a thread entitled, "Isa thinks Not Enough Discussions Are Being Derailed by Greek-bashing"?  Wink

LOL! Cheesy
The ironic thing is, he is so bad at it!
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #47 on: May 07, 2009, 12:25:44 PM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.

Which is what exactly?

That when Ρωμαίος/رومی/ruumiy/Romios/Ρωμιός/rûmi/rimljani/римски/римской/ܪܗܘܡܝܐ and the cognate Armenian term (which escapes me now)(and note Turkish Kıbrıs Rumları/Kıbrıslı Yunanlılar for Ελληνοκύπριοι)  is used as a ethnicity-and it is so used-it refers to the Greeks. The chavinism of the Phanar destroyed any universality the term once had, which is how the "Βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων" became "Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων."


Btw, a couple of links on this.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm#land
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=iWs0Lh57NvwC&dq=Hellenism+in+Byzantium+The+Transformations+of+Greek+Identity+and+the+Reception+of+the+Classical+Tradition&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=zLSlFm--WD&sig=5ZvkKkCT_l1CUB5CoTCwnl2uOgc&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc1.htm

Note the following website:
http://rumkatkilise.org/byzlinks.htm

That Church, which has submitted to the Vatican is calledand "Rum Katolik" in Turkish, and "Rum Kathuuliik" in Arabic (where kathuuliik doesn't mean catholic).

Then we have the Greek Jewish רומניוטים/Ρωμανιώτες.  They Roman too?  Why not?
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
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #48 on: May 07, 2009, 01:41:48 PM »

I would venture the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in ruthlessness and financial strength. Did not the RCC grow out of what was left of the Pagan Roman Empire?

Didn't the East grow out of that same empire?

Well, there's always a good twin alongside the evil twin.... Wink
Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2009, 01:44:11 PM »

I would venture the Roman Empire still exists in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in ruthlessness and financial strength. Did not the RCC grow out of what was left of the Pagan Roman Empire?

Didn't the East grow out of that same empire?

Well, there's always a good twin alongside the evil twin.... Wink
Romulus and Remus.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #50 on: May 07, 2009, 04:38:53 PM »

In Jerusalem they can't but help to know, as it is not history but present reality. 

On this, compare:
Quote
Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem and his struggle for the preservation of the Greek character of the pilgrimage sites
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/Patriarch-Dositheos.en.aspx

Quote
A brief history of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the official web-site of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
Following the first persecution of the Christians under the rabbinic Judaism and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus (70 AD), the seat of the Church of Jerusalem was taken to be the city of Pella on the eastern shore of the river Jordan: then the Church of the Holy Land received many Greeks, while the number of Jewish Christians was declining, the Church continued to progressively become more and more Greek, and spreading across the whole of Palestine. A part of her returned and established herself in Jerusalem.
       The last members of the Church at Pella returned and settled after the revolution of Bar Kohva (135 AD) in Jerusalem, which was then called the Aelian Capitolin by the Romans who made it a forbidden territory for the Jews, while the holy Shrines were underground with idolatric temples built over them.

The destruction under the Persians, a sad point in the history of the Sionite Church, left 65,000 dead in Jerusalem and leveled all the holy Shrines and Monasteries, while the Holy Cross, the Patriarch Zacharias and the notables of Jerusalem were taken in captivity to Persia. The lieutenant of the Throne and later Patriarch of Jerusalem, Saint Modesto, brought back the Shrines to almost their original glamour, while the Emperor Iracleus, after many years war, recovered the Holy Cross, which he triumphantly brought back to Jerusalem together with the prisoners, in 630. However, few years later, Iracleus, could not stop the flood of the Arab advance and in the year 638 Jerusalem finally separated from the Greekoroman Empire falling into the hands of the Arabs.

The period of the great hardships of the Jerusalem Patriarchate lasted over a millennium, despite the good will of the conqueror of Jerusalem, Omar Ibn Al-Hattab towards the Christians and their Patriarch, Saint Sophronius: Caliph Omar by his personal order (achtiname) recognized the Patriarch of the "Royal Nation" (namely the Greeks) the position of Ethnarch and spiritual leader of all the Christians of Palestine, even of the heterodox as well as ambassador of honour between all the Christian leaders, offering to him guarantees of well being, security, and tax exemption on behalf of the future Muslim leaders.

However his successors, arbitrary Arab leaders, were very harsh; the Christian community started to suffer under co-ordinated attempts to islamize and de-helenize it....The 9th century, like the 8th, was characterized by the persecutions of the Christians and the looting at the expense of the Shrines, of the Churches, Monasteries and the simple faithful, while adding the civil war between factions of Arabs and suppressing measures among which was the prohibition of litanies and the teaching of the Greek language, so that the use of Greek by the flock was limited to the worship services within the Churches

The imposition of the Latin Church on the Orthodox clergy was forceful and all the sacred Shrines were passed on to the Latins and transferred to the clergy of the West, while the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre maintained the right to use the Church of the Discovery of the Cross and have services in Greek at the All Holy Sepulchre as well as in Bethlehem....An important event of that period was the restoration of many Orthodox Shrines under the Greek Emperor Manuel Comninus (1143-1180).

The defeat of the Crusaders by the Mameluks of Salah Ed Din in the year 1187 on the heights of Hattin near Tiberius, returned again Jerusalem in the hands of Islam, even though the final departure of the Crusaders from the Holy Land came after their defeat at Ptolemaid in 1291. Salah Ed Din keeping out of respect the order of Omar Hattap, returned all the pilgrimages to the Greeks, but some of his very senior government employees ceded some shrine areas to the Monophysite Copts and Ethiopians.  The stance of the Mameluks towards the Greek [note, no "Roman," see the Greek] Patriarchate changed in the beginning of the 14th century and long lasting persecutions started later on within the framework, during the time of the Patriarch Joachim (1431) with the Church of the Resurrection almost converted into an Islamic mosque. During the year 1334, the Franciscans appeared in Jerusalem settling on the hill of Sion, while in parallel the presence of the Jacobite and the Armenian monks was strengthened. The arrival of many Georgians and Orthodox Serb monks provided a counterbalance which strengthened the Greek Orthodox presence at the Sepulchre even if it was not always without problems. To the Georgians the Greeks ceded the monastery of the Holy Cross, while to the Serbs the Holy Monastery of the Archangels, metohion of the Lavra of Saint Savva.

The fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453) and the consequent complete loss of the official political protection, marked the beginning of new persecutions. Patriarch Athanasius 4th having travelled to the City (Constantinople) and having succeeded by his prompting in releasing a declaration of the Sultan's order (hati seraph) by Mohammed 2nd the Conqueror (in 1458) averted the danger of the destruction of the Shrines and the loss of the Orthodox rights on them. Patriarch Gregory 3rd (1468-1493AD) repeated the same by succeeding in obtaining a new order from the Conqueror. The Greek clerics suffered greatly through terrible poverty, while their turning to the Conqueror worsened their relationship with the Mameluks and of course with the Latins.

This period of Jerusalem is characterized by the efforts mainly of the Latins and the Armenians, the former based on diplomacy of the European powers, while the latter on economic or other means to access the High Sultanic Gate of Constantinople, with the intention of overturning the favourable regime towards the indigenous (GreekRoll Eyes Church of the Holy Land and achieve primacy or even exclusivity of the All Holy Shrines. Here are some of the struggles.

The 16th century under the fruitful efforts of the Patriarch Germanus the Sabbaite (1537-1579) the reorganization of the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre was sealed. The Patriarch Germanus took care of the repairs of the Shrines, succeeding in the issuing of a "Firman" (1538), by the Sultan Suleiman for the benefit of the Greeks, and then left for Russia to fundraise, placing thus the basis of the predominant ethos of the "sacred emigrants" of the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre to the homiodox (same faith) countries, especially the beyond the Danube States and Russia for the economic strengthening of the All Sacred Shrines. Moreover, he reorganized the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre in a closer union with its Patriarch and Leader. His efforts were continued by his successor Patriarch Sophronius 4th (1579-1608).

The glorious patriarchal service of Docideus 2nd (1669-1707), illumined those dark periods and became a wave breaker against the coordinated actions of the heterodox, who benefitting from the prevailing historical conditions almost succeeded in evicting the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre from the All Holy Shrines. Docideus averting a serious effort by France to surrender the Shrines to the Latin Monks and surviving two assassination attempts by them in Jerusalem, went to Constantinople where in the year 1677 he voided the concerted efforts of the ambassadors of Austria, France, Poland, Venice to cede non historic shrines to the Latins...while during the years 1719 and 1720, he repossessed part of other rights for the Orthodox...Later the situation worsened despite the issuance of a "Firman" by Suleiman for the benefit of the Orthodox. The defeat of the Turks by Austria in 1688 resulted in the issuing of a "Firman" in 1689 to the benefit of the Latins which removed the shrines from the Greeks and encouraged the Latins so much that they proceeded to expel the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre from Jerusalem....In 1809 Sultan Mahmout 2nd issued an order for the restoration of the All Holy Church of the Sepulchre to be done only by the Greeks, led to an acute reaction by the Latins and the Armenians, who tried in whatever way, even through assaults against the Greek workers to impede the restoration of the Church, hoping thus to force the issuing of favourable to them "Firman", for the restoration of the Church. Finally the All Holy Church of the Resurrection was built with the sweat, blood and money from the meager wealth of the enslaved "Generation of the Romians (Greeks), it was inaugurated on the 13th September 1810, a memorable day of the Anniversary of the Church of the Resurrection, characterized as the "Miracle of the Faith of Greeks".
       The Greek Revolution of 1821, placed the brotherhood of the Sepulchre with the rest of the Greeks under the unfavourable category of the betrayers of the High Gate, opened the grounds to the heterodox for their undesired expulsion of the Greeks from the Holy Lands while the Brotherhood of the Sepulcher suffered great hardships by the Turks....The pressure on Turkey by the European powers led to the reconstruction of the Latin Patriarchate in 1847 which was disallowed after the Crusades, while the cooperating English (Anglicans) and German (Lutherans) Protestants as well as the Uniates had already appeared in the Holy Land by 1847. Despite all these, the Holy Lands during this period as in the past received strong Orthodox help from the Russian Empire, whose involvement unfortunately was not after all completely selfless.

The arrival in Jerusalem of the Russian Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspenski during 1843 and the construction of the Orthodox Russian Delegation in 1848 strengthened the Orthodox presence, but at the same time the Russian Delegation cultivated a climate of artificial juxtaposition between the Greek speaking Brotherhood of the Sepulchre and her Arabic speaking flock, so that the mixing of the Russian interests in the ecclesiastic matters of Jerusalem became easier on tying of the flock to the chariot of Russia, this policy which from the beginning received unfavourable criticism even from Russia herself, culminated in the events which led to the end of the patriarchal service of the illustrious Patriarch Kyrill 2nd of Jerusalem who was misled by the Russian diplomats in Constantinople, to avoid participation in the 1872 reigning synodic condemnation of the Bulgarian schism and the hidden behind it nationalism and panslavism. This of course led Kyrill 2nd to oppose the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre, which at its Council in 1872 first decided and finally brought about his dethronement despite the persecutions conducted by him and the Turkish police on the Brotherhood. However, in 1873 he elected as his successor Patriarch Procopius 2nd. Russia reacting to these events, confiscated the estates of the All Holy Sepulcher in Bessarabia and in the Caucasus which were returned again in 1875, the same year the Tall Gate validated the new internal "Regulations of the Romaic (Greek) Patriarchate of Jerusalem".

The Holy Community of the Sepulchre, namely the Brotherhood, assumed guardianship of the manuscripts and other treasures of the Patriarchate as well as the real estate property which due to the 20th century developments in Palestine became embroiled in many difficulties. At the same time the Orthodox flock, which comprises the object of the shepherding care of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the body of its confession in the Holy Land, confronts the challenges of the ever increasing religiopolitical crisis but also originating from within it due to the propaganda of the heterodox Christian flocksof the other Christian communities, unfortunately distances itself from its patristic hearth in search of a better life, and emigrates far from the Holy Land.

The Church of Jerusalem is the only self sprouted and indigenous Church of the Holy Land, preserving herself fully Orthodox, as well as preserving unadulterated the Orthodox Faith of the Holy Apostles and Fathers. The rest of the Christian confessions and communities, representing in the Holy Land their ecclesiastic National or Assemblies administrations which are far away from the Holy Land, clearly lack the important body of the "industrious Ones", the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre. The Greek character of the Church of Sion beyond its immediate historic reference on the ancestry of the first Christians in Palestine, because the Patriarchate of Holy Sion inspires through the universality of the Orthodox Greeks, the spiritual and Christianocentral culture of the Holy Fathers exalts the close national bonds, thus ensuring universality also to all those who access the All Holy Shrines.
http://www.impantokratoros.gr/JerusalemPatriarchate-History.en.aspx

Just so its clear:
Quote
Συνοπτική Ιστορία του Πατριαρχείου των Ιεροσολύμων 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Εκ του επισήμου ιστοχώρου του Πατριαρχείου Ιεροσολύμων

Μετά τούς πρώτους κατά τών Χριστιανών διωγμούς υπό τού ραββινικού Ιουδαϊσμού καί τήν καταστροφήν τών Ιερο-σολύμων υπό τών Ρωμαίων τού στρατηγού Τίτου (70 μ.Χ.), έδρα τής Εκκλησίας τών Ιεροσολύμων ανεδείχθη η πόλις Πέλλα, επί τής ανατολικής πλευράς τού ποταμού Ιορδάνου: τότε καί η Εκκλησία τής Αγίας Γής προσέλαβε πλείστους Έλληνας, τούς απογόνους τών κατακτήσεων τού Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου [how did he get in here?], καί καθώς ο αριθμός τών Ιουδαίων Χριστιανών εμειούτο, η Εκκλησία αύτη καθίστατο ολονέν περισσότερον ελληνική, εξηπλώθη δέ εις άπασαν τήν Παλαιστίνην. Μέρος αυτής επέστρεψε καί κατώκησεν εις Ιεροσόλυμα.

Τά τελευταία μέλη τής εν Πέλλη ελληνικής [note the insertion, compare the English] Εκκλησίας επέστρεψαν καί εγκατεστάθησαν μετά τήν επανάστασιν τού ΒάρΚόχβα (135μ.Χ.) εις Ιερουσαλήμ, η οποία τότε μετετράπη εις απηγορευμένην διά τούς Ιουδαίους ρωμαϊκήν αποικίαν, τήν Αιλίαν Καπιτωλίναν, τά δέ ιερά Προσκυνήμα­τα ευρίσκοντο κεχωσμένα υπό τήν γήν, καί ειδωλολατρικοί [is this refering to the ρωμαϊκοί?] ναοί είχον κτισθή επ' αυτών.

 Η υπό τών Περσών καταστροφή, θλιβερόν ορόσημον εις τήν ιστορίαν τής Σιωνίτιδος Εκκλησίας, κατέλιπεν εις τά Ιεροσόλυμα 65 χιλιάδας νεκρών καί ισοπεπεδωμένα τά ιερά Προσκυνήματα καί τάς Μονάς, τόν δέ Τίμιον Σταυρόν, τόν Πα­τριάρχην Ζαχαρίαν καί τούς προύχοντας τών Ιεροσολύμων, εν αιχμαλωσία εις τήν Περσίαν. Ο τοποτηρητής τού Θρόνου, καί αργότερον Πατριάρχης Ιεροσολύμων, άγιος Μόδεστος, επανέφερε τά Προσκυνήματα εις τό πλείστον τής παλαιάς των αίγλης, ο δέ Αυτοκράτωρ Ηράκλειος, μετά πολυετείς πο­λέμους, κατατροπώσας τούς Πέρσας τώ 627 μ.Χ., ανέκτησε τόν Τίμιον Σταυρόν, τόν Οποίον επανέφερε θριαμβευτικώς εις Ιεροσόλυμα, ομού μετά τών αιχμαλώτων, τώ 630 μ.Χ. Ωστόσον, ολίγα έτη αργότερον, ο Ηράκλειος δέν ηδυνήθη νά σταματήση τόν κατακλυσμόν τής αραβικής προελάσεως, καί τό έτος 638 μ.Χ. τά Ιεροσόλυμα διεχωρίσθησαν οριστικώς από τήν χριστιανικήν ελληνορωμαϊκήν Αυτοκρατορίαν, πεσόντα εις τάς αραβικάς χείρας.

Η περίοδος τών μεγάλων δεινών διά τό Πατριαρχείον τών Ιεροσολύμων, διήρκεσε υπέρ τήν χιλιετίαν, παρά τήν εύνοιαν διά τής οποίας ο πορθητής τών Ιεροσολύμων, Ομάρ ίμπν Αλ-Χαττάπ, αντεμετώπισε τούς Χριστιανούς καί τόν Πα­τριάρχην των, άγιον Σωφρόνιον: ο Χαλίφης Ομάρ δι΄ ειδικού διατάγματος (αχτιναμέ) ανεγνώριζεν εις τόν Πατριάρχην τού «βασιλικού έθνους» (δηλ. τών Ρωμηών) τήν ιδιότητα εθνάρχου καί πνευματικού ηγέτου πάντων τών Χριστιανών τής Παλαιστίνης, ακόμη καί τών ετεροδόξων, ως επίσης καί πρεσβεία τιμής μεταξύ πάντων τών Χριστιανών αρχηγών, προσέφερε δέ εις αυτόν εγγυήσεις ευνοίας, ασφαλείας καί φορολογικής ασυδοσίας από μέρους τών μελλόντων Μουσουλμάνων ηγεμόνων.

Όμως, οι διάδοχοί του, αυθαίρετοι Άραβες ηγεμόνες, υπήρξαν σκληρότατοι: η χριστιανική κοι­νότης ήρχισε νά πλήττεται υπό συντόνων προσπαθειών εξισλαμισμού καί αφελληνισμού αυτής...Ο 9ος αιών, όπως καί ο 8ος, εχαρακτηρίσθη υπό τών διωγμών κατά τών Χριστιανών καί τών λεηλασιών εις βάρος τών Προσκυνημάτων, τών Ναών, τών Μονών καί τών απλών πιστών, ενώ προσετέθησαν ο εμφύλιος πόλεμος μεταξύ τών Αραβικών μερίδων καί μέτρα καταπιέσεως, μεταξύ τών οποίων καί η απαγόρευσις τών λιτανειών καί τής διδασκαλίας τών ελληνικών, ώστε διά τό ποίμνιον η χρήσις τής ελληνικής γλώσσης περιωρίσθη εις τήν λατρείαν εν τοίς Ναοίς.

Η επιβολή τής λατινικής εκκλησίας επί τού Ορθοδόξου κλήρου υπήρξε βιαία, καί τά Πάνσεπτα Προσκυνήματα παρεχωρήθησαν εις τόν λατι­νικόν, μεταφερθέντα εκ τής Δύσεως, κλήρον, ενώ οι Αγιοταφίται διετήρησαν τό δικαίωμα νά διαχειρίζωνται τόν Ναόν τής Ευρέσεως τού Τιμίου Σταυρού καί νά λειτουργούν ελληνιστί εις τόν Πανάγιον Τάφον καί εις Βηθλεέμ...Σημαντικόν γε­γονός τής περιόδου αυτής υπήρξεν η ανοικοδόμησις πολλών Ορθοδόξων Προσκυνημάτων υπό τού Ρωμηού Αυτοκράτορος Μανουήλ Κομνηνού (1143 -1180).

Η ήττα τών σταυροφόρων υπό τών Μαμελού­κων τού Σαλάχ εδ Δίν εν έτει 1187, επί τών υψωμάτων Χατ­τίν πλησίον τής Τιβεριάδος, έδωκε καί πάλιν τά Ιεροσόλυμα εις τάς χείρας τού Ισλάμ, μολονότι η τελική απομάκρυνσις τών σταυροφόρων από τής Αγίας Γής ήλθε μετά τήν ήτταν αυτών εν Πτολεμαΐδι τώ 1291.  Ο Σαλάχ εδ Δίν, τηρών εκ σεβασμού τό διάταγμα τού Ομάρ Χαττάπ, επέστρεψε πά­ντα τά Προσκυνήματα εις τούς Έλληνας, όμως μερικοί ανώ-τατοι διοικητικοί αυτού υπάλληλοι παρεχώρησαν μερικούς προσκυνηματικούς χώρους εις τούς μονοφυσίτας Κόπτας καί Αβησσυνούς (Αιθίοπας). Η στάσις τών Μαμελούκων έναντι τού Ελληνικού, Ρωμέηκου, [just to make sure we are clear] Πατριαρχείου ήλλαξεν εις τάς αρχάς τού 14ου αι., καί ήρξαντο μακρόχρονοι διωγ­μοί κατά τών Χριστιανών, εις τό πλαίσιον τών οποίων καί ο Ναός τής Αναστάσεως, αργότερον, επί Πατριάρχου Ιωακείμ (1431-), παρ' ολίγον θά εγίνετο ισλαμικόν τέμενος. Περί τό έτος 1334 ενεφανίσθησαν εις Ιεροσόλυμα καί εγκατεστάθησαν επί τού λόφου τής Σιών οι Φραγκισκανοί, ενώ παραλλήλως ενισχύθη η παρουσία τών Ιακωβιτών καί Αρμενίων, αντιστάθμισμα αυτής υπήρξεν η έλευσις πολλών Γεωργιανών καί Σέρβων Ορθοδόξων Μοναχών, η οποία ενίσχυσε τήν ελληνορθόδοξον [well, now isn't that specific enough] αγιοταφιτικήν παρουσίαν, άν καί όχι πάντοτε άνευ περιπλοκών. Εις τούς Γεωργιανούς παρε­χωρήθη υπό τών Ελλήνων η Μονή τού Τιμίου Σταυρού, εις δέ τούς Σέρβους η Ιερά Μονή τών Αρχαγγέλων, μετόχιον τής Λαύρας τού Αγίου Σάββα.

Η πτώσις τής Κωνσταντινουπόλεως εις τούς Τούρκους (1453 μ.Χ.) καί η συνακόλουθος τελεία απώλεια τής επισήμου πολιτικής προστασίας εσήμανε τήν έναρξιν καί νέων διωγμών. Ο Πατριάρχης Αθανάσιος Δ΄, ταξιδεύσας εις τήν Πόλιν καί επιτυχών τήν έκδοσιν σουλτανικού διατάγματος (χάτι σερίφ) υπό τού Μωάμεθ Β' τού Πορθητού (τώ 1458), απεσόβησε τόν κίνδυνον τής καταστροφής τών Προσκυνη­μάτων καί τής απωλείας τών επ' αυτών δικαιωμάτων τών Ορθοδόξων, ως έπραξεν αργότερον καί ο Πατριάρχης Γρη­γόριος Γ΄ (1468-1493), επιτυχών τήν έκδοσιν νέου διατάγμα­τος υπό τού Πορθητού. Οι Έλληνες κληρικοί εμαστίζοντο υπό δεινής πτωχείας, η δέ στροφή των πρός τόν Πορθητήν επεδείνωσε τάς σχέσεις των μετά τών Μαμελούκων καί, βε­βαίως, μετά τών Λατίνων.

Η περίοδος αύτη τής ιστορίας τών Ιεροσολύμων χαρακτηρίζεται από τάς προσπαθείας κυρίως τών Λατίνων καί τών Αρμενίων, βασιζομένων τών μέν εις τήν διπλωματίαν τών ευρωπαϊκών δυνάμεων, τών δέ εις τήν οικονομικήν ή άλλου είδους πρόσβασίν των εις τήν Υψηλήν σουλτανικήν Πύλην τής Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, όπως ανατρέψωσι τό ευνοϊκόν διά τήν γηγενή (ελληνικήν) [ Roll Eyes] Εκκλησίαν τών Αγίων Τόπων καθε­στώς καί αποκτήσωσι τά πρωτεία ή καί τήν αποκλειστικότητα εις τά πανίερα Προσκυνήματα. Ιδού ολίγοι εκ τών αγώνων τούτων.

Ο 16ος αιών σφραγίζεται υπό τών καρποφόρων προσπαθειών τού Πατριάρχου Γερμανού τού Σαββαΐτου (1537-1579) πρός αναδιοργάνωσιν τής Αγιοταφιτικής Αδελφότητος: ο Πατριάρχης Γερμανός εμερίμνησε δι' επισκευάς εις τά Προ­σκυνήματα, επέτυχε τήν έκδοσιν φιρμανίου (1538) υπό τού Σουλτάνου Σουλεϊμάν υπέρ τών Ρωμηών καί απεδήμησε πρός λογίαν (έρανον) εις Ρωσίαν, θέσας ούτω τήν αρχήν τού επικρατήσαντος έθους τών «ιερών αποδημιών» τών Αγιοταφιτών εις τάς ομοδόξους χώρας, κυρίως τάς Παραδουναβίους Ηγεμονίας καί τήν Ρωσίαν, πρός οικονομικήν ενίσχυσιν τών πανσέπτων Προσκυνημάτων: επίσης, διωργάνωσε τήν Αγιοταφιτικήν Αδελφότητα εις σύνδεσμον στενότερον μετά τού αυτής Πατριάρχου καί Ηγουμένου. Τάς προσπαθείας αυτού εσυνέχισεν ο επάξιος διάδοχος αυτού Πατριάρχης Σωφρόνι­ος Δ΄(1579-1608).


Η ένδοξος πατριαρχία Δοσιθέου Β΄(1669-1707) εφώτισε τούς σκοτεινούς τούτους χρόνους καί απετέλεσε κυματοθραύστην κατά συντονισμένων ενεργειών τών ετεροδόξων, οι οποίοι, ευνοηθέντες υπό τών ιστορικών περιστάσεων, παρ' ολίγον θά επετύγχανον νά εκδιώξουν τήν Αγιοταφιτικήν Αδελφότητα από τών Πανσέπτων αυτής Προσκυνημάτων. Αποτρέψας ο Δοσίθεος σοβαράν προσπάθειαν τής Γαλλί­ας πρός παραχώρησιν τών Προσκυνημάτων εις τούς Λατί­νους Μοναχούς, καί αποφυγών μετά ταύτα καί δύο δολοφονικάς κατ΄ αυτού αποπείρας, εν Ιεροσολύμοις καί κατά τήν μετάβασίν του εις Κωνσταντινούπολιν, ηκύρωσε επίσης τάς εν έτει 1677 συνδεδυασμένας ενεργείας τών πρέσβε­ων τών χωρών Αυστρίας, Γαλλίας, Πολωνίας καί Βενετί­ας, όπως παραχωρηθούν νέα, μή ιστορικά, προνόμια εις τούς Λατίνους....κατά τά έτη δέ 1719 καί 1720 ανέκτησε μέρος καί άλλων δικαιωμάτων τών Ορθοδόξων....αργότερον δείνωσε τήν κατάστασιν, παρά τήν έκδοσιν φιρμανίου τού Σουλεϊμάν υπέρ τών Ορθοδόξων εν έτει 1688, η ήττα τής Τουρ­κίας υπό τής Αυστρίας τό αυτό έτος ωδήγησεν εις έκδοσιν φιρ­μανίου υπέρ τών Λατίνων τώ 1689, τό οποίον αφήρει τά Προ­σκυνήματα από τών Ρωμηών καί ενεθάρρυνε τούς Λατίνους τόσον, ώστε προέβησαν εις έξωσιν τών Αγιοταφιτών εκ τών Ιεροσολύμων...Τό υπό τού Σουλτάνου Μαχμούτ Β' εκδοθέν διάταγμα (1809) περί ανοικοδομήσεως τού Πανσέπτου Ναού τού Παναγίου Τάφου υπό μόνων τών Ελλήνων, ωδήγησεν εις έντονον αντίδρασιν τών Λατίνων καί τών Αρμενίων, προσπαθούντων παντί τρόπω, ακόμη καί διά βιαιοπραγιών εις βάρος τών Ελλήνων εργατών, νά παρακωλύσουν τήν επισκευήν τού Ναού, άχρις ότου επιτύχουν τήν έκδοσιν ευνοϊκωτέρου πρός αυτούς φιρμανίου περί ανακατασκευής τού Ναού. Τελικώς, ο Πάνσεπτος Ναός τής Αναστάσεως, οικοδομηθείς δι' ιδρώτος, αίματος καί χρη­μάτων τού υστερήματος τού υποδούλου «Γένους τών Ρωμαί­ων», ενεκαινιάσθη τήν 13ην Σεπτεμβρίου τού 1810, ημέραν μνήμης τών Εγκαινίων τού Ναού τής Αναστάσεως, χαρακτη­ρισθείς ως «τό θαύμα τής Πίστεως τών Ελλήνων» .

Η Επανάστασις [note the definite article, and no Ελληνική ] τού 1821, θέσασα τούς Αγιοταφίτας, μετά τών λοιπών Ελλήνων, υπό τήν δυσμενή κατηγορί­αν τής κατά τής Υψηλής Πύλης προδοσίας, ήνοιξε τό πεδί­ον εις τούς ετεροδόξους διά τήν πολυπόθητον αυτοίς έξωσιν τών Ελλήνων εκ τών Αγίων Τόπων, ενώ οι Αγιοταφίται υφίσταντο τά πάνδεινα υπό τών Τούρκων...Η πίεσις τών ευρωπαϊκών δυνάμεων επί τής Τουρκίας ωδήγησεν εις τήν επανίδρυσιν τού καταργηθέντος, μετά τάς σταυροφορίας, Λατινικού Πατριαρχείου εν έτει 1847, ενώ οι συνεργαζόμενοι Άγγλοι (Αγγλικανοί) καί Γερμανοί (Λουθη­ρανοί) Προτεστάνται, ως καί οι Ουνίται, είχον εμφανισθή ήδη εις τήν Αγίαν Γήν κατά τό έτος 1840. Παρά ταύτα, οι Άγιοι Τό­ποι εύρισκον ιδιαιτέρως τήν περίοδον αυτήν, ως καί παλαιό­τερον, ισχυράν ορθόδοξον βοήθειαν υπό τής Αυτοκρατορίας τής Ρωσίας, τής οποίας η ανάμειξις, δυστυχώς, δέν ήτο παρά ταύτα καί παντελώς ανιδιοτελής

Η έλευσις εις Ιεροσόλυμα τού Ρώσου Αρχιμανδρίτου Πορφυρίου Ουσπένσκι εν έτει 1843 καί η ίδρυσις τής Ορθοδόξου Ρωσικής Αποστολής εν έτει 1848 ενεδυνάμωσαν τήν Ορθόδοξον παρουσίαν, ταυτοχρόνως όμως εκαλλιεργήθη υπό τής Ρωσικής Αποστολής κλίμα τεχνητής αντιπαραθέσεως μεταξύ τής ελληνοφώνου Αγιοταφιτικής Αδελφότητος καί τού αραβοφώνου αυτής ποιμνίου, ώστε νά είναι εύκολος η ανάμειξις τών ρωσικών συμφερόντων εις τά εκκλησιαστικά τών Ιεροσολύμων πράγματα καί η πρόσδεσις τού ποιμνί­ου εις τό άρμα τής Ρωσίας, η πολιτική αύτη, η οποία εκ τών υστέρων έτυχε δυσμενούς κριτικής καί εν αυτή τή Ρωσία, είχεν ως αποκορύφωμα τά γεγονότα τού τέλους τής πατρι­αρχίας τού επιφανεστάτου Πατριάρχου Ιεροσολύμων Κυρίλ­λου Β΄, ο οποίος, παρασυρθείς υπό τών Ρώσων διπλωματών εν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, απέφυγε τήν συμμετοχήν εις τήν εν έτει 1872 εν τή Βασιλευούση συνοδικήν καταδίκην τού Βουλγαρικού σχίσματος καί τού υποκρυπτομένου όπισθεν αυτού εθνοφυλετισμού καί πανσλαβισμού. Τούτο, βεβαί­ως, ωδήγησε τόν Κύριλλον Β' εις σύγκρουσιν μετά τής Αγιοταφιτικής Αδελφότητος, η οποία, πρώτον μέν μετά από Σύ­ναξιν αυτής (1872) απεφάσισε καί εν τέλει έφερεν εις πέρας τήν εκθρόνισιν τού Πατριάρχου Κυρίλλου, παρά τούς γενομέ­νους υπ' αυτού καί τής τουρκικής αστυνομίας διωγμούς τών αδελφών, έπειτα δέ καί εξέλεξεν (1873) ως διάδοχον αυτού τόν Πατριάρχην Προκόπιον Β'. Η Ρωσία, αντιδράσασα εις τούτο, κατέσχε τά κτήματα τού Παναγίου Τάφου εν Βεσσαραβία καί Καυκάσω, τά οποία ανεκτήθησαν καί πάλιν τώ 1875, τό αυτό έτος η Υψηλή Πύλη επεκύρωσε τόν νέον εσωτερικόν «Κανο­νισμόν τού Ρωμαϊκού [note: no (ελληνικού), cf. the English] Πατριαρχείου Ιεροσολύμων».

Η Εκκλησία τών Ιεροσολύμων είναι η μόνη αυτοφυής καί γηγενής εις τήν Αγίαν Γήν Εκκλησία, διατηρήσασα, καθότι Ορθόδοξος, τήν διά πολλών αιώνων τηρηθείσαν αναλλοίωτον Ορθόδοξον Πίστιν τών Αγίων Αποστόλων καί Πατέρων. Αι λοιπαί χριστιανικαί ομολογίαι καί κοινότητες, έχουσαι τήν απωτάτην αυτών αναφοράν εις τάς εθνικάς ή συ­γκεντρωτικάς, έξωθεν τής Αγίας Γής, εκκλησιαστικάς αυτών διοικήσεις, τάς οποίας εν τή Αγία Γή αντιπροσωπεύουν, σαφώς υπολείπονται τού σπουδαίου προσώπου τό οποίον δι­αδραματίζει η Σιωνίτις Εκκλησία υπό τήν καθοδήγησιν τού Τάγματος τών Σπουδαίων, τής Αγιοταφιτικής Αδελφότητος. Ο ελληνικός χαρακτήρ τής Σιωνίτιδος Εκκλησίας, πέραν τής αμέσου ιστορικής αναφοράς αυτού εις τήν καταγωγήν τών πρώτων εν Παλαιστίνη Χριστιανών, επειδή εμπνέει τό Πατριαρχείον τής Αγίας Σιών διά τής οικουμενικότητος τού Ορθοδόξου Ρωμέηκου, πνευματικού καί χριστοκεντρικού πολιτισμού τών Αγίων Πατέρων, υπεραιρόμενος στενών εθνικών δεσμεύσεων, εξασφαλίζει κατά τούτο καί τήν οικουμενικότητα καί τό εις άπαντας προσβατόν τών Πανσέ­πτων Προσκυνημάτων.

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/JerusalemPatriarchate-History.el.aspx

See how Greek just flows into Roman?

As to the claim that the Greeks were forbidden to speak Greek outside of liturgy, I've heard/seen it claimed that means that really the Arab Orthodox are just Greeks who don't speak Greek.  Even if true (and it contradicts the genetic evidence) SO WHAT?  No one is demanding the de-Hellenization of all those Slavs in Macedonia, all those Albanians in Epiros (who might want the fustani back), all those Armenians in Asia Minor (and Macedonia, where many were settled, the ancestors of Basil the Macedonian being among them).  We like being Arab: we don't need the YUNAAN (note, not ruum) strangling our indigenous Church in the Holy Land.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 04:43:39 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
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2009, 05:36:10 PM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.

Which is what exactly?

That when Ρωμαίος/رومی/ruumiy/Romios/Ρωμιός/rûmi/rimljani/римски/римской/ܪܗܘܡܝܐ and the cognate Armenian term (which escapes me now)(and note Turkish Kıbrıs Rumları/Kıbrıslı Yunanlılar for Ελληνοκύπριοι)  is used as a ethnicity-and it is so used-it refers to the Greeks. The chavinism of the Phanar destroyed any universality the term once had, which is how the "Βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων" became "Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων."

Is it your opinion then that it is impossible to recover this meaning/understanding of the term? Is it worthwhile to do so? And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches? Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Perhaps a theoretical discussion of how things ought to work might be a little less heated than the current fistfight of proof texts. Wink

Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #52 on: May 07, 2009, 08:06:10 PM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.

Which is what exactly?

That when Ρωμαίος/رومی/ruumiy/Romios/Ρωμιός/rûmi/rimljani/римски/римской/ܪܗܘܡܝܐ and the cognate Armenian term (which escapes me now)(and note Turkish Kıbrıs Rumları/Kıbrıslı Yunanlılar for Ελληνοκύπριοι)  is used as a ethnicity-and it is so used-it refers to the Greeks. The chavinism of the Phanar destroyed any universality the term once had, which is how the "Βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων" became "Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων."

Is it your opinion then that it is impossible to recover this meaning/understanding of the term?

No, of course it's not impossible.  Archbishop Anastasios of Albania is the enactment of it.


Quote
Is it worthwhile to do so?

Not really.  The Romanians are Roman, but have not of the pretenses about it (having been humbled seems to have cured them of it).


Quote
And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches?

Only when it makes the Gospel exclusive is it a problem.  I don't have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism.  Getting rid of the inferiority complex many have (actually something that I agree with the Chief Secretary on) is also a good plan.

Quote
Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Raising Orthodox of the Arab, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Serbian, Russian, American, Australian persuasion.

Quote
Perhaps a theoretical discussion of how things ought to work might be a little less heated than the current fistfight of proof texts. Wink
Wink
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
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #53 on: May 07, 2009, 09:25:58 PM »

Really?  Better tell the Phanar, er, Rum Ortodoks Patrikhanesi, er, New Rome's, Chief Secretary quoted above.  Somehow he's conneting his See with Hellenism.

And what should we tell the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East"?
http://www.antiochpat.org/english/sitefiles/

My point exactly.

Which is what exactly?

That when Ρωμαίος/رومی/ruumiy/Romios/Ρωμιός/rûmi/rimljani/римски/римской/ܪܗܘܡܝܐ and the cognate Armenian term (which escapes me now)(and note Turkish Kıbrıs Rumları/Kıbrıslı Yunanlılar for Ελληνοκύπριοι)  is used as a ethnicity-and it is so used-it refers to the Greeks. The chavinism of the Phanar destroyed any universality the term once had, which is how the "Βασιλεύς τῶν Ῥωμαίων" became "Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων."

Is it your opinion then that it is impossible to recover this meaning/understanding of the term?

No, of course it's not impossible.  Archbishop Anastasios of Albania is the enactment of it.


Quote
Is it worthwhile to do so?

Not really.  The Romanians are Roman, but have not of the pretenses about it (having been humbled seems to have cured them of it).


Quote
And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches?

Only when it makes the Gospel exclusive is it a problem.  I don't have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism.  Getting rid of the inferiority complex many have (actually something that I agree with the Chief Secretary on) is also a good plan.

Quote
Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Raising Orthodox of the Arab, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Serbian, Russian, American, Australian persuasion.

Quote
Perhaps a theoretical discussion of how things ought to work might be a little less heated than the current fistfight of proof texts. Wink
Wink

So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians? I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.

It was confusing to me when I first heard that the official name in English of the church of Antioch was, "the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch." But then, when you translate it literally from the Arabic, they use the term,"the Roum Orthodox Church of Antioch."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 09:31:42 PM by Tamara » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,142


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 07, 2009, 11:25:57 PM »

So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians?

That is how I refer myself to other people.   Grin  I usually use the Eastern Orthodox distinction and the Greek Orthodox sub-distinction just like a taxonomy.   Wink

I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.

Especially when an unchurched person is exposed to Greek Rite Catholicism.

It was confusing to me when I first heard that the official name in English of the church of Antioch was, "the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch." But then, when you translate it literally from the Arabic, they use the term,"the Roum Orthodox Church of Antioch."

Perhaps the time has come for Damascus to change its name....
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2009, 12:04:42 AM »

That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?

Well, our mother church WAS given to the Pope by Constantine the Great himself.  Wink

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2009, 12:17:55 AM »

I propose we should all agree that the following IS most definitely Roman and then move on.  Smiley

« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 12:21:02 AM by lubeltri » Logged
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2009, 01:03:19 AM »

No, of course it's not impossible.  Archbishop Anastasios of Albania is the enactment of it.

Could you elaborate on this? How is he the enactment of it? And does it play a positive or negative role in his ministry and that of the Albanian Church?

Quote
Is it worthwhile to do so?

Not really.  The Romanians are Roman, but have not of the pretenses about it (having been humbled seems to have cured them of it).

Again, could you clarify? The Romanians have been, broadly speaking, one of the more ethnically centered Churches over the past several decades. Their understanding of their Roman-ness, if you will, is purely ethnic, limited by blood and language, and religion. (at least in my experience of individual Romanian laypeople and my reading of specific texts from the Romanian clergy and hierarchy). If the Romanians exemplify what you mean by "Roman," then I consider their Roman-ness a liability to their Christianity, rather than an asset.

Quote
And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches?

Only when it makes the Gospel exclusive is it a problem.  I don't have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism.  Getting rid of the inferiority complex many have (actually something that I agree with the Chief Secretary on) is also a good plan.

Again, could you please clarify and elaborate. I do not know what you mean when you say "make the Gospel exclusive." Exclusive of what?

Myself, I frankly DO have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism defining the Church qua Church. As has become clear in my conversation with SolEX01 in the other thread, ethnicity/nationalism necessarily create an exclusive environment which tends to drive away those who do not share that ethnicity/nationalism. I defend the GOA/Ecumenical Patriarchate currently because it is coping with a pre-existent condition, and endeavoring to move what is a very ethnic church in a positive direction, so that Greekness (in an ethnic/nationalistic sense) ceases to be an essential part of its identity. A significant part of that effort is re-defining Hellenism in a universalizing direction. Individual people can be ethnic (especially laypeople), so long as their ethnicity is subordinated to their Faith. Even individual parishes, to a certain degree. But for the Church as a whole to be ethnic, and defined on ethnic lines, is, and always has been, a problem. (cf. Nestorian schism, Chalcedonian Schism, Great schism, and current brouhaha between Moscow and Constantinople).

And finally, what inferiority complex?

Quote
Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Raising Orthodox of the Arab, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Serbian, Russian, American, Australian persuasion.

And this will be a good thing why? I would settle for raising Orthodox, and teaching them that their Faith, not any accident of blood or birth, is the center of their identity. Perhaps this is what you mean.

So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians? I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.

Most people I've met are determined that the Church has to be associated with some ethnicity. Because of the manner in which our ecclesiastical structure has developed since (and even before) the fall of Constantinople, with every Orthodox country aspiring to be its own little mini-Byzantine Empire with its own personal autocephalous church, it is difficult for most Orthodox Christians to find any other terms to think in when they start thinking about their own hierarchy. And therefore everyone (evidently) wants an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, so we can be our own little Orthodox Church and imitate the Byzantine Empire too.

Why we think this would be a good idea, I have no idea. Let me be clear: there is one legitimate reason, and only one theologically legitimate reason, that the idea of the Christian Roman Empire was ever anything other than very bad, and that is rooted in a geopolitical theory that, while second nature to the Fathers of the Church, particularly those of the 4th and 5th centuries, is deader than dead, and will never come back. I speak, of course, of the idea of the universality of Roman rule, that the Roman Emperor ruled, or ought to rule, directly or indirectly, over the entire inhabited world (ecumene/oikoumeni/οἰκουμένη). So if the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and said he was the Emperor of all Christians everywhere, and acted accordingly (as Constantine and Theodosios both did), it made perfect sense to the bishops of the Church to treat him accordingly and organize the Church along such lines, with an Ecumenical Patriarch in the capital city of the man who ruled the inhabited world. The Christian Roman Emperor provided one good thing to the Church over all the centuries--a unitive factor to counter the nationalism that not only threatened to divide, but all too often did divide the Church. Not, frankly, that it worked all that well. But the Church was able to accept it at all only because the Emperor thus became a force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church.

Now, lest anyone start in on me, asking how I can possibly say that the Christian Byzantine Emperor was a "force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church" in light of individuals like Basil II "Bulgar-Killer"...that's exactly my point. Precisely because the Church under this model always ends up being co-opted by the nation for secular and even anti-Christian ends (like Bulgar killing), this model is not just flawed, it's broken. I am simply attempting to explain why, if it is in fact a bad model, the Church accepted it for over a thousand years of Orthodox history. When the Emperor served the Church, things were good. When he used the Church to serve himself (which was often)...hoo boy.

That said, the problem with imitating it (as every Orthodox country has done and continues to do) is that it undermines the single positive element of the model--the unitive factor. Without the one, single Roman Emperor to stand as a symbol of the unity of all Christians and the universality of the Faith, what possible good does a "national" Church do? The clash between our earthly identity and Christian identity is already a problem for every Christian. Ethnicity/politics is one of the biggest competitors with Christ for primacy in the average Christian's identity system and worldview. Why in the world would we want to institutionalize the problem in the Church's structure and hierarchy?

But we've done it, and continue to do it. And all this hullabaloo about an American Orthodox Church is just another step on the same intellectually bankrupt road.

So--all that to say, basically, I agree with you. We should, ideally, think of ourselves as simply Orthodox Christians. But, while that may seem fairly easy for an individual, I would submit that's much more difficult than it sounds, even for an individual, much less for a parish, a diocese, and above all for a National Autocephalous Church.

Let's touch briefly on Autocephaly, shall we? Canonically speaking, autocephaly is a very different beast than it has been made out to be in recent centuries. The First Council of Nicaea stipulated that every province of the Roman Empire was to be autocephalous (with certain exceptions allowing for the ancient primacy of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over nearby provinces). We should be clear that there were around 120 provinces in the Roman Empire at this time.

Over the next two centuries, the above-mentioned development of the theory of the Christian Roman Empire resulted, among other things, in a process of centralization, so that by the mid-fifth century, the provinces were no longer autocephalous, but some dioceses (a diocese was a civil and administrative entity denoting a group of provinces) still retained their ecclesiastical self-governance. Whatever else Canon 28 of Chalcedon did, it granted officially what had unofficially been claimed for the past 50 years to Constantinople: direct jurisdiction of some of the last remaining "autocephalous" dioceses in the Roman Empire: Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. From this point in time, roughly speaking, we have in place the fabled Pentarchy of Patriarchates...an innovation on and, to be frank, a violation of the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, pushed through by the Imperial legates and objected to by most of the Church.

Now, as I've said, the Church accepted this, for the sake of order and unity. But, in the absence of the Emperor, or any viable replacement to the Emperor (please don't suggest Russia--it's part of the problem, not the solution), this system no longer makes any sense. Nationalism, ethnocentrism, and ethnophyletism have a deep hold on our ecclesiastical consciousness. What we seek, or what we should be seeking, is a way out, a way to combat them. Autocephaly for every national Orthodox Church is precisely the opposite of what we need. We need to break, not strengthen, the hold of this ethnic nationalism on the Church.

How, then, do we find our way back to Nicaea? I have ideas, certainly, but perhaps those are best in another post. I've put out enough for people to disagree with as it is. Wink
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2009, 01:08:03 AM »

That's nice. But what has that got to do with the fact that you and ialmisry hold that the Roman Catholics are the only true heirs and continuation of the Church of the Ecumenical Councils?

Well, our mother church WAS given to the Pope by Constantine the Great himself.  Wink



Yes, quite a "Donation." LOL.
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
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 #59 on: May 08, 2009, 01:33:02 AM »

No, of course it's not impossible.  Archbishop Anastasios of Albania is the enactment of it.

Could you elaborate on this? How is he the enactment of it? And does it play a positive or negative role in his ministry and that of the Albanian Church?

Quote
Is it worthwhile to do so?

Not really.  The Romanians are Roman, but have not of the pretenses about it (having been humbled seems to have cured them of it).

Again, could you clarify? The Romanians have been, broadly speaking, one of the more ethnically centered Churches over the past several decades. Their understanding of their Roman-ness, if you will, is purely ethnic, limited by blood and language, and religion. (at least in my experience of individual Romanian laypeople and my reading of specific texts from the Romanian clergy and hierarchy). If the Romanians exemplify what you mean by "Roman," then I consider their Roman-ness a liability to their Christianity, rather than an asset.

Quote
And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches?

Only when it makes the Gospel exclusive is it a problem.  I don't have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism.  Getting rid of the inferiority complex many have (actually something that I agree with the Chief Secretary on) is also a good plan.

Again, could you please clarify and elaborate. I do not know what you mean when you say "make the Gospel exclusive." Exclusive of what?

Myself, I frankly DO have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism defining the Church qua Church. As has become clear in my conversation with SolEX01 in the other thread, ethnicity/nationalism necessarily create an exclusive environment which tends to drive away those who do not share that ethnicity/nationalism. I defend the GOA/Ecumenical Patriarchate currently because it is coping with a pre-existent condition, and endeavoring to move what is a very ethnic church in a positive direction, so that Greekness (in an ethnic/nationalistic sense) ceases to be an essential part of its identity. A significant part of that effort is re-defining Hellenism in a universalizing direction. Individual people can be ethnic (especially laypeople), so long as their ethnicity is subordinated to their Faith. Even individual parishes, to a certain degree. But for the Church as a whole to be ethnic, and defined on ethnic lines, is, and always has been, a problem. (cf. Nestorian schism, Chalcedonian Schism, Great schism, and current brouhaha between Moscow and Constantinople).

And finally, what inferiority complex?

Quote
Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Raising Orthodox of the Arab, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Serbian, Russian, American, Australian persuasion.

And this will be a good thing why? I would settle for raising Orthodox, and teaching them that their Faith, not any accident of blood or birth, is the center of their identity. Perhaps this is what you mean.

So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians? I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.

Most people I've met are determined that the Church has to be associated with some ethnicity. Because of the manner in which our ecclesiastical structure has developed since (and even before) the fall of Constantinople, with every Orthodox country aspiring to be its own little mini-Byzantine Empire with its own personal autocephalous church, it is difficult for most Orthodox Christians to find any other terms to think in when they start thinking about their own hierarchy. And therefore everyone (evidently) wants an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, so we can be our own little Orthodox Church and imitate the Byzantine Empire too.

Why we think this would be a good idea, I have no idea. Let me be clear: there is one legitimate reason, and only one theologically legitimate reason, that the idea of the Christian Roman Empire was ever anything other than very bad, and that is rooted in a geopolitical theory that, while second nature to the Fathers of the Church, particularly those of the 4th and 5th centuries, is deader than dead, and will never come back. I speak, of course, of the idea of the universality of Roman rule, that the Roman Emperor ruled, or ought to rule, directly or indirectly, over the entire inhabited world (ecumene/oikoumeni/οἰκουμένη). So if the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and said he was the Emperor of all Christians everywhere, and acted accordingly (as Constantine and Theodosios both did), it made perfect sense to the bishops of the Church to treat him accordingly and organize the Church along such lines, with an Ecumenical Patriarch in the capital city of the man who ruled the inhabited world. The Christian Roman Emperor provided one good thing to the Church over all the centuries--a unitive factor to counter the nationalism that not only threatened to divide, but all too often did divide the Church. Not, frankly, that it worked all that well. But the Church was able to accept it at all only because the Emperor thus became a force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church.

Now, lest anyone start in on me, asking how I can possibly say that the Christian Byzantine Emperor was a "force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church" in light of individuals like Basil II "Bulgar-Killer"...that's exactly my point. Precisely because the Church under this model always ends up being co-opted by the nation for secular and even anti-Christian ends (like Bulgar killing), this model is not just flawed, it's broken. I am simply attempting to explain why, if it is in fact a bad model, the Church accepted it for over a thousand years of Orthodox history. When the Emperor served the Church, things were good. When he used the Church to serve himself (which was often)...hoo boy.

That said, the problem with imitating it (as every Orthodox country has done and continues to do) is that it undermines the single positive element of the model--the unitive factor. Without the one, single Roman Emperor to stand as a symbol of the unity of all Christians and the universality of the Faith, what possible good does a "national" Church do? The clash between our earthly identity and Christian identity is already a problem for every Christian. Ethnicity/politics is one of the biggest competitors with Christ for primacy in the average Christian's identity system and worldview. Why in the world would we want to institutionalize the problem in the Church's structure and hierarchy?

But we've done it, and continue to do it. And all this hullabaloo about an American Orthodox Church is just another step on the same intellectually bankrupt road.

So--all that to say, basically, I agree with you. We should, ideally, think of ourselves as simply Orthodox Christians. But, while that may seem fairly easy for an individual, I would submit that's much more difficult than it sounds, even for an individual, much less for a parish, a diocese, and above all for a National Autocephalous Church.

Let's touch briefly on Autocephaly, shall we? Canonically speaking, autocephaly is a very different beast than it has been made out to be in recent centuries. The First Council of Nicaea stipulated that every province of the Roman Empire was to be autocephalous (with certain exceptions allowing for the ancient primacy of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over nearby provinces). We should be clear that there were around 120 provinces in the Roman Empire at this time.

Over the next two centuries, the above-mentioned development of the theory of the Christian Roman Empire resulted, among other things, in a process of centralization, so that by the mid-fifth century, the provinces were no longer autocephalous, but some dioceses (a diocese was a civil and administrative entity denoting a group of provinces) still retained their ecclesiastical self-governance. Whatever else Canon 28 of Chalcedon did, it granted officially what had unofficially been claimed for the past 50 years to Constantinople: direct jurisdiction of some of the last remaining "autocephalous" dioceses in the Roman Empire: Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. From this point in time, roughly speaking, we have in place the fabled Pentarchy of Patriarchates...an innovation on and, to be frank, a violation of the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, pushed through by the Imperial legates and objected to by most of the Church.

Now, as I've said, the Church accepted this, for the sake of order and unity. But, in the absence of the Emperor, or any viable replacement to the Emperor (please don't suggest Russia--it's part of the problem, not the solution), this system no longer makes any sense. Nationalism, ethnocentrism, and ethnophyletism have a deep hold on our ecclesiastical consciousness. What we seek, or what we should be seeking, is a way out, a way to combat them. Autocephaly for every national Orthodox Church is precisely the opposite of what we need. We need to break, not strengthen, the hold of this ethnic nationalism on the Church.

How, then, do we find our way back to Nicaea? I have ideas, certainly, but perhaps those are best in another post. I've put out enough for people to disagree with as it is. Wink

Excellent post Father. Well thought out.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2009, 01:48:25 AM »




So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians? I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.

Most people I've met are determined that the Church has to be associated with some ethnicity. Because of the manner in which our ecclesiastical structure has developed since (and even before) the fall of Constantinople, with every Orthodox country aspiring to be its own little mini-Byzantine Empire with its own personal autocephalous church, it is difficult for most Orthodox Christians to find any other terms to think in when they start thinking about their own hierarchy. And therefore everyone (evidently) wants an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, so we can be our own little Orthodox Church and imitate the Byzantine Empire too.

I don't think most folks want mini-Byzantine Empires. Our world is not run by an empire so the idea of having one man providing a unitive position is dead and it only works in an ideal situation when you have the right man in that position, otherwise it gives one man too much authority.

Locally governed churches have a better understanding of who and how they need to serve. There is no need for it to be a national church. But it should be one governed on the continent level like the patriarchate of Alexandria which governs the continent of Africa.

Then on the world level we would have various patriarchs representing the various continents meet in conciliar fashion with one who would leading the meetings.








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 #61 on: May 08, 2009, 03:14:06 AM »

Locally governed churches have a better understanding of who and how they need to serve.
The Church is not here to "serve" us but to sanctify and save us.

There is no need for it to be a national church. But it should be one governed on the continent level like the patriarchate of Alexandria which governs the continent of Africa.
Every local Church with a Bishop governs itself. What you want is completely "independent" local governance answerable to the laity with no reference to the Church in the rest of the world.

Then on the world level we would have various patriarchs representing the various continents meet in conciliar fashion with one who would leading the meetings.
Why do they have to be "Patriarchs"? Are we creating new Holy Orders in the Church? On the one hand, you hold that all Bishops are equal, yet insist that each continent must have a Patriarch. And what defines a Continent? A body of land surrounded by water or geopolitics? Is an island nation a Continent which should have its own Patriarch?








« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 03:14:40 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #62 on: May 08, 2009, 03:36:04 AM »

A few more questions Tamara:

Should we do away with Moscow, Belgrade, Tbilisi, Rome and Constantinople and have one Patriarch for Eurasia?

How will the "Patriarch of Brussels and Eurasia" have "more of an understanding" of the needs of the Church in  Vladivostok than the Patriarch of Alexandria?

How will the "Patriarch of New York and the Americas" have "more of an understanding" of the Church in Mexico than, say, the Patriarch of Jerusalem?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 03:37:45 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2009, 01:11:11 AM »

Christ is Risen!

No, of course it's not impossible.  Archbishop Anastasios of Albania is the enactment of it.

Could you elaborate on this? How is he the enactment of it? And does it play a positive or negative role in his ministry and that of the Albanian Church?

He's a Greek.  Born in Greece. Educated in Greece.  Ordained in Greece.  Was a candidate for a bishoprick in Greece, but didn't get it.  Speaks several languages, Albanians not being one of them.  Spent his life in an Orthodox country where it is the State Creed, and in some ways, the state enforced Creed.

So heads a mission society in an Orthodox country, seeing that even Orthodox societies need mission, and they shouldn't take the Faith for granted.  (If I remember correctly, I saw a lot of devotional material in Romanian in Romania from the same group, free of charge IIRC).  Doesn't take it for granted that because you are Greek, you are Orthodox.

He then gets appointed to a country that has a history of hostility with his homeland, with a persecuted minority of his same ethnicity.  He takes care of them, but beyond that, takes care of the majority. No parochialism nor chavinism.  With his contacts back home, he gets a lot of aid and help from the CoG to build up the church in Albania. Not speaking Albanian, he workes on getting as much printed in Albanian that exists and works on translating more.  Ordained a titular bishop in Greece and sent by the Phanar to a land with no clergy to speak of (6 old priests and deacons who haven't publicly served for three decades) he works on building up an Albanian clergy and hierarchy.  In addition to children's education, schools, medical physilities, a seminary.....He gets enough funds for a big cathedral in his See, and he splurges it on a church (AND a mosque) dedicated to promoting coexistence and peace in Kosovo. (somewhat a different approach than what has been tried between Greece and Macedonia).

I won't hold his presidency of the WCC against him: he used it as ambassador of Albania and for the good of his charge.  Quite different from how we Arabs, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians remember the Phanariots.

The Albanian government tried to make a law requiring Albanian nationality for Church leaders.  The Albanians made the government back down.  The Albanians know a good thing when they see it.

Is it worthwhile to do so?

Not really.  The Romanians are Roman, but have none of the pretenses about it (having been humbled seems to have cured them of it).

Again, could you clarify? The Romanians have been, broadly speaking, one of the more ethnically centered Churches over the past several decades. Their understanding of their Roman-ness, if you will, is purely ethnic, limited by blood and language, and religion. (at least in my experience of individual Romanian laypeople and my reading of specific texts from the Romanian clergy and hierarchy). If the Romanians exemplify what you mean by "Roman," then I consider their Roman-ness a liability to their Christianity, rather than an asset.

If their ethnicity reinforces their Orthodoxy (and not their Orthodoxy to reinforce their ethnicity), definitely an asset.  Most I've known have had a Pavlov response to Orthodoxy.

The Romanians consider themselves Roman, but they limit that to Dacia and Trajan.  They make no pretense to universal rule.  They also don't mind that the Greeks claim Constantine, Helena and Justinian, proto-Romanians all.  They went through a humbling experience of being 2nd class citizens or non-citizens in their own terriotory, divided up by the surrounding powers: ruman acquired the meaning "serf" which only became obsolete on the road to independence.

And if it is not, what then will serve as an appropriate counter to the ethnocentrism/nationalism that is rife in ALL the Orthodox Churches?

Only when it makes the Gospel exclusive is it a problem.  I don't have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism.  Getting rid of the inferiority complex many have (actually something that I agree with the Chief Secretary on) is also a good plan.

Again, could you please clarify and elaborate. I do not know what you mean when you say "make the Gospel exclusive." Exclusive of what?

Meaning Orthodox are born, not baptized, and you have to be a member of the chosen race (and joining is out of the question), or some sort of client appended to that culture to belong to the Church.  Exclusive in sense that if your grandfather wasn't Orthodox, you can't be either.  And if your nation didn't have its Church before the 19th century, too bad. You can't have one and have to be in perpetual tutelage to one.  Sort of like how the World Powers try to keep anyone from joining their number.

Quote
Myself, I frankly DO have a problem with ethnicity/nationalism defining the Church qua Church. As has become clear in my conversation with SolEX01 in the other thread, ethnicity/nationalism necessarily create an exclusive environment which tends to drive away those who do not share that ethnicity/nationalism. I defend the GOA/Ecumenical Patriarchate currently because it is coping with a pre-existent condition, and endeavoring to move what is a very ethnic church in a positive direction, so that Greekness (in an ethnic/nationalistic sense) ceases to be an essential part of its identity. A significant part of that effort is re-defining Hellenism in a universalizing direction.


Doing that by denying its particularity is not a good idea.  Leads to fish-don't-know-he's-wet syndrome.  The Neo-pagans remain Greeks while becoming Europeans.  Why do the Orthodox have to loose their footing to broaden their horizons?

Quote
Individual people can be ethnic (especially laypeople), so long as their ethnicity is subordinated to their Faith. Even individual parishes, to a certain degree. But for the Church as a whole to be ethnic, and defined on ethnic lines, is, and always has been, a problem. (cf. Nestorian schism, Chalcedonian Schism, Great schism, and current brouhaha between Moscow and Constantinople).

Since Nestorius and Eutyches were in Constantinople, I'm not sure 100% of your first contentions. That the Syriac and Assyrians are (according to themselves) the same people but on opposite sides of the Church divide, and the Henotikon, and the multiethnic OO also are problematic for that argument.  Round one of the Great Schism played out in one nation, namely Bulgaria.  The recent unpleasantness has come about from Constantinople trying to stretch its ethnicity into universal jurisiction (e.g. Estonia).

Quote
And finally, what inferiority complex?

Quote
A second challenge of the Church in America is that it was brought here by people who left their homelands at a time that these homelands were economically underdeveloped. Economic immigration created, from the very first moment, the need for these people to assimilate to their adopted land in order to achieve, as soon as possible, the high living standards of the privileged Americans and therefore to enjoy the fruits of the American dream. Towards that goal, they changed their names, they put an emphasis on the English language in every aspect of their lives, and at last they succeeded in becoming true American citizens, holding ever higher positions in the financial, commercial, academic, artistic and political life of this country. The negative aspect of this strong emphasis on cultural assimilation was the consideration of the faithfulness in one’s cultural background as an impediment to the progress and success in the American society. Thus, the complexes of an alleged inferior nationality or class that, in order to enjoy the fruits of the American dream, is supposed to eradicate any bond to its distinctive culture.
http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

That goes for the race to be "Western." The Iranians have a lovely term: Westoxification.  Athens seems hellbent on out porning the West.  They've succeeded.

Because we need something to do so, in my opinion.

Ecclesiastical globalization.  Reminds me too much of the Phanariots, and before them the suppression of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to Constantinople's synod and rite.

Raising Orthodox of the Arab, Greek, Albanian, Romanian, Serbian, Russian, American, Australian persuasion.

And this will be a good thing why? I would settle for raising Orthodox, and teaching them that their Faith, not any accident of blood or birth, is the center of their identity. Perhaps this is what you mean.

Yes, but not rarified. Humans do better in a culture. Try raising a kid without a language, or letting him grow up to choose his language.

So can we just go back to calling ourselves Orthodox Christians? I honestly think the 'Roman' title will only confuse the unchurched. And whether it is or isn't a nationality, it certainly sounds like a nationality to those who have little understanding of a now extinct empire.
Most people I've met are determined that the Church has to be associated with some ethnicity.


That's because everyone is associated with an ethnicity.  Even the WASPS have an ethnicity.

Quote
Because of the manner in which our ecclesiastical structure has developed since (and even before) the fall of Constantinople, with every Orthodox country aspiring to be its own little mini-Byzantine Empire with its own personal autocephalous church,


This only becomes a problem when those exercising that right seek to deny it to others.

Quote
it is difficult for most Orthodox Christians to find any other terms to think in when they start thinking about their own hierarchy.


Since that is the constituional plan of Apostolic canon 34, that would make sense.

Quote
And therefore everyone (evidently) wants an autocephalous American Orthodox Church, so we can be our own little Orthodox Church and imitate the Byzantine Empire too.

No, there are plenty of people who do not want the American Church to have autocephaly.  Many would rather have it as a perpetual colony.

Quote
Why we think this would be a good idea, I have no idea.

It's how the humans organize themselves.

Quote
Let me be clear: there is one legitimate reason, and only one theologically legitimate reason, that the idea of the Christian Roman Empire was ever anything other than very bad, and that is rooted in a geopolitical theory that, while second nature to the Fathers of the Church, particularly those of the 4th and 5th centuries, is deader than dead, and will never come back. I speak, of course, of the idea of the universality of Roman rule, that the Roman Emperor ruled, or ought to rule, directly or indirectly, over the entire inhabited world (ecumene/oikoumeni/?HuhHuh??). So if the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and said he was the Emperor of all Christians everywhere, and acted accordingly (as Constantine and Theodosios both did), it made perfect sense to the bishops of the Church to treat him accordingly and organize the Church along such lines, with an Ecumenical Patriarch in the capital city of the man who ruled the inhabited world.


But the united empire never had a single autocephalous Church.  At the very least, there were three (I'd argue eight).

This is only a problem for explaining the Church of Constantinople.

Quote
The Christian Roman Emperor provided one good thing to the Church over all the centuries--a unitive factor to counter the nationalism that not only threatened to divide, but all too often did divide the Church. Not, frankly, that it worked all that well. But the Church was able to accept it at all only because the Emperor thus became a force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church.

Treadgold (I think he was mentioned he somewhere) argues that ethnicity wasn't transcended, but transformed, equating Faith with citizenship and citizenship with Faith (the Jews being the only notable consistent exception, which was never figured out).

Quote
Now, lest anyone start in on me, asking how I can possibly say that the Christian Byzantine Emperor was a "force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church" in light of individuals like Basil II "Bulgar-Killer"...that's exactly my point. Precisely because the Church under this model always ends up being co-opted by the nation for secular and even anti-Christian ends (like Bulgar killing), this model is not just flawed, it's broken. I am simply attempting to explain why, if it is in fact a bad model, the Church accepted it for over a thousand years of Orthodox history. When the Emperor served the Church, things were good. When he used the Church to serve himself (which was often)...hoo boy.

That said, the problem with imitating it (as every Orthodox country has done and continues to do) is that it undermines the single positive element of the model--the unitive factor. Without the one, single Roman Emperor to stand as a symbol of the unity of all Christians and the universality of the Faith, what possible good does a "national" Church do?


For one, it prevented a lot of us from becoming Turkish/Mongol Muslims.

Quote
The clash between our earthly identity and Christian identity is already a problem for every Christian. Ethnicity/politics is one of the biggest competitors with Christ for primacy in the average Christian's identity system and worldview. Why in the world would we want to institutionalize the problem in the Church's structure and hierarchy?

Because it has been there from the beginning. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them...."

Quote
But we've done it, and continue to do it. And all this hullabaloo about an American Orthodox Church is just another step on the same intellectually bankrupt road.

I don't think it is bankrupt at all, and history would bear that out.  As I've mentioned as an example I hope to go into some detail is the Romanian Church: the Communists never bothered to offiically disestablish it, and it would have been a problem if they tried.  In the Soviet Union, Stalin didn't allow the election of a new patriarch out of the generousity of his heart: he realized he needed the Church (the Soviets had taken religious statistics until the later thirties, when the stats were showing that the Church was not dying, but was rather digging in).

Quote
So--all that to say, basically, I agree with you. We should, ideally, think of ourselves as simply Orthodox Christians. But, while that may seem fairly easy for an individual, I would submit that's much more difficult than it sounds, even for an individual, much less for a parish, a diocese, and above all for a National Autocephalous Church.

For one thing, what language are you going to use in DL.  That's an irreducible element that is going to lead to the need of an autocephalous/local Church.

Quote
Let's touch briefly on Autocephaly, shall we? Canonically speaking, autocephaly is a very different beast than it has been made out to be in recent centuries. The First Council of Nicaea stipulated that every province of the Roman Empire was to be autocephalous (with certain exceptions allowing for the ancient primacy of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over nearby provinces). We should be clear that there were around 120 provinces in the Roman Empire at this time.

What canon are you speaking of?

Btw, the reason for three Sees can be seen on the map of the world view of the time: The "T and O" map.


http://phoenicia.org/imgs/maps/images/6romanworldmap.jpg

which would be the basis of Tamara's ideas of continent patriarchs. That was the original layout.

Quote
Over the next two centuries, the above-mentioned development of the theory of the Christian Roman Empire resulted, among other things, in a process of centralization, so that by the mid-fifth century, the provinces were no longer autocephalous, but some dioceses (a diocese was a civil and administrative entity denoting a group of provinces) still retained their ecclesiastical self-governance.

The Dioceses were put in place by Diocletian's Tetrarchy.  That was the background (referred to because of the descrepency in the case of the diocese of Egypt) of canon 6 of Nicea I.

Quote
Whatever else Canon 28 of Chalcedon did, it granted officially what had unofficially been claimed for the past 50 years to Constantinople: direct jurisdiction of some of the last remaining "autocephalous" dioceses in the Roman Empire: Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. From this point in time, roughly speaking, we have in place the fabled Pentarchy of Patriarchates...an innovation on and, to be frank, a violation of the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, pushed through by the Imperial legates and objected to by most of the Church.

Rome objected, but then it had its inferiority complex (it was long abandoned as a capital, and sinking into a clump of huts) and an agenda to pursue.  Alexandria did complain somewhat, but undermined her argument by meddling in the affairs of Constantinople (Maximus the Cynic, the Synod of the Oak).  Ephesus insisted on Constantinople presiding over filling the cathedra when the See was widowed during the Council.  Otherwise there seems to have been little protest.  Again, I don't know what canons of Nicea were violated.

Quote
Now, as I've said, the Church accepted this, for the sake of order and unity. But, in the absence of the Emperor, or any viable replacement to the Emperor (please don't suggest Russia--it's part of the problem, not the solution),

For Antioch, Jerusalem, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, and Albania, Russia was very much part of the solution. In a sense, for Alexandria too.  For Poland and Czech/Slovakia, the genesis.  For Georgia and perhaps Ukraine, obviously problematic.

Quote
this system no longer makes any sense. Nationalism, ethnocentrism, and ethnophyletism have a deep hold on our ecclesiastical consciousness.

It is only as much a problem as some want to make it. For instance, insisting that DL be in a language not the people's own (and I'm not primarily thinking of North America on that).

Btw, I don't know if anyone here is familiar with the Ottomanism movement, a sort of universalism which was the opposite of the Phanariot system and the independence route.

Quote
What we seek, or what we should be seeking, is a way out, a way to combat them. Autocephaly for every national Orthodox Church is precisely the opposite of what we need. We need to break, not strengthen, the hold of this ethnic nationalism on the Church.

I never understood the parable of the man who had a spirit expelled, the spirit, after roaming and getting 7 spirits worse than himself, going back finding everything clean and then bringing in his friend, "so the man was worse off than at first."  Then I read someone's application: in WWI the world rid Germany of the evils of the Prussian monarchy.  And what replaced it?

Say you blanch ethnicity out of the Church.  What will come into that clean house?

Quote
How, then, do we find our way back to Nicaea?

For one thing, stop this auxilliary bishop nonsense.

 
Quote
I have ideas, certainly, but perhaps those are best in another post. I've put out enough for people to disagree with as it is. Wink

LOL. I guess so.

I'm tempted to answer George's questions for Tamara, but she can speak for herself.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 01:19:09 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2009, 06:07:16 AM »

Isa, you may be an historian, but that post has probably the greatest number of distorted interpretations and outright false assertions that I've ever read here on OC.net. It is too bad that one of your argument styles is to post such in such massive quantities that many, including me, just do not bother to deal with the inaccuracies and thus, you seem to win, when in fact you do not. I just do not have an hour to spend formatting nested quotes in response.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #65 on: May 09, 2009, 08:02:51 AM »

Isa, you may be an historian, but that post has probably the greatest number of distorted interpretations and outright false assertions that I've ever read here on OC.net. It is too bad that one of your argument styles is to post such in such massive quantities that many, including me, just do not bother to deal with the inaccuracies and thus, you seem to win, when in fact you do not. I just do not have an hour to spend formatting nested quotes in response.

Well, I've looked through the post: only the questions about Nicea making each province autocephalous (since I don't know what canon the OP is referring to) can't be fully documented, substatiated, etc.

The length is due to trying to answer all the OP's points.  I'll try to break them down in the future.  For now, pick a part, any part to deal with "the inaccuracies" and "distorted interpretations" and "outright false assertions."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #66 on: May 09, 2009, 04:40:40 PM »

...

My Almisry has brother already responded to many issues, yet I want to add the following questions:

1) Explain how (still unidentified) canon of Nicea wasn't laying down the rules for "metropolitan" model, then "autocephalous" model of the Church?

That said, the problem with imitating it (as every Orthodox country has done and continues to do) is that it undermines the single positive element of the model--the unitive factor. Without the one, single Roman Emperor to stand as a symbol of the unity of all Christians and the universality of the Faith, what possible good does a "national" Church do?

2) Could it be because she works and needs no repair, while foggy idealistic proposals for "needed reforms" are incoherent, inconsistent and deeply opposed to the Orthodox opposition to change?

The clash between our earthly identity and Christian identity is already a problem for every Christian.

3) I, for one, have never had such a problem. Does that make me not being Christian?

4) Are there some sources proving the existence of "the problem"?

Ethnicity/politics is one of the biggest competitors with Christ for primacy in the average Christian's identity system and worldview. Why in the world would we want to institutionalize the problem in the Church's structure and hierarchy?

5) Haven't you said that "the problem" has already been institutionalized as from 5th century?

6) Is there some trace of assurance that the model you propose actually wouldn't be institutionalization of exactly the specific policy/worldview, namely of what's known as "Western world", over what's known as "the East"?

Autocephaly for every national Orthodox Church is precisely the opposite of what we need. .


7) Who are "we" ("you"?)

We need to break, not strengthen, the hold of this ethnic nationalism on the Church.


8 ) Whould you give us some specific bad examples of what you cover by a vague notion of "hold of ethnic nationalism on the Church", to enable us to see how would that be improved by denial of autocephalia to "every" Orthodox Church? That would enable each and every one of us to make one's own conclusions.

BTW, in some parts of the world, and languages, for instance in Serbian, the words for "ethnicity" and "nationality" are the same.



Fixed the "8 )" so it won't be automatically parsed as a smiley; nothing more...  -PtA
« Last Edit: May 09, 2009, 04:42:17 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

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

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

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


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2009, 06:35:05 PM »

Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.
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 #68 on: May 09, 2009, 09:15:09 PM »

The clash between our earthly identity and Christian identity is already a problem for every Christian.

3) I, for one, have never had such a problem. Does that make me not being Christian?
Somehow, that comes as no surprise.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #69 on: May 09, 2009, 09:18:28 PM »

Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.

Sorry, according to ialmisry, we have no right to be called "Roman", only the Roman Catholics can be called so.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2009, 10:10:26 PM »

This is a very interesting discussion.  I must say that I agree with ozgeorge that "Roman" is a proper to the ancient Patriarchates instead of "Greek."  I also agree with him that neither "Roman" nor "Catholic" is the sole claim of the Church of (Old) Rome--indeed, these both are proper to Orthodoxy and have a distinctive meaning within her.  It is true that the term Roman is a broader term to indicate those of the Orthodox Faith in the Mediterranean regardless of ethnicity (Orthodox who are Arab, Greek, Italian, Spanish, etc. would fall into this).  I think it is much harder to argue that it applies beyond those regions.  In other words, I am saying that, I think that ozgeorge is right historically in claiming that it is a non ethnic (or should I say all-ethnic) term for anyone who was (or is) Orthodox in the mediterranean countries (the borders of the empire).  However, I do think that it is also correct to say that this does not necessarily apply to Orthodox who are not in this geographic region.   Also, its ideal use and its de facto use are also two distinct things.  For example, when the patriarch Diodoros said, last decade, "the Greek Church is for the Greeks," I saw the English version, but what was the word he was using--I did not see the original Greek transcript?  Was he using the word Roman to imply that the Arabs are not Roman?  If this term has been used for decades or even centuries in this manner, must we not claim responsibility for the fact that the officials of the Church themselves are responsible for the Arabs not considering themselves Romans, since they were not recognized as such? 
          Again, although I think it important that everyone understand the term "Roman" as not the exclusive property of the church of Rome, I would say that if we were going to make an issue as to which term, "Roman" or "Catholic" is the more important term to understand the wholeness of Orthodoxy, it is the word Catholic.  Who is the Catholic Church?  Who are the Catholics?  On this forum and on others and in daily life when I hear "the Catholics this" and "the Catholics that" from Orthodox (Catholic) Christians, who are they talking about?  Are they talking about us?  That is who the Ecumenical Councils are talking about.  Why do I say it is a more important discussion?  Because when we say the creed, we do not confess "one holy roman catholic and apostolic church" but One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Even Emperor Constantine did not want the term Roman put in the Symbol of the Faith, nor did any successive emperors.  So my question is, why are we not making a bigger deal about the lack of application of the word Catholic, a term that predates Holy Constantine?  A broader question is, does one need to think of themselves as Roman to be Orthodox, or is the sufficiency found in adhering as a member of Christ's Body to the Orthodox Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?   
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2009, 11:01:16 PM »

Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.

Sorry, according to ialmisry, we have no right to be called "Roman", only the Roman Catholics can be called so.

Care to quote me on that, George?
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
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #72 on: May 10, 2009, 04:54:10 PM »

This is a very interesting discussion.  I must say that I agree with ozgeorge that "Roman" is a proper to the ancient Patriarchates instead of "Greek."  I also agree with him that neither "Roman" nor "Catholic" is the sole claim of the Church of (Old) Rome--indeed, these both are proper to Orthodoxy and have a distinctive meaning within her.  It is true that the term Roman is a broader term to indicate those of the Orthodox Faith in the Mediterranean regardless of ethnicity (Orthodox who are Arab, Greek, Italian, Spanish, etc. would fall into this).  I think it is much harder to argue that it applies beyond those regions.  In other words, I am saying that, I think that ozgeorge is right historically in claiming that it is a non ethnic (or should I say all-ethnic) term for anyone who was (or is) Orthodox in the mediterranean countries (the borders of the empire).  However, I do think that it is also correct to say that this does not necessarily apply to Orthodox who are not in this geographic region.   Also, its ideal use and its de facto use are also two distinct things.  For example, when the patriarch Diodoros said, last decade, "the Greek Church is for the Greeks," I saw the English version, but what was the word he was using--I did not see the original Greek transcript?  Was he using the word Roman to imply that the Arabs are not Roman?  If this term has been used for decades or even centuries in this manner, must we not claim responsibility for the fact that the officials of the Church themselves are responsible for the Arabs not considering themselves Romans, since they were not recognized as such? 
          Again, although I think it important that everyone understand the term "Roman" as not the exclusive property of the church of Rome, I would say that if we were going to make an issue as to which term, "Roman" or "Catholic" is the more important term to understand the wholeness of Orthodoxy, it is the word Catholic.  Who is the Catholic Church?  Who are the Catholics?  On this forum and on others and in daily life when I hear "the Catholics this" and "the Catholics that" from Orthodox (Catholic) Christians, who are they talking about?  Are they talking about us?  That is who the Ecumenical Councils are talking about.  Why do I say it is a more important discussion?  Because when we say the creed, we do not confess "one holy roman catholic and apostolic church" but One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Even Emperor Constantine did not want the term Roman put in the Symbol of the Faith, nor did any successive emperors.  So my question is, why are we not making a bigger deal about the lack of application of the word Catholic, a term that predates Holy Constantine?  A broader question is, does one need to think of themselves as Roman to be Orthodox, or is the sufficiency found in adhering as a member of Christ's Body to the Orthodox Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?   

Dear Father,

I think you have put your finger on the identity problem. As you have said, even Emperor Constantine did not want the term 'Roman' put in the Symbol of Faith, nor did any other emperors. And you are right, we should be making a bigger deal out of not applying the term 'Catholic' to our identity. And it would be an authentic way to identify all Orthodox Catholic Christians, regardless of their geographic location.

Thank you, Tamara  Smiley
Logged
philalethe00
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Christian)
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church at Greece
Posts: 93


Photios Kontoglou, Apostle of Orthodox Culture


WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 10, 2009, 07:38:35 PM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.

I think, that ozgeorge understands the, ehm, whole topic much better than the other brothers.
 Smiley

And it is a longest story. Roman basically does not correlate with the Old Rome, but is relevant to the New Rome or Contantinople or ..., well whatever it is called  laugh.
Of course, Fr. J. Romanides claims, that the Old Rome was actually a greek city, and he quotes a pupil of Plato's, Iraklides Pontikos, if it makes any sense at all.  ( UndecidedSmiley

But, its true, that, speaking of romanity, you speak of the unity of the nationalities within the so-called byzantine(a 'malignant' term, made up long after the fall, also) Empire, in actuality Empire of New Rome, the civilisation, etc.

Let me make it a bit more complicated by adding, that roman catholic is a truthless or even absurd claim that endeavours to "steal" the heritage of Romanity and catholicity from the Orthodox, and it was invented by some not-so-honest people for this purpose. A better term is papist, and we in Greece would say κατόλικος, katolikos. I hope this wasn't too offensive... Smiley




Logged

"Look down from heaven, O Lord, upon those who bow their heads unto You, for they do not bow to flesh and blood, but to You, the awesome God".(D. Liturgy, St. John Chrysostom)
"When the world laughs, the saints, in crying, draw the Divine compassion onto humans."(Paul Evdokimov)
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

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


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #74 on: May 10, 2009, 09:07:43 PM »

Romanisity has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholicity thank heavens.

So regardless of what we may like to be known as Romania nice but no assurance of the Apostolica of the church.

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2009, 09:25:37 PM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.


How about an apostate in Constantinople, or Athens?
Oh those Russians!...........

is this like the "ethnomartyr" (ἐθνομάρτυρας) Constantine XI?



Quote
Statue of Great Martyr Emperor Constantine XI Paleologos in Athens, Greece

erected in the square in front of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens, with the formal blessing of the Church authorities

http://rumkatkilise.org/constantineXI.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_XI

Quote
While serving as ambassador to Russia in February of 1834, Achmet Pacha presented Tsar Nicholas with a number of gifts, including a jewel-encrusted sword supposedly taken from Constantine XI's corpse (Niles' Register, "Russia and Turkey", February 1834. Page 426)



is this like the "ethnomartyr" (ἐθνομάρτυρας) Constantine XI?

I didn't realise he was a Soviet.
No, a Union of a different sort. Wink
I don't get it.
I think ialmisry means that Constanine XI united with Rome (which is true).
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 09:32:27 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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2009, 09:48:04 PM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.

I think, that ozgeorge understands the, ehm, whole topic much better than the other brothers.
 Smiley

And it is a longest story. Roman basically does not correlate with the Old Rome, but is relevant to the New Rome or Contantinople or ..., well whatever it is called  laugh.
Of course, Fr. J. Romanides claims, that the Old Rome was actually a greek city, and he quotes a pupil of Plato's, Iraklides Pontikos, if it makes any sense at all.  ( UndecidedSmiley

But, its true, that, speaking of romanity, you speak of the unity of the nationalities within the so-called byzantine(a 'malignant' term, made up long after the fall, also) Empire, in actuality Empire of New Rome, the civilisation, etc.

Let me make it a bit more complicated by adding, that roman catholic is a truthless or even absurd claim that endeavours to "steal" the heritage of Romanity and catholicity from the Orthodox, and it was invented by some not-so-honest people for this purpose. A better term is papist, and we in Greece would say κατόλικος, katolikos. I hope this wasn't too offensive... Smiley






I don't think you are complicating the matter.  As a person well-versed in Romanides, few could argue with him on these matters.  I think that everyone on this thread knows what everyone else is talking about.  Also, all are being sensitive with regard to the name of the church of Rome.  I don't think that anyone would argue that the term "papist" is more appropriate from our viewpoint, but as to whether it is still misleading to use even this term would be arguable.  For us, all Bishops and Presbyters are Papa.  For us, the Pope of Alexandria is no less than that of Rome.  Would we not argue that even the term "papist" is wrong since they have a wrong singular view of pappa?   
      Also, in dialoguing with someone else, do you ignore altogether what they call themselves?  Do you say "you should not call yourselves that" or should you, rather, seek to convince them that, indeed, if they truly consider yourself Roman and Catholic, that their true home is in the Church of the first millenium, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church of the Roman-Orthodox-Catholic Councils.   This is the "meat" of ozgeorge's point--the proper use of these terms--that we should not miss (especially now that we are eating meat).     
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2009, 10:18:14 PM »

I have a Greek-American friend who jokingly calls me a Byzantine bigot because I love all things Byzantine (chant, church architecture, iconography, etc.) so I believe in my DNA, roams eastern Roman genes! 

I think that's where you are mistaken. "Roum" is not a genetic term. One is not automatically "born" a Roum. One is Baptized a Roum. An apostate from Orthodoxy in Damascus is no longer a Roum.

I think, that ozgeorge understands the, ehm, whole topic much better than the other brothers.
 Smiley

And it is a longest story. Roman basically does not correlate with the Old Rome, but is relevant to the New Rome or Contantinople or ..., well whatever it is called  laugh.
Of course, Fr. J. Romanides claims, that the Old Rome was actually a greek city, and he quotes a pupil of Plato's, Iraklides Pontikos, if it makes any sense at all.  ( UndecidedSmiley

But, its true, that, speaking of romanity, you speak of the unity of the nationalities within the so-called byzantine(a 'malignant' term, made up long after the fall, also) Empire, in actuality Empire of New Rome, the civilisation, etc.

Let me make it a bit more complicated by adding, that roman catholic is a truthless or even absurd claim that endeavours to "steal" the heritage of Romanity and catholicity from the Orthodox, and it was invented by some not-so-honest people for this purpose. A better term is papist, and we in Greece would say κατόλικος, katolikos. I hope this wasn't too offensive... Smiley






I don't think you are complicating the matter.  As a person well-versed in Romanides, few could argue with him on these matters. 

On Hellenizing the Italic peoples and that village on the Palatine near the Tiber, they can.

Quote
I think that everyone on this thread knows what everyone else is talking about.  Also, all are being sensitive with regard to the name of the church of Rome.  I don't think that anyone would argue that the term "papist" is more appropriate from our viewpoint, but as to whether it is still misleading to use even this term would be arguable.  For us, all Bishops and Presbyters are Papa.  For us, the Pope of Alexandria is no less than that of Rome.  Would we not argue that even the term "papist" is wrong since they have a wrong singular view of pappa?   

I prefer the term Ultramontanist.  The terms Roman and Catholic are unacceptable for the reasons we all (or should) know.  Latin is somewhat a problem, as the Romanians are Latin and the WRO trace their origins to an Orthodox Latin rite.

Quote
Also, in dialoguing with someone else, do you ignore altogether what they call themselves?  Do you say "you should not call yourselves that" or should you, rather, seek to convince them that, indeed, if they truly consider yourself Roman and Catholic, that their true home is in the Church of the first millenium, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church of the Roman-Orthodox-Catholic Councils.   This is the "meat" of ozgeorge's point--the proper use of these terms--that we should not miss (especially now that we are eating meat).     
LOL.

The meat, however, is that a Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome is no better than a Latinizing Latinocentric one.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 10:35:16 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
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2009, 10:36:49 PM »

Ialmisry et al,

I will respond at length to your various responses when I have the opportunity. I have hopes that it will be soon.

For the moment, I confess I find myself somewhat perplexed and, to be frank, off-put by the apparent vitriol behind your posts. If you would prefer to discuss this via PM, that's fine, but it seems clear to me that emotions play a significant role in this discussion. As a relative newcomer to the board, I wonder if it might be productive to discuss why exactly you, specifically,  feel the way you do about the Greeks.

It is by no means necessary, but I would also appreciate understanding what exactly it is that you think/feel about them. I mention this because I have, in fact, been endeavoring to couch my arguments in such a way as to find some common ground between us, and have thus far found myself largely at a loss to understand even where exactly you are coming from, much less what we hold in common.

Please be assured, however, that I am, actually, interested in having an intelligent conversation with you, and will, in fact, make every effort to listen to you and your opinions, and perhaps even change my own if I find your arguments sound. I do not, as such, need to be harshly refuted/rebutted/rebuffed at every point, unless our disagreement on each point truly is as stark and strenuous as the preceding posts have indicated.

Fr. Anthony

*edit* Since much hay has been made of this one point, I am, as I suspect those who questioned already surmised, referring to Canon 4 of Nicaea when I speak of the establishment of autocephaly for each province of the Roman Empire. This is, as has been mentioned, more often referred to as the Metropolitan System.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2009, 10:47:34 PM by franthonyc » Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #79 on: May 11, 2009, 07:46:43 AM »

Ialmisry et al,

I will respond at length to your various responses when I have the opportunity. I have hopes that it will be soon.

For the moment, I confess I find myself somewhat perplexed and, to be frank, off-put by the apparent vitriol behind your posts. If you would prefer to discuss this via PM, that's fine, but it seems clear to me that emotions play a significant role in this discussion. As a relative newcomer to the board, I wonder if it might be productive to discuss why exactly you, specifically,  feel the way you do about the Greeks.

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Quote
It is by no means necessary, but I would also appreciate understanding what exactly it is that you think/feel about them.

Depends which ones you mean.  For sake of example, I have no problem with Archbisop Anastasios of Albania.  Quite the contrary.  I don't think him any less Greek for that reason.

By and large, no complaints about the Greek Popes of Alexandria.

I don't have any opinion to speak of about Archbishop Demetrius.  Haven't heard much/don't know much about him.

The EP: he gave a good speech at Georgetown about the "ontological difference" between us and the Vatican (whatever happened to that thought?), but then he goes off to Estonia and, after "canonizing" a saint that the Russian Patriarch already glorified he tells the PoM that he has to remove his primate from Estonia, rather rich: both Pat. Alexei and Met. Cornelius are born, breed, baptized and ordained (reader to bishop) in Estonia, Estonians and speak Estonian.  Met. Cornelius has to go because the EP's Greek from the Congo, who doesn't speak Estonian, is there.

It is perhaps telling that the EP is listed as being fluent in several languages, but none of the "Orthodox" ones, except Greek (unless Turkish counts).

Then we have the Patriarch of Jerusalem: on a GOA documentary they ended with interviews with all the hiearchs.  All the rest talked about the Church, the vision of the future, etc.  Not the PoJ: he just prattled on about the Greek presence in the Holy Land, how if you dig you find Greek inscriptions, that the Greeks didn't come as conquerors, etc.  No acknowledgement that running the Patriachate for 500 (at most) ex-pat Greeks is driving the native born faithful out of the Chruch by the thousands (and into the Evangelicals, Epsicopalians and even the Latins: the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a Crusader church, is FAR, FAR better to the faithful than our own Jerusalem Patriarchate).

As I've said:
Quote
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."
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20605.msg309562/topicseen.html#msg309562

On a site dedictated to this "Romanity"
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm#roman

we get the following:

Quote
One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century. In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople. A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300. Separate Vlach principalities of Moldavia and Transylvania followed. Later, scholars realized that the Vlach language derived from Latin; Vlach was a sister language to Italian, French and Spanish. How did Latin speakers find their way to this remote part of Europe north of the Danube River? Scholars developed the theory that the Vlachs were descended from Roman colonists and Latinized natives who lived in the area north of the Danube River during the second and third centuries AD. In the period, the region constituted the Roman province of Dacia. Whether the theory is right or not, it became the basis of Romanian nationalist feeling in the nineteenth century. The idea of a Roman descent gave Vlachs new pride in themselves. After Wallachia and Moldavia coalesced into a single entity in 1859, the name "Romania" was selected in 1862 to describe the combined state. At the time, Romanian unity and independence required the support of France under Emperor Napoleon III [1852-1870]. The "Latin connection" with France aided the Romanian cause by inspiring French interest in their "sister nation" of Romania.

In light of the late date at which modern Romania acquired its name, it appears clear that earlier, the term "Romania" referred to the territory where the Greek speaking "Romaioi" lived. For more than a millennium, the state that we call, inaccurately, the Byzantine Empire was "Romania." After the end of the Empire, Greek speaking inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire continued to call themselves "Romaioi."
http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm#land

Then there's this lecture, delivered at the same place where the EP's Chief Secretary (whose quotes I've posted above I believe) delievered his, Hellenic College/Holy Cross Seminary:

Quote
In 1806 Napoleon met with Tsar Alexander I at Tilsit. Floating on a raft they made secret plans. Evidently one of them was to transform the planned Roman Revolution within the Ottoman Empire into a Hellenic Revolution. The Gallo-Roman Revolution had been already quashed by Napoleon. Evidently the two made plans to bring down the Ottoman Empire, not with one big Roman revolution, but with small ones which ended up with the process of Balkanization. After the death of Napoleon the British joined France and Russia with the known results. The Russians founded some 70 schools in the Balkans in order to create a Bulgarian nation and 120 schools in the Middle East in order to transform the Romans into Arabs. This they did by brainwashing Orthodox into believing that their Arabic name Rum does not mean Roman, but Greek . Also the Balkans were part of the Roman Empire called Romania. Of interest is the fact that whole European Part of the Ottoman Empire was called Rumeli, i.e. Land of the Romans. This Land of the Romans was called by the name Romania before the plans of Balkanization were applied. Then the Czarist Russians, the French and the British replaced this reality with Hellas, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bulgaria, and a little Romania.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.21.en.the_ethnic_cleaning_of_roman_history.01.htm#s8

Is that what y'all fill the heads of your young leaders with off there in MA?

I won't respond to it all here, but will break it down into managable bites.  Suffice it to say here, this is a history that no Arab, Bulgarian, Serbian, or Romanian knows (because it doesn't exist).  Needless to say, they are less than happy to be told of their illegitimacy and nonexistence (that is what these tirades are implying) in Phanariot Rome.

Quote
I mention this because I have, in fact, been endeavoring to couch my arguments in such a way as to find some common ground between us, and have thus far found myself largely at a loss to understand even where exactly you are coming from, much less what we hold in common.

I don't know how much of this "history" has been drilled into your head, at Holy Cross or elsewhere.  But we can find out.  Needless to say, we don't have a common background if the above background is how you view the history of the non-Greek Balkan and Middle Eastern Orthodox.

Quote
Please be assured, however, that I am, actually, interested in having an intelligent conversation with you, and will, in fact, make every effort to listen to you and your opinions, and perhaps even change my own if I find your arguments sound. I do not, as such, need to be harshly refuted/rebutted/rebuffed at every point, unless our disagreement on each point truly is as stark and strenuous as the preceding posts have indicated.

I don't know: as I said, I don't know how committed you are to the above revisionism.  If I seem harsh, I apologize.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 07:49:29 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
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 #80 on: May 11, 2009, 07:53:28 AM »

Ialmisry et al,

I will respond at length to your various responses when I have the opportunity. I have hopes that it will be soon.

For the moment, I confess I find myself somewhat perplexed and, to be frank, off-put by the apparent vitriol behind your posts. If you would prefer to discuss this via PM, that's fine, but it seems clear to me that emotions play a significant role in this discussion. As a relative newcomer to the board, I wonder if it might be productive to discuss why exactly you, specifically,  feel the way you do about the Greeks.

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Which exist only in your head.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #81 on: May 11, 2009, 10:05:41 AM »

Ialmisry et al,

I will respond at length to your various responses when I have the opportunity. I have hopes that it will be soon.

For the moment, I confess I find myself somewhat perplexed and, to be frank, off-put by the apparent vitriol behind your posts. If you would prefer to discuss this via PM, that's fine, but it seems clear to me that emotions play a significant role in this discussion. As a relative newcomer to the board, I wonder if it might be productive to discuss why exactly you, specifically,  feel the way you do about the Greeks.

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Which exist only in your head.

Perhaps Denial is what is fueing the fire of this discussion.

I've provided lengthy quotes from them (the one from the Syndicate of the Holy Tomb above, for instance).  Have you provided a quote yet?

Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.

Sorry, according to ialmisry, we have no right to be called "Roman", only the Roman Catholics can be called so.

Care to quote me on that, George?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 10:07:10 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
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #82 on: May 11, 2009, 11:51:53 AM »

My service books are entitled "The Service Book of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church", "Divine Prayers and Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ", and so forth. This clearly indicates to me that Orthodox Christianity has always been Catholic from the earliest days.

As such, I think it is inappropriate to associate the term "catholic" exclusively with the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that such association came about as a way of distinguishing the Roman Church from the many Protestant churches which originally sprang from it following the Protestant Reformation in Europe. This association was then carried over to the Americas and other places where Roman Catholicism and Protestantism extended their missionary outreaches side by side in comparison to one another, often in the absence of any Eastern Orthodox Catholic Churches.

In this time of modern ecumenical interaction among all branches of Christianity, however, both Eastern and Western, it is time to acknowledge that the Roman Church does not own any proprietary right to the designation of "Catholic". If anything, considering the many theological changes in dogma and practice initiated by the Roman Church since the final split of Eastern and Western Churches, the Roman Church has substantially altered what the term originally meant when it was first used during the first millennium of the Unified Christian Faith. The Orthodox Church alone has perpetuated this unified Catholic and Apostolic Church, as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, without addition or subtraction, and is thus the one Church that truly represents what was and is intended by the term "Catholic".

Just the opinion of an old clergyman!  Wink

+Cosmos
Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #83 on: May 11, 2009, 02:42:48 PM »

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave a concise definition of that term. Not that I don't have an idea of what you mean by it (I have read a number of the threads on this topic), but many of them are talking about the past, or are an interpretation of the words of specific individuals, who may or may not speak for the groups you understand them to speak for. I don't want to quibble right now about whether the past illumines the present, or whether or not those individuals do in fact represent the positions/goals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'm sure you can sympathize with the possibility that, from the inside of the Greek Archdiocese, at least some of these facts admit of a different interpretation, at least at first glance. I am more than willing to consider your facts and interpretation, but would ask that you, concisely, define, in your own words, Phanariotism and the threat it poses to the Church.

Quote
Then we have the Patriarch of Jerusalem: on a GOA documentary they ended with interviews with all the hiearchs.  All the rest talked about the Church, the vision of the future, etc.  Not the PoJ: he just prattled on about the Greek presence in the Holy Land, how if you dig you find Greek inscriptions, that the Greeks didn't come as conquerors, etc.  No acknowledgement that running the Patriachate for 500 (at most) ex-pat Greeks is driving the native born faithful out of the Chruch by the thousands (and into the Evangelicals, Epsicopalians and even the Latins: the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a Crusader church, is FAR, FAR better to the faithful than our own Jerusalem Patriarchate).

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is not something about which I know a great deal. Certainly the situation in the territories occupied by the State of Israel and its military is ludicrously complex, to the point that none of the parties involved have any authentic claim to the moral upper hand any longer. My gut reaction is to assume that the same applies to this situation. At the same time, any situation which subordinates the spiritual well-being of the flock to the preservation of a dead ideal is unacceptable. Nonetheless, not having heard a defense (or even a detailed explication of both sides), I hesitate to pass judgment.

Quote
Is that what y'all fill the heads of your young leaders with off there in MA?

Considering that I've never read most of what you cite, I would say the answer is no. I've visited the Romanity site, certainly--found a number of the assertions intriguing, but the scholarship was clearly, shall we say, flawed to nonexistent, and I saw little use in carefully perusing the site.

My training before HCHC was in Classical Studies. I am more than competent with the Greek and Latin languages, fairly knowledgeable about my history, and, whatever my credentials or lack thereof, and have enough self-respect to pay a little more attention to what is and what is not propoganda than I think you give credit for.

As a priest, I would certainly think that a bit more respect might be given. If I am personally not deserving of it, then my office in the Church is, and you serve no one by the vitriol in your tone.

So...can we talk, or not?
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #84 on: May 11, 2009, 04:21:47 PM »

In covering the quotes posted above, I'm going to start with the Romanians in Romania.

Quote
One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century.

The earliest attested association of the name "Romanian," (I'll deal with the term "Romania" in a moment) in Romanian applied to the present nation called Romania is found in the "Letter of Neacşu," the oldest surviving document in Romanian, dated June 29/30 1512.  It presents a language of some established usage, and heavily Latin:175 out of its vocabulary of 190 words.  The letter warns of an Ottoman invasion of "Ţeara Rumânească" "The Roman Land" (the link below translates this as "Wallachia."  Btw, the letter uses the Slavonic "Tarigrad" "King city" for Costantinople).
http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/neacsu/eng/default.htm

The letter also displays the subjugation of the Romanians: it is in Cyrillic script, begins and ends in Slavonic, and uses Church Slavonic as the Western Romance languages used Latin. At this period "rumân" not only had an ethnic meaning, it had degerated to a socio-economic class meaning "serf": in the middle ages Romanians were 2nd class or non-citizens where they lived.  That meaning went into obsolence as the Romanians took control of their lands, and their destiny.

Quote
In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople.

It is interesting how we asked to place so much importance on what OUTSIDERS say, except when they are talking about the Greeks: the Hungarian Chroniclers call the Roman Emperor of Constantinople "King of the Greeks."

The chronicler Dimitri Cantemir, the Wallachian/Muntenian Prince, who studied at the Phanar and whose writings were widely circulated (Gibbons depending on him, for instance), wrote "Hronicon a toată Ţara Românească (care apoi s-u împărţit în Moldova, Munteniască şi Ardealul)" Chronicle of the Whole Roman Land (which was then divided into Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania), the "Hronicul vechimei româno-moldo-vlahilor" Chronicle of the Antiquity/Durability of the Roman-Moldo-Valachs  (1719-20), using the term "Romania" systematically for designating the Principalities that the Romanians inhabited (and in the case of Moldavia and Wallachia, controlled).

Rumânia did not come from a place name but "rumânie" "Romanity" (or "slavery/serfdom," latter obsolete).

So it was not a figment of the 19th century's imagination, although it did cautch the Romanians imagination at that time.  The students of Gheorghe Lazar, who introduced Romanian into the Princely Academy of St. Sava in 1818, wrote on his tomb (1823) Precum Hristos pe Lazăr din morţi a înviat/Aşa tu România din somn ai deştepta "Like Christ has raised Lazarus from the dead, so have you wakened Romania from slumber."

Quote
A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300

Valach is an exonym (from the Greek: ἔξω, "out" and ὄνομα "name", in others words, a word used by outsiders/others to call someone else), interesting in an article devoted advocating an endonym (i.e. what the Greeks want to call themselves).  It comes from the Germanic Walha, refering to the Celtic tribe Julius Caesar calls the Volcae, and Strabo and Ptolemy call Οὐόλκαι (St. Paul called them Galatians), and it became the word for "foreigner" amongst the Germans.  It was originally applied to the Celts (and so survives as Welsh in English, and the wall in Cornwall), but, with the absorbtion of the Celtics into Romanity, it became the term for Romance speakers (Waalsen "Walloons" in Netherlands, Old Norse/Norman Valskr "French," Old High German walhisk "Roman," Swiss German Welsche "French from Romandy" and Walsche "Romansch speaker," South Austrian Welsch "Italian," Italian German Walsche "Italian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha

When the Slavs arrived, they borrowed the term, like so many, from the Goths (who ruled Romania at the time), and walhs became the Slavic term for Romance speakers: Slavonic волохъ "Romance speaker," Western Slovene Vlah "Friulian," Croatian Vlah Slovene Lah "Italian," (perjoritive), Serbian Влах "citizen of the Ragusa Republic," Slovak Czech Vlach Polish Włoch "Italian."  Btw the term is used for "Orthodox Christian/Serb" among the Croatians and Slovenes, and for Christians by the Bosnian Muslims.  When the Hungarians came they adopted it Oláh, referring to Romanians; Olasz referring to Italians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach
(I could refer you to all sorts of etymological dictionaries, but wikipedia's summaries are handy, and here accurate).
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm

The term was used by the Romanians because of the Church Slavonic term Земли Унгро-Влахискои Hungro-Vlach Land, Romanians having adopted Church Slavonic from their part of the Second Bulgarian Empire (hence how it ended up being written in Cyrillic).  Цѣра Румѫнѣскъ Ţeara Rumânească "Romanian Land," as seen in the letter of Neacsu, was the usual term.

Quote
Later, scholars realized that the Vlach language
HOLD IT!  Back up.

The name is limba romana/limba româneascǎ  "the Roman Language," and has been as far back as we have records (1500's).  In 1532 the Italian Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian?" Romanian "ştii româneşte ?"). Records in various languages, including Romanian, attest that the Romanians called their language Romanian centuries before Ienăchiţă Văcărescu wrote his Observaţii sau băgări de seamă asupra regulilor şi orânduielilor gramaticii româneşti ("Observations or Reckonings on the Rules and Dispositions of Romanian Grammar"), one of the first Romanian Grammars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ien%C4%83chi%C5%A3%C4%83_V%C4%83c%C4%83rescu_Gramatica_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83_1787.jpg

That Ρωμαίικα has become Νεοελληνική  does not make Romanian Vlach.

Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, (c. 630) and  Theophanes Confessor's Chronographia (c. 810–814) record a soldier in Maurice's campaign in the Balkans shout "in the language of their parents/of the land, 'τóρνα, τóρνα, φράτρε,' (Romanian "turn, turn, Brother!").  When Wallachia appears before 1300, the Romanians are the largest population in the Principalities, speaking Romanian.  They didn't come from no where, they came from Romania, just like New Rome did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romanian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #85 on: May 11, 2009, 04:23:52 PM »

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave a concise definition of that term. Not that I don't have an idea of what you mean by it (I have read a number of the threads on this topic), but many of them are talking about the past, or are an interpretation of the words of specific individuals, who may or may not speak for the groups you understand them to speak for. I don't want to quibble right now about whether the past illumines the present, or whether or not those individuals do in fact represent the positions/goals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'm sure you can sympathize with the possibility that, from the inside of the Greek Archdiocese, at least some of these facts admit of a different interpretation, at least at first glance. I am more than willing to consider your facts and interpretation, but would ask that you, concisely, define, in your own words, Phanariotism and the threat it poses to the Church.

Quote
Then we have the Patriarch of Jerusalem: on a GOA documentary they ended with interviews with all the hiearchs.  All the rest talked about the Church, the vision of the future, etc.  Not the PoJ: he just prattled on about the Greek presence in the Holy Land, how if you dig you find Greek inscriptions, that the Greeks didn't come as conquerors, etc.  No acknowledgement that running the Patriachate for 500 (at most) ex-pat Greeks is driving the native born faithful out of the Chruch by the thousands (and into the Evangelicals, Epsicopalians and even the Latins: the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a Crusader church, is FAR, FAR better to the faithful than our own Jerusalem Patriarchate).

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is not something about which I know a great deal. Certainly the situation in the territories occupied by the State of Israel and its military is ludicrously complex, to the point that none of the parties involved have any authentic claim to the moral upper hand any longer. My gut reaction is to assume that the same applies to this situation. At the same time, any situation which subordinates the spiritual well-being of the flock to the preservation of a dead ideal is unacceptable. Nonetheless, not having heard a defense (or even a detailed explication of both sides), I hesitate to pass judgment.

Quote
Is that what y'all fill the heads of your young leaders with off there in MA?

Considering that I've never read most of what you cite, I would say the answer is no. I've visited the Romanity site, certainly--found a number of the assertions intriguing, but the scholarship was clearly, shall we say, flawed to nonexistent, and I saw little use in carefully perusing the site.

My training before HCHC was in Classical Studies. I am more than competent with the Greek and Latin languages, fairly knowledgeable about my history, and, whatever my credentials or lack thereof, and have enough self-respect to pay a little more attention to what is and what is not propoganda than I think you give credit for.

As a priest, I would certainly think that a bit more respect might be given. If I am personally not deserving of it, then my office in the Church is, and you serve no one by the vitriol in your tone.

So...can we talk, or not?

We can, but not now. Tongue  I just finished a post and posted it, and have to leave now.   I will read this post (I can't now), but just posted this to acknowledge it.
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
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 11, 2009, 04:50:19 PM »

In covering the quotes posted above, I'm going to start with the Romanians in Romania.

Quote
One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century.

The earliest attested association of the name "Romanian," (I'll deal with the term "Romania" in a moment) in Romanian applied to the present nation called Romania is found in the "Letter of Neacşu," the oldest surviving document in Romanian, dated June 29/30 1512.  It presents a language of some established usage, and heavily Latin:175 out of its vocabulary of 190 words.  The letter warns of an Ottoman invasion of "Ţeara Rumânească" "The Roman Land" (the link below translates this as "Wallachia."  Btw, the letter uses the Slavonic "Tarigrad" "King city" for Costantinople).
http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/neacsu/eng/default.htm

The letter also displays the subjugation of the Romanians: it is in Cyrillic script, begins and ends in Slavonic, and uses Church Slavonic as the Western Romance languages used Latin. At this period "rumân" not only had an ethnic meaning, it had degerated to a socio-economic class meaning "serf": in the middle ages Romanians were 2nd class or non-citizens where they lived.  That meaning went into obsolence as the Romanians took control of their lands, and their destiny.

Quote
In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople.

It is interesting how we asked to place so much importance on what OUTSIDERS say, except when they are talking about the Greeks: the Hungarian Chroniclers call the Roman Emperor of Constantinople "King of the Greeks."

The chronicler Dimitri Cantemir, the Wallachian/Muntenian Prince, who studied at the Phanar and whose writings were widely circulated (Gibbons depending on him, for instance), wrote "Hronicon a toată Ţara Românească (care apoi s-u împărţit în Moldova, Munteniască şi Ardealul)" Chronicle of the Whole Roman Land (which was then divided into Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania), the "Hronicul vechimei româno-moldo-vlahilor" Chronicle of the Antiquity/Durability of the Roman-Moldo-Valachs  (1719-20), using the term "Romania" systematically for designating the Principalities that the Romanians inhabited (and in the case of Moldavia and Wallachia, controlled).

Rumânia did not come from a place name but "rumânie" "Romanity" (or "slavery/serfdom," latter obsolete).

So it was not a figment of the 19th century's imagination, although it did cautch the Romanians imagination at that time.  The students of Gheorghe Lazar, who introduced Romanian into the Princely Academy of St. Sava in 1818, wrote on his tomb (1823) Precum Hristos pe Lazăr din morţi a înviat/Aşa tu România din somn ai deştepta "Like Christ has raised Lazarus from the dead, so have you wakened Romania from slumber."

Quote
A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300

Valach is an exonym (from the Greek: ἔξω, "out" and ὄνομα "name", in others words, a word used by outsiders/others to call someone else), interesting in an article devoted advocating an endonym (i.e. what the Greeks want to call themselves).  It comes from the Germanic Walha, refering to the Celtic tribe Julius Caesar calls the Volcae, and Strabo and Ptolemy call Οὐόλκαι (St. Paul called them Galatians), and it became the word for "foreigner" amongst the Germans.  It was originally applied to the Celts (and so survives as Welsh in English, and the wall in Cornwall), but, with the absorbtion of the Celtics into Romanity, it became the term for Romance speakers (Waalsen "Walloons" in Netherlands, Old Norse/Norman Valskr "French," Old High German walhisk "Roman," Swiss German Welsche "French from Romandy" and Walsche "Romansch speaker," South Austrian Welsch "Italian," Italian German Walsche "Italian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha

When the Slavs arrived, they borrowed the term, like so many, from the Goths (who ruled Romania at the time), and walhs became the Slavic term for Romance speakers: Slavonic волохъ "Romance speaker," Western Slovene Vlah "Friulian," Croatian Vlah Slovene Lah "Italian," (perjoritive), Serbian Влах "citizen of the Ragusa Republic," Slovak Czech Vlach Polish Włoch "Italian."  Btw the term is used for "Orthodox Christian/Serb" among the Croatians and Slovenes, and for Christians by the Bosnian Muslims.  When the Hungarians came they adopted it Oláh, referring to Romanians; Olasz referring to Italians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach
(I could refer you to all sorts of etymological dictionaries, but wikipedia's summaries are handy, and here accurate).
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm

The term was used by the Romanians because of the Church Slavonic term Земли Унгро-Влахискои Hungro-Vlach Land, Romanians having adopted Church Slavonic from their part of the Second Bulgarian Empire (hence how it ended up being written in Cyrillic).  Цѣра Румѫнѣскъ Ţeara Rumânească "Romanian Land," as seen in the letter of Neacsu, was the usual term.

Quote
Later, scholars realized that the Vlach language
HOLD IT!  Back up.

The name is limba romana/limba româneascǎ  "the Roman Language," and has been as far back as we have records (1500's).  In 1532 the Italian Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian?" Romanian "ştii româneşte ?"). Records in various languages, including Romanian, attest that the Romanians called their language Romanian centuries before Ienăchiţă Văcărescu wrote his Observaţii sau băgări de seamă asupra regulilor şi orânduielilor gramaticii româneşti ("Observations or Reckonings on the Rules and Dispositions of Romanian Grammar"), one of the first Romanian Grammars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ien%C4%83chi%C5%A3%C4%83_V%C4%83c%C4%83rescu_Gramatica_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83_1787.jpg

That Ρωμαίικα has become Νεοελληνική  does not make Romanian Vlach.

Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, (c. 630) and  Theophanes Confessor's Chronographia (c. 810–814) record a soldier in Maurice's campaign in the Balkans shout "in the language of their parents/of the land, 'τóρνα, τóρνα, φράτρε,' (Romanian "turn, turn, Brother!").  When Wallachia appears before 1300, the Romanians are the largest population in the Principalities, speaking Romanian.  They didn't come from no where, they came from Romania, just like New Rome did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romanian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians

By all means, carry on with this if you like, but as I tried to indicate, I do not depend on Romanity.org's various articles (none of which I have read, or am frankly interested in reading) in support of my particular position/opinion regarding the current state of the Church and the direction of its future development. Any arguments I make will be based in sources whose validity we both recognize. Since neither of us intend to depend upon Romanity.org, I fail to see the utility of your tearing it to shreds, as in so doing you do not make any impact on my opinions and arguments. If you do decide to carry on, please do not interpret my silence in reply as a capitulation to your broader opinions/points. I simply have no interest in defending something for which I have already stated my distaste. I am aware that I have a number of, shall we say, unfortunate allies, who have succeeded in erecting a marvelously tempting straw man for you to tilt at. But, so we're clear, it's not my straw man. If I am to be hung, let it be for my own opinions.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
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 #87 on: May 11, 2009, 05:32:32 PM »

...
*edit* Since much hay has been made of this one point, I am, as I suspect those who questioned already surmised, referring to Canon 4 of Nicaea when I speak of the establishment of autocephaly for each province of the Roman Empire. This is, as has been mentioned, more often referred to as the Metropolitan System.

Father,

I take that by the above quote you have retracted one of the presumptions of your stance, namely about equating metropolises of the first centuries with autocephalias.

Now, since you played with the issue of identity of "old" or "cradle" Orthodox nations, and between ten and fifteen century of their history, may I kindly ask you what would you think about someone who did just the same with your identity on the basis of presumptions he admitted being wrong after facing the first question?

Moreover, since you labeled the present Church system as "intellectualy bankrupt" without an Emperor, would you kindly explain how Orthodoxy managed to survive for the last nearly six centuries (or, a century, if we take Sultan e Rum as the Emperor of Orthodox) without an Emperor?

Finally, how come Oriental Orthodox, whom never had "their" Emperor, namely Copts and Armenians, managed to survive and keep their Christian Faith for sixteen centuries in such an "intellectually bankrupt" system? 
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #88 on: May 11, 2009, 06:07:05 PM »

In covering the quotes posted above, I'm going to start with the Romanians in Romania.

Quote
One might wonder why the name "Romania" became applied to the present nation called Romania. The association of the name "Romania" with the present nation "Romania"stems from the nineteenth century.

The earliest attested association of the name "Romanian," (I'll deal with the term "Romania" in a moment) in Romanian applied to the present nation called Romania is found in the "Letter of Neacşu," the oldest surviving document in Romanian, dated June 29/30 1512.  It presents a language of some established usage, and heavily Latin:175 out of its vocabulary of 190 words.  The letter warns of an Ottoman invasion of "Ţeara Rumânească" "The Roman Land" (the link below translates this as "Wallachia."  Btw, the letter uses the Slavonic "Tarigrad" "King city" for Costantinople).
http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/neacsu/eng/default.htm

The letter also displays the subjugation of the Romanians: it is in Cyrillic script, begins and ends in Slavonic, and uses Church Slavonic as the Western Romance languages used Latin. At this period "rumân" not only had an ethnic meaning, it had degerated to a socio-economic class meaning "serf": in the middle ages Romanians were 2nd class or non-citizens where they lived.  That meaning went into obsolence as the Romanians took control of their lands, and their destiny.

Quote
In their first appearances in the historical record of the Middle Ages, the Romanians were called "Vlachs" by chroniclers from Hungary and Constantinople.

It is interesting how we asked to place so much importance on what OUTSIDERS say, except when they are talking about the Greeks: the Hungarian Chroniclers call the Roman Emperor of Constantinople "King of the Greeks."

The chronicler Dimitri Cantemir, the Wallachian/Muntenian Prince, who studied at the Phanar and whose writings were widely circulated (Gibbons depending on him, for instance), wrote "Hronicon a toată Ţara Românească (care apoi s-u împărţit în Moldova, Munteniască şi Ardealul)" Chronicle of the Whole Roman Land (which was then divided into Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania), the "Hronicul vechimei româno-moldo-vlahilor" Chronicle of the Antiquity/Durability of the Roman-Moldo-Valachs  (1719-20), using the term "Romania" systematically for designating the Principalities that the Romanians inhabited (and in the case of Moldavia and Wallachia, controlled).

Rumânia did not come from a place name but "rumânie" "Romanity" (or "slavery/serfdom," latter obsolete).

So it was not a figment of the 19th century's imagination, although it did cautch the Romanians imagination at that time.  The students of Gheorghe Lazar, who introduced Romanian into the Princely Academy of St. Sava in 1818, wrote on his tomb (1823) Precum Hristos pe Lazăr din morţi a înviat/Aşa tu România din somn ai deştepta "Like Christ has raised Lazarus from the dead, so have you wakened Romania from slumber."

Quote
A principality called "Wallachia" emerged among the Vlachs before 1300

Valach is an exonym (from the Greek: ἔξω, "out" and ὄνομα "name", in others words, a word used by outsiders/others to call someone else), interesting in an article devoted advocating an endonym (i.e. what the Greeks want to call themselves).  It comes from the Germanic Walha, refering to the Celtic tribe Julius Caesar calls the Volcae, and Strabo and Ptolemy call Οὐόλκαι (St. Paul called them Galatians), and it became the word for "foreigner" amongst the Germans.  It was originally applied to the Celts (and so survives as Welsh in English, and the wall in Cornwall), but, with the absorbtion of the Celtics into Romanity, it became the term for Romance speakers (Waalsen "Walloons" in Netherlands, Old Norse/Norman Valskr "French," Old High German walhisk "Roman," Swiss German Welsche "French from Romandy" and Walsche "Romansch speaker," South Austrian Welsch "Italian," Italian German Walsche "Italian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha

When the Slavs arrived, they borrowed the term, like so many, from the Goths (who ruled Romania at the time), and walhs became the Slavic term for Romance speakers: Slavonic волохъ "Romance speaker," Western Slovene Vlah "Friulian," Croatian Vlah Slovene Lah "Italian," (perjoritive), Serbian Влах "citizen of the Ragusa Republic," Slovak Czech Vlach Polish Włoch "Italian."  Btw the term is used for "Orthodox Christian/Serb" among the Croatians and Slovenes, and for Christians by the Bosnian Muslims.  When the Hungarians came they adopted it Oláh, referring to Romanians; Olasz referring to Italians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_Vlach
(I could refer you to all sorts of etymological dictionaries, but wikipedia's summaries are handy, and here accurate).
http://www.friesian.com/decdenc2.htm

The term was used by the Romanians because of the Church Slavonic term Земли Унгро-Влахискои Hungro-Vlach Land, Romanians having adopted Church Slavonic from their part of the Second Bulgarian Empire (hence how it ended up being written in Cyrillic).  Цѣра Румѫнѣскъ Ţeara Rumânească "Romanian Land," as seen in the letter of Neacsu, was the usual term.

Quote
Later, scholars realized that the Vlach language
HOLD IT!  Back up.

The name is limba romana/limba româneascǎ  "the Roman Language," and has been as far back as we have records (1500's).  In 1532 the Italian Francesco della Valle accompanying Governor Aloisio Gritti to Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia notes that Romanians preserved the name of the Romans (Romani) and "they call themselves in their language Romanians (Romei)". He even cites the sentence "Sti rominest ?" ("do you speak Romanian?" Romanian "ştii româneşte ?"). Records in various languages, including Romanian, attest that the Romanians called their language Romanian centuries before Ienăchiţă Văcărescu wrote his Observaţii sau băgări de seamă asupra regulilor şi orânduielilor gramaticii româneşti ("Observations or Reckonings on the Rules and Dispositions of Romanian Grammar"), one of the first Romanian Grammars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ien%C4%83chi%C5%A3%C4%83_V%C4%83c%C4%83rescu_Gramatica_rom%C3%A2neasc%C4%83_1787.jpg

That Ρωμαίικα has become Νεοελληνική  does not make Romanian Vlach.

Theophylactus Simocatta Histories, (c. 630) and  Theophanes Confessor's Chronographia (c. 810–814) record a soldier in Maurice's campaign in the Balkans shout "in the language of their parents/of the land, 'τóρνα, τóρνα, φράτρε,' (Romanian "turn, turn, Brother!").  When Wallachia appears before 1300, the Romanians are the largest population in the Principalities, speaking Romanian.  They didn't come from no where, they came from Romania, just like New Rome did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Romanian_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Romanians

By all means, carry on with this if you like, but as I tried to indicate, I do not depend on Romanity.org's various articles (none of which I have read, or am frankly interested in reading) in support of my particular position/opinion regarding the current state of the Church and the direction of its future development. Any arguments I make will be based in sources whose validity we both recognize. Since neither of us intend to depend upon Romanity.org, I fail to see the utility of your tearing it to shreds, as in so doing you do not make any impact on my opinions and arguments. If you do decide to carry on, please do not interpret my silence in reply as a capitulation to your broader opinions/points. I simply have no interest in defending something for which I have already stated my distaste. I am aware that I have a number of, shall we say, unfortunate allies, who have succeeded in erecting a marvelously tempting straw man for you to tilt at. But, so we're clear, it's not my straw man. If I am to be hung, let it be for my own opinions.

Father, what is the straw man of which you speak?  Romanity, or the subject of Roman? 
Logged
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 11, 2009, 06:11:30 PM »

...
*edit* Since much hay has been made of this one point, I am, as I suspect those who questioned already surmised, referring to Canon 4 of Nicaea when I speak of the establishment of autocephaly for each province of the Roman Empire. This is, as has been mentioned, more often referred to as the Metropolitan System.

Father,

I take that by the above quote you have retracted one of the presumptions of your stance, namely about equating metropolises of the first centuries with autocephalias.

Now, since you played with the issue of identity of "old" or "cradle" Orthodox nations, and between ten and fifteen century of their history, may I kindly ask you what would you think about someone who did just the same with your identity on the basis of presumptions he admitted being wrong after facing the first question?

Moreover, since you labeled the present Church system as "intellectualy bankrupt" without an Emperor, would you kindly explain how Orthodoxy managed to survive for the last nearly six centuries (or, a century, if we take Sultan e Rum as the Emperor of Orthodox) without an Emperor?

Finally, how come Oriental Orthodox, whom never had "their" Emperor, namely Copts and Armenians, managed to survive and keep their Christian Faith for sixteen centuries in such an "intellectually bankrupt" system? 

The scholarship of which I am aware supports the understanding that, by the Nicene canons, each Metropolitan province was an autocephalous church. When I have opportunity to reply at length, I will outline my sources and detail my understanding.

You imply that there is significant scholarship debunking this understanding. Would you mind expanding on this?

As for the rest, I believe you have misunderstood my point. Small wonder, since my time was, and is, limited, and I have been unable to complete or fill out my argument. Please accept my apologies for the confusion.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,691



« Reply #90 on: May 11, 2009, 06:52:17 PM »

Here are my two cents' worth.

1. If Ozgeorge means to emphasize the catholic (ecumenical, worldwide) character of the church, he should understand that sometimes the messenger and the message get conflated. After all, he is a self-proclaimed grand champion of the "Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ."

Now, if he means that the current worldwide Orthodox Church should be organized in accordance with Mehmed the Conqueror's scheme and that the Patriarch of Constantinople should also be considered the head of all Orthodox in the world (the Rum Milliyet), he will have trouble convincing me.

If he means that we should all get along as in the good old days when we considered ourselves as members of the One Church of the One Christian Roman Empire, I would agree with his sentimental yearning but not his history. 

In any case, there are a number of Orthodox people who have learned from the Iliad and their own history, and are beware of Greeks bearing gifts. That said, I can sympathize with Ozgeorge because we don't seem to be giving him a break. Henceforth, I resolve to be more charitable toward him and his posts. Which brings me to Father Anthony.

2. I think Father Anthony is caught between a rock and a hard place. He seems to be a genuinely loving, peace making pastor, who is trying to figure things out. (I hope that I do not sound condescending here, and I am daring to say these things only because I think I am older than the Father). I love the way that he approves and encourages less emphasis on Greekness on the part of the hierarchs and bishops of the GOA. All leaders of all jurisdictions should do that.

However, I disagree with his assessment that the loss of the ecumenical character of the Church was a bad thing, when the Roman Empire went down the tubes. For starters, Pax Romana was good only for the Romans: it was ecumenical because the Romans made it so by force of arms.

After the Ottomans took over the eastern half, the sultans called themselves Caesar (Kayser-i Rûm, by right of conquest and because they were blood-related to the Byzantine Emperors), and tried to pattern their empire after the one they had vanquished (See Runciman's work). Sultan Mehmed made the Patriarch of Constantinople the Ethnarch for all Christians in the empire, except the Armenians, and actually personally vested and installed Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius. As with the Roman Empire, the "ecumenicity" of the Ottoman Empire, and by extension of the "Ecumenical" Patriarchate of Constantinople, was also maintained by the force of arms.

So, I think that Father Anthony must believe in some kind of a mythical version of history. I happen to think that the Orthodox Church survived not because of patronage and control by emperors, sultans, kings, tsars, etc., but in spite of them. This is the most important evidence that the Lord, through His Holy Spirit, has preserved His Church.

3. There is no reason to go into exhaustive arguments and research to help us figure out how we should be organized. In the Holy Scriptures, we have our mission, goals and objectives, and we find plenty of help in how we should organize--1 Timothy even contains job descriptions for our clergy. In Saint Ignatius of Antioch, we find the hierarchical ecclesiastical principle, and in the Canons and Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, we have specific organizational rules and policies.

So this means: national churches (from the great commission); use of the vernacular (Acts); bishops at each city (St. Ignatius); no super-bishops but collaborative relations between bishops (1 Timothy, Ignatius, Canon 34); conciliar governance (to include the laity--the royal priesthood); possibly no patriarchates or at least patriarch-for-life (I can explain but that would make this post too long); astronomical calendar (1st Ecumenical Council); and married bishops, along with single and monastic bishops (1 Timothy). I realize that this is quite a departure from current practice and that we cannot change but very slowly and deliberately.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 11, 2009, 06:53:04 PM »

Father, what is the straw man of which you speak?  Romanity, or the subject of Roman? 

Neither, per se. I am less than impressed by the sourcing and argumentation of the Romanity website. The arguments may or may not be perfectly valid. The way in which they are presented is less than professional. Certain of his arguments (those with which I am familiar) often have valid points behind them, in my opinion, but (also in my opinion), are badly over-stated. It makes him easy to dismiss, when he is so easily refuted on details.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
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 #92 on: May 11, 2009, 09:42:29 PM »

Quote
Also, in dialoguing with someone else, do you ignore altogether what they call themselves?  Do you say "you should not call yourselves that" or should you, rather, seek to convince them that, indeed, if they truly consider yourself Roman and Catholic, that their true home is in the Church of the first millenium, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church of the Roman-Orthodox-Catholic Councils.   This is the "meat" of ozgeorge's point--the proper use of these terms--that we should not miss (especially now that we are eating meat).     
LOL.

The meat, however, is that a Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome is no better than a Latinizing Latinocentric one.
That's your meat ialmisry. My meat is that the Roman Church is the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils. But let's look at your meat anyway: it is strange that a "Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome" should have direct jurisdiction over  Ukrainian, Arabic, & Romanian Churches in the US and Russian & Estonian Churches in Europe without "Hellenizing" them. In the light of facts, your meat seems to be more like a vegetarian sausage trying to be meat. Smiley
« Last Edit: May 11, 2009, 09:45:20 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 11, 2009, 10:50:22 PM »

Which brings me to Father Anthony.

2. I think Father Anthony is caught between a rock and a hard place. He seems to be a genuinely loving, peace making pastor, who is trying to figure things out. (I hope that I do not sound condescending here, and I am daring to say these things only because I think I am older than the Father). I love the way that he approves and encourages less emphasis on Greekness on the part of the hierarchs and bishops of the GOA. All leaders of all jurisdictions should do that.

Thanks for the kind words. My point, however, was not that I encourage anything on the part of my bishops, but that their motivations are correct and proper, doing all they can in what is a difficult situation, seeking to care for the flock that they have in such a way as to not make said flock bolt as it is guided gently in a direction it doesn't want to go.

Quote
However, I disagree with his assessment that the loss of the ecumenical character of the Church was a bad thing, when the Roman Empire went down the tubes. For starters, Pax Romana was good only for the Romans: it was ecumenical because the Romans made it so by force of arms.

After the Ottomans took over the eastern half, the sultans called themselves Caesar (Kayser-i Rûm, by right of conquest and because they were blood-related to the Byzantine Emperors), and tried to pattern their empire after the one they had vanquished (See Runciman's work). Sultan Mehmed made the Patriarch of Constantinople the Ethnarch for all Christians in the empire, except the Armenians, and actually personally vested and installed Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius. As with the Roman Empire, the "ecumenicity" of the Ottoman Empire, and by extension of the "Ecumenical" Patriarchate of Constantinople, was also maintained by the force of arms.

So, I think that Father Anthony must believe in some kind of a mythical version of history. I happen to think that the Orthodox Church survived not because of patronage and control by emperors, sultans, kings, tsars, etc., but in spite of them. This is the most important evidence that the Lord, through His Holy Spirit, has preserved His Church.

Hum...my communication skills must be extremely rusty. I had not thought I was so unclear.

What I said:

Quote
Why we think this would be a good idea, I have no idea. Let me be clear: there is one legitimate reason, and only one theologically legitimate reason, that the idea of the Christian Roman Empire was ever anything other than very bad, and that is rooted in a geopolitical theory that, while second nature to the Fathers of the Church, particularly those of the 4th and 5th centuries, is deader than dead, and will never come back. I speak, of course, of the idea of the universality of Roman rule, that the Roman Emperor ruled, or ought to rule, directly or indirectly, over the entire inhabited world (ecumene/oikoumeni/οἰκουμένη). So if the Roman Emperor was a Christian, and said he was the Emperor of all Christians everywhere, and acted accordingly (as Constantine and Theodosios both did), it made perfect sense to the bishops of the Church to treat him accordingly and organize the Church along such lines, with an Ecumenical Patriarch in the capital city of the man who ruled the inhabited world. The Christian Roman Emperor provided one good thing to the Church over all the centuries--a unitive factor to counter the nationalism that not only threatened to divide, but all too often did divide the Church. Not, frankly, that it worked all that well. But the Church was able to accept it at all only because the Emperor thus became a force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church.

Now, lest anyone start in on me, asking how I can possibly say that the Christian Byzantine Emperor was a "force to maintain the ethnicity-transcending character of the Church" in light of individuals like Basil II "Bulgar-Killer"...that's exactly my point. Precisely because the Church under this model always ends up being co-opted by the nation for secular and even anti-Christian ends (like Bulgar killing), this model is not just flawed, it's broken. I am simply attempting to explain why, if it is in fact a bad model, the Church accepted it for over a thousand years of Orthodox history. When the Emperor served the Church, things were good. When he used the Church to serve himself (which was often)...hoo boy.

When I say, "this model is not just flawed, it's broken," I am talking about the Byzantine Empire. I do not believe that the Church was maintained and preserved by the patronage and control of emperors, sultans, kings, or tsars. I do believe that, as a Church, we need to account for the fact that, for over a thousand years, the Church accepted the Emperor, lauded the emperor, and built significant elements of its ecclessiology around the emperor, to the point that we have no precedent for even calling an Ecumenical Council, since they were ALL called by the Emperor. In light of the obvious flaws of the system, from its very beginning up to its end (which by itself is a stunning blow against the very idea of the Christian Roman Empire, since, by its own self-understanding, said fall should have been prevented by God Himself), we are left to ask what made the system endurable for the Church of the Fathers and the Saints. You don't have to like my ideas on the subject--I'm less than pleased with my current articulation of them myself. But please don't misunderstand me to be praising the system, and certainly not to be asserting that it is necessary for the survival of the Church. I simply think it behooves us to come to terms with our history before we dispense with it and start re-inventing the wheel.

Quote
3. There is no reason to go into exhaustive arguments and research to help us figure out how we should be organized. In the Holy Scriptures, we have our mission, goals and objectives, and we find plenty of help in how we should organize--1 Timothy even contains job descriptions for our clergy. In Saint Ignatius of Antioch, we find the hierarchical ecclesiastical principle, and in the Canons and Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, we have specific organizational rules and policies.

So this means: national churches (from the great commission); use of the vernacular (Acts); bishops at each city (St. Ignatius); no super-bishops but collaborative relations between bishops (1 Timothy, Ignatius, Canon 34); conciliar governance (to include the laity--the royal priesthood); possibly no patriarchates or at least patriarch-for-life (I can explain but that would make this post too long); astronomical calendar (1st Ecumenical Council); and married bishops, along with single and monastic bishops (1 Timothy). I realize that this is quite a departure from current practice and that we cannot change but very slowly and deliberately.

I disagree with some of your specific proposals, agree with others, and have reservations about some. I see little reason to go into details about those disagreements, unless you are particularly interested. I would say this, however: we are Orthodox, and we believe that the Church has upheld the Faith inviolate from the beginning. Therefore, we have a deep and abiding responsibility to be very cautious in overturning longstanding changes. We do not depend solely on Scripture, nor recognize only the Apostles as saintly and guided by God. And we must be very careful in dispensing at a word with 1700 years of the Church's life and tradition. Perhaps things need to change--but we need to have a compelling reason to do so, and must still be very cautious.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #94 on: May 12, 2009, 07:40:39 AM »

Btw, I'm still waiting for my quote.
Contrary to popular thinking the Roman empire did not fall in the early centuries, only the western part fell.  The eastern part survived for almost a thousand years afterwards.  Technically the eastern catholic church (aka the Orthodox church ) was part of that empire.  If any church could be tagged Roman you cant ignore the eastern Christians.
Sorry, according to ialmisry, we have no right to be called "Roman", only the Roman Catholics can be called so.
Care to quote me on that, George?

Quote
Also, in dialoguing with someone else, do you ignore altogether what they call themselves?  Do you say "you should not call yourselves that" or should you, rather, seek to convince them that, indeed, if they truly consider yourself Roman and Catholic, that their true home is in the Church of the first millenium, the Church of the Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church of the Roman-Orthodox-Catholic Councils.   This is the "meat" of ozgeorge's point--the proper use of these terms--that we should not miss (especially now that we are eating meat).
LOL.

The meat, however, is that a Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome is no better than a Latinizing Latinocentric one.

That's your meat ialmisry. My meat is that the Roman Church is the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Councils.

I go to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  I thought you were the one against mixing politics with the Church.

Quote
But let's look at your meat anyway:

Yes. Let's.

Quote
it is strange that a "Hellenizing Hellenocentric Rome" should have direct jurisdiction over  Ukrainian, Arabic, & Romanian Churches in the US and Russian & Estonian Churches in Europe without "Hellenizing" them.

Is that so?

As for the Ukrainians, the self-consecrated dead-handers were just the latest in the interesting history of the GOA and the Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Russian politics, started by Hieromonk Ahapij, evidently assigned by the Episcopalians to the parish that the GOA traces its origin.  That is, until he ran off to harrass the Russian bishop in San Francisco: The hieromonk ended up buried there on his farm "Ukraina," next to his wife. You are familiar with the term "splitting," no?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19584.0.html

On the Romanians: the EP has Romanians here?  Odd, I thought they all were one happy family under Bucharest's exarchate.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16108.0.html

But speaking of the Romanians, I was going to post next on their cousins, the Aromanians or as you problably call them "Vlachs."  I'll start at a funeral:
Quote
Here is one exmaple for many: "In 1904 a Vlach died in Monastir [Republic of Macedonia: then too it didn't have a majority Greek population] His relations wanted to bury him in Roumanian, the Greeks insisted in Greek.  The Bishop (a Greek) forbade a Roumanian funeral, the relations would not have a Greek one.  As usual both sides appealed to the judgee of ecclesiastical affaires, the Turkish Kaimakan.  The Kaimakan, as usual, could do nothing without instructions from Constantinople, and the Porte, as usual, could not make up its mind.  So there came a preliminary order to put off the funeral till the Governement had considered the caee.  Meanwhile, as it was becoming quite time to do something, the wretched man was embalmed.  Time passed and nothing was settled.  Then both sides began fighting over the body, the market-place was shut up, and two charges of cavalry could not disperse the mob.  The Wali, desperate and helpless, as last telegraphed direct to the Sultan imploring him to let the man be buried somehow before the mob had pulled the town down.  At last the decision came.  The Government could not afford to gratify either side, so the man was to be just put in the ground without any burial at all.  See the newspaper report in Bradford: Macedonia, pp. 189-190.  "Nothing," adds Mr. Bralisford, "could be more Turkish, and nothing could be more Greek."

Fortescue adds when "Greeks publish statistics of Macedonia, nearly all the people they brazenly write as "Hellenes" are really these half-Hellenized Vlachs"

Quote
The Phanar knows that if all the Vlachs go there will be, indeed, nothing but a slender remnant of the Roman nation left to work for the "Great Idea" in Macedonia.  So it has set its face desperately against the Roumanian movement, as it does against all national feeling among the Christians that it will pretend to think Greeks.  For years there has been a regular persecusion of these Vlachs; every priest who spoke Roumanian in church was promptly excommunicated; the Greek papers never ceased heaping abuse on Margaritis and his work, and there has been a long chain of nationalistic squabbles under pretense of ecclesiastical disputes between these two parties as ludicrous to the outsider as they are degrading to the Orthodox Church.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6JkIrx4rlbwC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=Fortescue+Vlach&source=bl&ots=ldRGEfez9U&sig=0Lk6kBcTgX1B0dNOj1YjQkP2oL4&hl=en&ei=CfUISvrLKpTFtgeC4b3gCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA334,M1

Quote
Sir Charles Eliot clearly states his work "Turkey in Europe" that "...The Bulgarians, Serbs and Vlachs have Millets of their own and do not cooperate in the Hellenic cause" and that "we hear of Vlach bands who are said to contend (fight against) Greeks in the region of Karaferia (Veria)"".[23] There was also pressure on Aromanians to become linguistically assimilated, which can be traced back to the 18th century, when assimilation efforts were encouraged by the Greek missionary Cosmas of Aetolia (1714-1779) who taught that Aromanians should speak Greek because as he said "it's the language of our Church" and established over 100 Greek schools in northern and western Greece. The offensive of the clergy against the use of Aromanian was by no means limited to religious issues but was a tool devised in order to convince the non-Greek speakers to abandon what they regarded as a "worthless" idiom and adopt the superior Greek speech: "There we are Metsovian brothers, together with those who are fooling themselves with this sordid and vile Aromanian language... forgive me for calling it a language", "repulsive speech with a disgusting diction".[24] [25]

The Vlachs, recognized as a separate nation by the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, were for the first time incorporated in Greece only in 1881, when Thessaly and a part of Epirus were offered to Greece by the Great Powers. Having been split into two by the new borders, the bulk of the Vlachs of these province petitioned[29] the Great Powers of the time to be let to stay within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, but in vain. Greece followed a policy of creating a Greater Greece, according to the "Megali Idea". Most of the Aromanians became part of the Greek state in 1913 after the rest of Epirus and parts of Macedonia became part of Greece after the First Balkan War.

One of the greatest figures during the Aroumanian awakening was Apostol Margarit, a native of Avdela in southern Macedonia, on the slopes of the Pindus mountains. As early as 1862, Apostol Margarit introduced the vernacular in the school of the large prosperous town of Klissoura(Vlaho-Klisura), in the Kastoria region of Macedonia. Nicepheros, the Greek bishop of Kastoria tried for many years to close down the school, but without success. In December, 1879, the first unsuccessful attempt on the life of Apostol Margarit took place. Margarit was wounded during a second attempt on his life during December 1890. There were Vlach schools in Klissoura, Krushevo, Nizepole, Trnovo, Gopesh, Ohrid, old Avdela in the Pindus mountains and new Avdela near Veria. Later more schools were founded in Macedonia, and then a Vlach high school was established in Bitola(Monastir) in the 1880s. The Greeks were naturally alarmed by the national reawakening of the Vlachs. At their peak, just before the Balkan Wars,there were 6 secondary gymnasiums, and 113 primary schools, teaching in Vlach. Due to the ongoing pressures from the Greek Church in the Ottoman provinces of Rumelia, Vlachs and their schools were viewed with suspicion. In 1880 Greek guerrillas attacked some villages near Resen because the village priests had committed the unpardonable sin of using Vlach in the church services. In the same year the Greek bishop of Kastoria had the schoolmaster in Klissoura arrested because he taught in the Vlahs'native language. A momentous date in the history of the Vlachs was May 23, 1905, when the Sultan issued a decree officially recognizing the Vlachs and affirming their rights to maintain their schools and churches. Following the proclamation of the decree, the Greek bishops, and the armed terrorist bands they supported, unleashed a campaign of terror on the Aromanians to discourage them from taking advantage of their rights. In 1905, the Vlach abbot of the Holy Archangel monastery in the Meglen region was murdered by a Greek band. In the summer of 1905 some villages near Bitola were attacked. On October 27, 1905, Greek guerillas attacked the village of Avdela in the Pindus, birthplace of Apostol Margarit, and razed it to the ground. Then in 1906, in the town of Véria(Berea), the priest Papanace was murdered as he was on his way to church to serve the Divine Liturgy in Vlach. The Romanian Vlach school in the village of Avdhela in Pindus, which was one of the first Romanian sponsored Vlach schools, active as early as 1867, was burned and razed to the ground on 27 October 1905 by Greek guerrillas....George Padioti, an Aromanian author (born and living all his life in Greece) describes one of the last liturgy services in Vlach: “ February 1952, the Aromanian Church 'Biserica ramana Santu Dumitru', burned by German troops in spring 1944. The priest Costa Bacou officiated the last allowed liturgy in Aromanian language. Afterwards, he was not permitted anymore because he refused to forcibly officiate the divine service in Greek language."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians
http://www.bulgarmak.org/agras.htm

Isn't that Roman Church of yours in charge of the new lands?

As a sidenote, this all had a profound influence on Arab history: the Ottoman adminstrator in Macedonia, Sati Husri was deeply impressed by the politics of the schools in identity formation in Macedonia, and after WWI implemented them as minister of education etc. in several Arab states.  Though a Muslim (secular), he identified the Arab Patriarchate of Antioch as "the first victory of Arab nationalism."

Too bad that hadn't extended to Jerusalem: I've been to both patriarchates, and the contrast between the vibrant Antioch and the moribund Jerusalem is striking.  Is it those Arabs that the PoJ sold to Phanar that you are talking about in the US?  Last I heard, the were still refusing to be handled like merchandise between absentee landlords (all in a days work for Phanariots).  Would it be obedience to go, or codependence?  The other Arabs I know who went to the GOA had real identity issues, thinking of themselves as ruumiy but marginalized as not being Greek.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16967.0.html

Quote
In the light of facts, your meat seems to be more like a vegetarian sausage trying to be meat. Smiley

I give you some more meat, but drink your milk first. Tongue
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 07:43:31 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
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 #95 on: May 12, 2009, 08:03:26 AM »

Isn't that Roman Church of yours in charge of the new lands?
See, you are identifying the Roman Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
This obsession (and it is an obsession) is what is leading you astray.
The Church is One.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #96 on: May 12, 2009, 09:50:00 AM »

Isn't that Roman Church of yours in charge of the new lands?
See, you are identifying the Roman Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
This obsession (and it is an obsession) is what is leading you astray.
The Church is One.
Ein Land, Ein Volk, Ein Fuher.

No, doesn't work for the Church.

Yes, I do identify the Roman Church with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but not with what the Phanar has made of it.

Btw, the story of the haplass Vlach reminded of the origin of the Albanian Orthodox Church, founded in the New World because the Ecumenical Patriarch wasn't universal enough to include Albanians:

Quote
At that time the Greek community controlled the church that the Albanians attended, and as time passed tensions grew. Then, in 1907 these tensions came to a head when the Greek Orthodox priest refused to officiate at the burial of an Albanian nationalist. The priest did so with the position that as a nationalist the deceased had excommunicated himself. At this time, Fan recognized his calling and convoked meeting of Albanian Orthodox throughout New England. At the meeting the delegates resolved to establish a separate, autonomous, Albanian Orthodox Church. Fan Noli was selected to be its first clergyman.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theophan_%28Noli%29_of_Durres

Btw, Fan Noli's spiritual children are in the OCA, only two parishes (one of which I have been to many times) went over to the EP.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #97 on: May 12, 2009, 10:12:21 AM »


You imply that there is significant scholarship debunking this understanding. Would you mind expanding on this?


I am very much obliged.

For a start, take canons of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Ecumenical Council (incl. 28th canon of 4th council) and read them. There are canons laying down borders and competences of each of the sees.

Now, if 6th canon of 1st Council settled the same system we call autocephalia today, why there is the need for additional canons during the next centuries?

I'll provide the list of further sources once you provide your list.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #98 on: May 12, 2009, 10:53:58 AM »

Is this yet another example of the universality of the Phanar?

Fr Daniel is a very active priest. However as most archimandrites he had expectations and ambitions to become a bishop. When the EP founded the new Diocese of Hong Kong and placed there as a bishop a Greek-American, this was FR Daniel's first disapointment, having someone else over his head.

Do you have any proof of Fr. Daniel's "ambition?"  Being a former Muslim in a Muslim country, converting Muslims (a criminal offense, though technically not capital), I should think his greatest ambition is staying alive.

The choice of Bishop Niketas was rather odd, as although had experience with the rebirth of the Russian Church (and learned Russian), charity work etc, but had no experience that I remember in the Far East.  Fr. Daniel besides his native Indonesia, had come to Orthodoxy in Korea. I met Fr. Daniel briefly once, but I personally knew Fr. Niketas until his elevation and translation to Hong Kong.  Btw, not a Phanriot, but part of that comes from his family background.

Quote
Then Fr Daniel -though with rather only few years in the newlly etablished orthodoxy in Indonesia- no matter he had qualities, he was trying to introduce cultural elements into the Indonesian Church while the local bishop strongly disagreed for the church being too young to go many steps further.

Do you have details on what were these points of disagreement?

Quote
What is happening now in the Church of Finland is a good example why when a church cosnists almost EXCLUSIVELY of converts who hadn't had the time to absorb the essence of Orthodoxy, novelties are being introduced to it which are not always correct and which reflect the convert's ethnic or dogmatic background.

Do you know ANYTHING about the Church of Finland?

Christianity came to Finland first a thousand years ago from the Russians.  The earliest attested Finnish is in Cyrillic letters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_bark_letter_no._292

After the Swedes came to impose Vatican rule, the Orthodox Finns fled to Karelia, where they preserved Finnish culture, which came to the fore under the Czar in the Fennoman movement. Not under the Swedish Lutheran king.  When the Soviets took over, the Orthodox fled back to Finland.

What ethnic baggage are you alleging the Finns have?

Is it this type of thinking that has removed Archb. Leo of All Finland from the EP's website?

Quote
So Fr Daniel, when in America, went under secret negotiations with the ROCOR who  -according to a missionary priest of the church of Greece

What's a missionary priest of the Church of Greece doing there?  Isn't the whole diaspora the Phanar's?  Or is the CoG close enough?

Quote
- promised him to make him a bishop sooner or later, and he left the EP to join the ROCOR, taking with him the Church buldings and other installations that were built also thanks to the money of the Greek Orthodox, and that was a scandal.

yes, all his funds were in drachmas.  What did he do with all that money that he received fron the NON-Greek Orthodox?

Quote
This has practically causes a "schism" since in the New Church of Indonesia we already have 2 jurisdictions causing confusion to Indonesians.

The local EP bishop apparently was not that good for his role and maybe this is the reason why he was replaced.

I don't know about that, I haven't seen Bishop Niketas since then.  But say that it is, maybe if, as you allege, Fr. Daniel wanted to be bishop, someone with his experience in the area would have been better?

Quote
However for this new situation with having 2 Orthodox jurisdictions in a 10-year old church I am affraim Fr Daniel is to be blamed.

Besides when he left the EP to ROCOR, ROCOR at that time wasn't even considered to be a canonical church.

This is sad. Let us at least hope that it won't have a negative effect on Indonesian mission by causing confusion.

Some addtition:

ivien Liturgies were held in the Embassy for the fear of fundamantalis muslims, since Indonesia is a Myslim country. Maybe some people rememebr that at the very same period fanatics were burning Churches, killing and prersectuig its faithfull.

According to Islam converts to Christianity are the worst kind of people there can be on earth. By presenting the Indonesian Church as "Greek" as possible, doing services in Greek even in the embassy the church was protected. Becasue the fanatics can easily burn down an Indonesian Church that has services in Indonesian but they most propably wouldn't touch a "Greek" church because this becomes automatically a diplomatic issue.

yeah, Hellenization is always the answer.  That's worked so well for the Phanar.  No one dared to touch the Greek population of Constantinople.

As you can see in my post above, the Aromanians begged to left inside the Ottoman Empire rather than be in independent Orthodox Greece.  To get an idea of how damning this is, when the border between the Turkish Republic and Syria were drawn, the Churches in Antioch and the area pulled their administration and relocated into the Syrian Republic, where the head of state is Muslim by law.

Quote
Fr Daniel thanks to his zeal could not understand that an Orthodox CHurch as "greek" as possible is being protected by muslim terrorists and fundamentalists.

Maybe he saw a greater danger than muslim terrorists and fundamentalists, a la St. Mark of Ephesus.  At least the Muslims offere you martyrdom.
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
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 13, 2009, 12:27:59 AM »


You imply that there is significant scholarship debunking this understanding. Would you mind expanding on this?


I am very much obliged.

For a start, take canons of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Ecumenical Council (incl. 28th canon of 4th council) and read them. There are canons laying down borders and competences of each of the sees.

Now, if 6th canon of 1st Council settled the same system we call autocephalia today, why there is the need for additional canons during the next centuries?

I'll provide the list of further sources once you provide your list.

Thank you.

First, I must apologize. I have gone back to re-read the post to which you refer, and then to review my sources, and I did indeed speak in error. My error has been compounded by a failure to communicate clearly.

Quote
Let's touch briefly on Autocephaly, shall we? Canonically speaking, autocephaly is a very different beast than it has been made out to be in recent centuries. The First Council of Nicaea stipulated that every province of the Roman Empire was to be autocephalous (with certain exceptions allowing for the ancient primacy of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch over nearby provinces). We should be clear that there were around 120 provinces in the Roman Empire at this time.

Over the next two centuries, the above-mentioned development of the theory of the Christian Roman Empire resulted, among other things, in a process of centralization, so that by the mid-fifth century, the provinces were no longer autocephalous, but some dioceses (a diocese was a civil and administrative entity denoting a group of provinces) still retained their ecclesiastical self-governance. Whatever else Canon 28 of Chalcedon did, it granted officially what had unofficially been claimed for the past 50 years to Constantinople: direct jurisdiction of some of the last remaining "autocephalous" dioceses in the Roman Empire: Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. From this point in time, roughly speaking, we have in place the fabled Pentarchy of Patriarchates...an innovation on and, to be frank, a violation of the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, pushed through by the Imperial legates and objected to by most of the Church.

I said "canonically speaking, autocephaly is a very different beast than it has been made out to be in recent centuries," there implying, and later explicitly stating, that the development of the Patriarchal system violates the Canon Law of the Church. This, as you rightly point out, is not necessarily so. The eventual establishment of the Patriarchal System was certainly accomplished with the imprimatur of at least one Ecumenical Council, as I indicated when I mentioned Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and with the tacit approval/assumption based on long reality, as witnessed by Canon 36 of Penthekti. However, to move through the councils chronologically...

Canon 4 of Nicaea certainly established autocephaly for every province of the Roman Empire, with certain exceptions explicitly defined in the case of Alexandria and mentioned for reference purposes in passing in the case of Rome and Antioch.

The degree to which the rights of the provincial metropolitans were abrogated in favor of greater centralization, specifically benefiting the five centers of the newly defined dioceses of the Eastern Empire in Canons 2, 3 & 9 of Constantinople seems somewhat unclear, and is certainly an object of debate. I tend to agree with His Eminence Archbishop Peter L'Huillier in his analysis of Canon 2 (in The Church of the Ancient Councils, St. Vladimir's Press, 1979, 1996, 2000) when he points out that

"We cannot say that this canon brought about changes in the government of the Church, since it did not introduce or sanction a uniform hierarchical structure for the dioceses; on the contrary, it respected the status quo" (L'Huillier 116).

Later on in his analysis he observes: "If the fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 381 did not try to establish a pyramidal, hierarchical structure of the dioceses, neither did they conceive of them as simple geographical groupings; they saw in them coherent entities in which the bishops ought to assume common responsibilities" (L'Huillier 117).

And finally he concludes: "After having set out the ruling which forbade the bishops of one diocese to intervene in the church life of another, the fathers of Constantinople took very special care to recall the validity of the decisions of Nicaea on the competence of the provincial council. On this matter, Balsamon notes most properly that at this time each metropolitan district enjoyed autocephaly" (L'Huillier 118).

His notes on Canon 9 are in the same vein: "If we relate canons 2, 3, and 6 of the double council of 381-2, we see the tendency to consider the dioceses as wider church districts; the bishops of these areas were supposed to regulate their own affairs together and without any exterior intervention. These groupings--ornamented by the authority of certain sees, which first tacitly and then explicitly received a supra-metropolitan jurisdiction--were rather rapidly to develop into the constitutions of the patriarchates" (L'Huillier 130).

Thus, to sum up, Constantinople in no way canonically countenances the supercession of the rights of the Metropolitan Synod of the individual province, rather establishing that, for inter-provincial issues, the bishops of the diocese are fully competent to resolve these issues, and should not be interfered with from outside the diocese. It does not (and explicitly says that it does not) create an overarching hierarchical administration, concluding as it does, "The above-mentioned rule about the dioceses being observed, it is obvious that the council of the province will direct the affairs of each province according to what was decided at Nicaea" (L'Huillier's translation, page 115).

On the one hand, as His Eminence notes, the "ornamentation" of certain sees within the diocese quickly tends towards the exercise by those sees of a supra-metropolitan jurisdiction. But Canon 8 of Ephesus, the only canon of this council to deal with this issue, again explicitly refers to Nicaea in protection, not only of Cyprus's ancient rights against the claims of Antioch, but of the rights of ALL Metropolitan of the provinces, stating that "none of the bishops beloved of God shall take over another province that, in former times and from the beginning, has not been under his authority or that of his predecessors" allowing even that "each Metropolitan has the leisure to take a copy of the acts as a guarantee for himself" (L'Huillier's translation, pg. 164). So also here we do not see canonical permission given for the abrogation of Metropolitan/Provincial autocephaly. On the contrary--those rights here are strenuously protected.

It is only in Chalcedon's canons that we see this done--and only in the case of Constantinople with particular precision. Canon 9 establishes the Diocesan Exarch/See of Constantinople as the court of appeal for disputes at the provincial level--the Diocesan Exarch being the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch in the case of Egypt and the East, with the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, lacking a Diocesan Exarch, being directed to Constantinople for purposes of appeal. Canon 28, of course, directly subordinated the Metropolitans of those three dioceses to Constantinople.

As I said above, Canon 36 of Penthekti (what I assume you referred to when you mentioned the Fifth Council, since said council issued no canons), establishes the order of the sees, mentioning Jerusalem for the first time in an Ecumenical Council, but gives no details of their specific jurisdiction. This was known at the time and now, of course, but my point was that, to the best of my knowledge, the principles of Canon 4 of Nicaea were never "officially" superseded. After about a century of spirited defense, the imperial reality caught up with said canon, and it was replaced by the Patriarchal System.

So--my first error in my post quoted above was an error of memory, mistakenly recalling that the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace had, in the persons of their presiding bishops, gained supra-metropolitan control over the provinces contained in them by the time of the Council of Chalcedon. Some do argue this on the basis of Canons 2, 3, and 6 of Constantinople and Canon 9 of Chalcedon, but my review of the sources leads me to reject the argument. My other error was the statement that Chalcedon's decisions violated the Canons of Nicaea. They did, of course, but the Council of Chalcedon had the authority to do so. What I question, and evidently failed to articulate clearly enough, is the reason for that change, and its ongoing applicability to the modern situation.

My opinion is that this process of centralization was a direct result of the ongoing development of the theory and reality of the Christian Roman Empire. It seems clear from the history and trends of the time that the forces pushing the centralization of the Church were anything but universal, rather being specific to the times, the ongoing theological controversies, and the political reality. The ongoing desire of the Emperors for Orthodox Christianity to serve as the unitive Faith of the Empire, and specifically for Constantinople to surpass or at least equal Old Rome in honour as the Western Empire fell, made the acquisition by Constantinople in particular of supra-metropolitan, proto-Patriarchal jurisdiction over its immediate environs an issue of extreme importance. Hence the imperial legates at Chalcedon pushed at every turn, together with the Archbishop of the city, for the explicit grant of such jurisdiction over Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, eventually achieving it. At the Council, many of the bishops present objected to this, crying out, "Let the canons be observed: Let us hold to the canons!" (L'Huillier 201), referring specifically to Canon 4 of Nicaea. While the decisions of the Council with respect to Constantinople were, in the end, accepted and upheld, it is still a matter of significance that the decision was such a controversial one.

As for the expansion of the jurisdiction of the other Patriarchates--it seems to me that, in an age when the number of bishops you could muster in support of your cause had a direct effect on the likelihood of your success in opposing serious heresies, it was only natural that Antioch and Alexandria should have made such strenuous efforts to expand their jurisdiction. Similarly, Jerusalem's rise to supra-metropolitan authority over the provinces of Palestine certainly was, at the least, accelerated by the fact that for so many years in the middle of the 4th century, Caesarea Palestina was an Arian see, while Jerusalem was usually Orthodox, and thus Jerusalem was less than likely to cede the initiative to the Metropolitan See.

All this was driven, however, by the extreme political significance of Orthodox belief within the Empire at the time. I think it very likely that the development of the Church's hierarchical structure would have taken a very different route had the Emperors not made Orthodoxy an essential element of full citizenship in the Empire.

Surely no one would disagree with me that the Church suffered greatly as a result of this. Iconoclasm alone witnesses to the evil that could be wrought by the Emperor. I think it a very relevant and necessary thing, then, to carefully examine why the Church accepted it at all. I have suggested one theory, that is supported by the sources still extant from both the political and the ecclesiastical sides of the Byzantine Empire, namely that the Emperor's role was unitive, witnessing to the universality of the Christian Faith for as long as the aspirations of Rome to universal rule drew even the sickliest breath. My signature witnesses to the ongoing reality of that ideal, even in the twilight of the Empire. I'm sure other theories exist--I've not seen them. But we must account for why the Church accepted the role the Roman Emperors asked her to play.

In particular we must think carefully about the development of Church polity since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The autocephaly gained by the various national churches was certainly necessary, and has certainly maintained the Church in the face of many challenges and betrayals. The many posts of ialmisry witness to the fact that often those challenges and betrayals came at the hands of the Greeks, or of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, each of the national churches has, I suspect, similar stains on its history (unless we are to believe that in all cases, the Phanariot Greeks were the aggressors and villains against wholly innocent, purely Orthodox victims). But none of this changes the fact that each of these national Churches was set up in imitation of the relationship of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Emperor. And I still submit that, with the one characteristic removed that made the Byzantine system remotely acceptable to the Church, we have a recipe for disunity and disaster.

I do not, however, advocate removing the autocephaly gained by Romania, Serbia, Greece, or Bulgaria, not to mention most of the other Churches. To do so would be incredibly destructive, with no viable principle of unity to replace the ethnic one. Please remember, I do serve a Greek parish. I do know how the people think, what they are like, and how they would respond if placed under a non-Greek bishop. I can well imagine the reaction of the people of Romania, Serbia, or Bulgaria if their ecclesiastical independence were revoked and they were placed under foreign bishops.

That reaction, however, is part of the problem. It speaks to the reality that, for most of the people in the Orthodox Churches around the world, ethnicity is all too often more important than Faith. It speaks to the reality that the battle I and my fellow priests in the Greek Churches fight is the same battle fought by clergy in every Orthodox country. I would not abolish the autocephalies already well-established, but it is essential that the mindset begin to change in those Churches. In Christ there is neither Jew, nor Greek, nor barbarian, and far too few of our people are willing to accept that.

The so-called Diaspora is different. Whatever the facts were before the Russian Revolution, whatever the evils committed by His All-Holiness Meletios, the situation we face in the Americas, in Europe, in Australia and non-Russian Asia is incredibly pastorally complicated. In this situation, I think it more likely that a reference to the old, idealized, Roman-Christian "ethnicity," an ethnicity sealed not by blood, but by baptism, an ethnicity no longer threatened by the political aims of an Emperor, might be productive, rather than destructive. At the same time, the reaction to that reference on this board and elsewhere indicates that, perhaps, this is not the case.

But in some fashion, particularly in the chaotic world of Orthodoxy in the Western world, it is essential that we find a way, as FrHLL said, to restore the Catholicity of the Orthodox Faith to the forefront of our identity. I personally believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople can and should play a central role in that process. I believe this see, by virtue of its present and its past, is uniquely suited to it. I am personally intrigued by the possibility of union under Constantinople as a stepping stone to a truly local autocephaly, on the lines of Canon 4 of Nicaea, defined, perhaps, along state lines in the United States, as an example, replacing national Churches with local Churches, centered on unity in Christ, not in blood or even, necessarily, in language. But this is mere speculation. Suffice to say that, if the decision of the Church in the coming years excludes the Patriarch of Constantinople from a role in the West, so long as Christ is preeminent, I will rejoice.

Please forgive my errors in my original post, and any contained in this one. I do not seek in any way to give offense. I pray that God may bless you all.

Χριστός Ἀνέστη! Christ is Risen!

+Fr. Anthony

Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 13, 2009, 01:30:29 AM »

Quote
But in some fashion, particularly in the chaotic world of Orthodoxy in the Western world, it is essential that we find a way, as FrHLL said, to restore the Catholicity of the Orthodox Faith to the forefront of our identity. I personally believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople can and should play a central role in that process. I believe this see, by virtue of its present and its past, is uniquely suited to it. I am personally intrigued by the possibility of union under Constantinople as a stepping stone to a truly local autocephaly, on the lines of Canon 4 of Nicaea, defined, perhaps, along state lines in the United States, as an example, replacing national Churches with local Churches, centered on unity in Christ, not in blood or even, necessarily, in language. But this is mere speculation. Suffice to say that, if the decision of the Church in the coming years excludes the Patriarch of Constantinople from a role in the West, so long as Christ is preeminent, I will rejoice.

I want to clarify that when I say, "replacing national Churches with local Churches" I mean, replace the model, the idea of national Churches with that of truly local Churches, and only in areas where disorder reigns and overlapping jurisdictions exist. I re-iterate, I do not advocate the abolition of the autocephalous national Churches of the Balkans or elsewhere. I speak of these areas of confusion and disorder, not of the well-established churches formerly under the jurisdiction of Constantinople (although all the Churches have issues with the confusion and conflation of ethnicity and Faith).
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #101 on: May 13, 2009, 03:25:13 AM »

Ein Land, Ein Volk, Ein Fuher.

I knew it was bound to happen.   Roll Eyes

So how many of the other ones will come to fruition:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20341.msg303684.html#msg303684
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 #102 on: May 13, 2009, 09:44:02 AM »

Father Anthony,

I have already responded to most of the topics in our debate by my three posts dated yesterday, but they haven't passed moderation. I simply have no will for writing them again. Perhaps you may get them into inbox if PP admin.

There is no need to apologize, I don't hold you infallable.

Re.: metropolitan viz autocephalia, issue (which was of tangential minor importance for my complaints):

...
Canon 4 of Nicaea certainly established autocephaly for every province of the Roman Empire, with certain exceptions ...

The degree ... seems somewhat unclear, and is certainly an object of debate. I tend to agree with His Eminence Archbishop Peter L'Huillier in his analysis of Canon 2 (in The Church of the Ancient Councils, St. Vladimir's Press, 1979, 1996, 2000) when he points out that

...

Thus, to sum up, Constantinople in no way  This was known at the time and now, of course, but my point was that, to the best of my knowledge, the principles of Canon 4 of Nicaea were never "officially" superseded. ...

Father, I don't know where to begin in pointing to contradictions and inaccuracies in presented interpretation. The point is that history and interpretation of legal norms are not matter of dogma.

a) Cyprus was always a province; if all the provinces were autocephalous in the meaning we know today, there would have been no need for granting autocephalia to the Church of Cyprus explicitly. Specifically, autocephalia was granted to Cyprus, (the same as status of Patriarch was granted to Constantinopolis and Jerusalem, unlike Alexandria, Rome and Antioch in case of which the Councils just sanctioned ancient custom) since Antioch was appointing bishops there for some time. (Isa Almisry would know more specifics about that). The rest of the quoted 8 canon of 3rd council could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it underlined the need for discipline in not overreaching the boundaries.

b) Ethiopia was never part of the Empire, therefore they wouldn't fit into definition of "autocephalous" metropolias that followed the borders of provinces. They were granted autocephalous recently, by OO Copt Patriarch of Alexandra, which wouldn't be the case if they follow presented interpretation of Nicea. Armenians, too, wouldn't fit into Nicea criterion for autocephalia, neither Georgia, whom was granted status of Patriarchate by Antioch after Chalcedon - they were not part of the Empire, except partly Armenia, and that was briefly.

c) Competences of Constantinopolis were not finally set by canon 28 of the 4th council, but by 2nd canon of 6th council, that elevated local council of Sardica to be universaly binding. On the grounds of the council of Sardica, that granted competence for hearing appeals to Rome, interpreted in connection with the canon of elevating Constantionpolis to the Second Rome (for she was likewise "a Royal City"), the Constantinopolis gained the competences she is exercising/overstepping today.

Briefly, an autocephalous - "self thinking" or "thinking for herself" - Church is a result of grouping of several dioceses/eparchias around one and formation of separate bodies of such groupings that communicate with other autocephalias on equal footing. That process has not been completed before decisions of 6th ecumenical council entered into force.

[qoote author=franthonyc link=topic=21155.msg320280#msg320280 date=1242188879]However, each of the national churches has, I suspect, similar stains on its history (unless we are to believe that in all cases, the Phanariot Greeks were the aggressors and villains ...[/quote]

This is the problem, you suspect and draw the conclusions on that.

Greeks are my older brothers.

[qoote author=franthonyc link=topic=21155.msg320280#msg320280 date=1242188879]Please remember, I do serve a Greek parish. I do know how the people think, what they are like, and how they would respond if placed under a non-Greek bishop. I can well imagine the reaction of the people of Romania, Serbia, or Bulgaria if their ecclesiastical independence were revoked and they were placed under foreign bishops.[/quote]

Your parishioners were mainly descendants of Greek refugees from what's know today as Turkey. That fact slightly differ their identity from the Greeks in Greece.

[qoote author=franthonyc link=topic=21155.msg320280#msg320280 date=1242188879]That reaction, however, is part of the problem. It speaks to the reality that, for most of the people in the Orthodox Churches around the world, ethnicity is all too often more important than Faith. [/quote]

Quite the contrary. Diaspora Greeks are known to be more ethnic than the others, to the extent it was difficult for me to believe about certain issues when I've heard about them for the first time. We don't mind it, because we understand the difficulties their ascendants undergone, and the need to shield their identity after the disaster they survived. They did the best they could, I'm sure.

The problem is, what you describe as over-emphasize on ethnicity is exactly process of their de-Christianization, namely, "Hellenization". They can't be too "Hellenic", but they can be less Christian than needed, as happens sometimes, by your own witness.

Therefore, no need for Hellenization. That's exactly what caused what you describe as a problem.

Regarding the ethnicity issue, I believe you would be interested in hearing the witness of Fr. Ambrose, posting here as Irish Hermit. He is of Irish origin, tonsured monk and priest in Serbia some thirty years ago, and has been transferred to ROCOR in New Zealand some fifteen years ago. Maybe either his ethnic background, or the fact that he was a convert from Roman Catholicism, was an impediment for him to become a bishop or patriarch already, but certainly not prevented us, online Orthodox (and several dozens converts he helped to attract) of various etnicities, to love and respect him very much.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem of being of the flock of a bishop of a "foreign" (as if someone could be of a "foreign" ethnicity among the Orthodox Christian, as if we are not brothers and sisters) ethnicity, but I would have a problem in being of the flock of a bishop of doubtful Orthodoxy. Seeing the history of Phanar, particularly of the last eight decades, and the surprising fact that we've been encountering letters that emphasize on good examples of Athenagroras and Mekletios Metraksasis, I feel the need for the greatest possible distance from them not because of their ethnicity, but for other reasons.

Forgive me for everything.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #103 on: May 13, 2009, 10:35:09 AM »

Ein Land, Ein Volk, Ein Fuher.

I knew it was bound to happen.   Roll Eyes

So how many of the other ones will come to fruition:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20341.msg303684.html#msg303684

I'm sorry I missed you writ:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20341.msg320388.html#msg320388
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 10:38:21 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #104 on: May 13, 2009, 01:15:54 PM »

Christ is Risen!

Sorry for the delay. I wanted to check through a few things before I responded.

Not all Greeks nor Greeks in general.  Just the adherents to Phanariotism.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you gave a concise definition of that term. Not that I don't have an idea of what you mean by it (I have read a number of the threads on this topic), but many of them are talking about the past, or are an interpretation of the words of specific individuals, who may or may not speak for the groups you understand them to speak for.

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

Met/Archb/EP/Pope Meletios epitomized what I am speaking of.  He may be a figure in the past, but we live with his present consequences: in fact, according to St. Justin Popovich this present "Great and Holy Synod" being planned in Cyprus next month can be traced back to the hiearch Meletios.   He did much in the name of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including this novel interpretation, which as far as I can see started officially with his interpretation of the Tomos of 1908. At the same time, he acted in the name of the Greek nation (at the time, he was the Archbishop of Athens).  That he couldn't have taken it too seriously is shown that when Greece lost the Eastern Aegean and he lost the ecumenical throne, he consoled himself to Alexandria, making her (in imitation of the Copts, I believe) mistress of All Africa.  The Chief Secretary's muddled reference to this shows the contradiction with the 28 canon interpretation.  He kept Greek (not Roman) hegemony of the Church by denying recognition of autocephaly of the Church of Albania on the grounds that it was a minority faith in country (at 20% of the population, and an Orthodox minister, it was in a better position than the Phanar in Istanbul), while extending the Phanar's reach into the Church of Russia, setting things up for recognition of the minority Church of Poland: Greece had designs on Albania, there was no chance Greece had a say in Poland.  That the GOA, Phanar, Greece, etc. acting today on the basis of his actions and decrees makes him an ever present reality.


Quote
I don't want to quibble right now about whether the past illumines the present, or whether or not those individuals do in fact represent the positions/goals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'm sure you can sympathize with the possibility that, from the inside of the Greek Archdiocese, at least some of these facts admit of a different interpretation, at least at first glance.

Actually, the Chief Secretary and I agree on the origins of the GOA.  It is only on the nonexistence of the Russian mission and Archdiocese that we disagree.

Quote
I am more than willing to consider your facts and interpretation, but would ask that you, concisely, define, in your own words, Phanariotism and the threat it poses to the Church.

Phanariotism: the de facto (with de jure disclaimers) exclusive identification of the Roman ideal with Greek Nationalism, deriving Catholicity and Apostolicity ex officio the EP, centralizing Orthodoxy into the Greek minority of Istanbul and its links.

Dangers: ultramontanism, philetism, unietism.

Then we have the Patriarch of Jerusalem: on a GOA documentary they ended with interviews with all the hiearchs.  All the rest talked about the Church, the vision of the future, etc.  Not the PoJ: he just prattled on about the Greek presence in the Holy Land, how if you dig you find Greek inscriptions, that the Greeks didn't come as conquerors, etc.  No acknowledgement that running the Patriachate for 500 (at most) ex-pat Greeks is driving the native born faithful out of the Chruch by the thousands (and into the Evangelicals, Epsicopalians and even the Latins: the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a Crusader church, is FAR, FAR better to the faithful than our own Jerusalem Patriarchate).

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is not something about which I know a great deal. Certainly the situation in the territories occupied by the State of Israel and its military is ludicrously complex, to the point that none of the parties involved have any authentic claim to the moral upper hand any longer. My gut reaction is to assume that the same applies to this situation. At the same time, any situation which subordinates the spiritual well-being of the flock to the preservation of a dead ideal is unacceptable. Nonetheless, not having heard a defense (or even a detailed explication of both sides), I hesitate to pass judgment.

No, the situation predates Zionism:
http://www.frmichel.najim.net/brotherenglish.pdf

Basically, a group of ex pat Greek (in local parlance, "yuunann" as opposed to "ruum") control the patriarchate for furtherance of Greek interests, in utter disregard of the native, non-Greek flock.

Is that what y'all fill the heads of your young leaders with off there in MA?

Considering that I've never read most of what you cite, I would say the answer is no.

I wasn't speaking to you directly Father, in general.

This has become its own thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21224.0.html


Quote
I've visited the Romanity site, certainly--found a number of the assertions intriguing, but the scholarship was clearly, shall we say, flawed to nonexistent, and I saw little use in carefully perusing the site.

I have, however, seen its viewpoint over and over and over again, including the Chief Secretary's.  The site is useful for the simple reason it comes out and says what it is evident, many think.

Quote
My training before HCHC was in Classical Studies. I am more than competent with the Greek and Latin languages, fairly knowledgeable about my history,


By "my history," am I correct in thinking you are refering to Constantinople/Greece?  I so read the first time, but honestly can't say for sure.

The problem the Chief Secretary of Romanity, is that he obvious doesn't know Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian (to be clear, FYOM), Albanian and Arab (Orthodox) history, or ignores it.  Otherwise, he wouldn't make such statements.

Quote
and, whatever my credentials or lack thereof, and have enough self-respect to pay a little more attention to what is and what is not propoganda than I think you give credit for.

Personally, I didn't find anything that questioned you personally. I don't know you, Father, nor have I much to go on to evaluate.  I write with the view that this is a public forum.

Quote
As a priest,


Honestly, I wasn't aware.  Looking through your posts and replies I did, but I didn't do that until you wrote this.

Quote
I would certainly think that a bit more respect might be given. If I am personally not deserving of it, then my office in the Church is,


I am not afraid, if need be, to take to task those who disgrace their office.  Such, however, is not the case in your case (I haven't seen you write of do anything unworthy of priest), I write this only in that the appeal to authority can be a fallacy in argumentation.  Such has not been the case in your posts, so I am a little perplexed by your present reference to your (unbenonced to me until now) priesthood.

Quote
and you serve no one by the vitriol in your tone.

If my tone is harsh, it is because this is an issue that, unlike what some think, will go away, resolve itself, or can be put off much longer.  I have seen Churches (like Jerusalem) being destroyed by this.  Btw, I can't find this post you quote:

As a matter of curiousity, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "take with a grain of salt alleged struggles against Hellenism"?

Quote
So...can we talk, or not?

sure, anytime.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 01:20:30 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #105 on: May 13, 2009, 03:51:41 PM »

In particular we must think carefully about the development of Church polity since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The autocephaly gained by the various national churches was certainly necessary, and has certainly maintained the Church in the face of many challenges and betrayals. The many posts of ialmisry witness to the fact that often those challenges and betrayals came at the hands of the Greeks, or of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, each of the national churches has, I suspect, similar stains on its history (unless we are to believe that in all cases, the Phanariot Greeks were the aggressors and villains against wholly innocent, purely Orthodox victims).

I am in agreement in the main with your post up to this point (though I think autonomy is more applicable to the provinces than autocephaly), and am so here: I interject just to expand on your point.  The suppression of the Georgian Church is a serious blot on Moscow's record.  Serbia and Bulgaria's fighting over the Macedonians is less than exemplary.  I'll leave the CoG out of this for the moment.


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
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 13, 2009, 04:32:37 PM »

Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

Met/Archb/EP/Pope Meletios epitomized what I am speaking of.  He may be a figure in the past, but we live with his present consequences: in fact, according to St. Justin Popovich this present "Great and Holy Synod" being planned in Cyprus next month can be traced back to the hiearch Meletios.   He did much in the name of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including this novel interpretation, which as far as I can see started officially with his interpretation of the Tomos of 1908. At the same time, he acted in the name of the Greek nation (at the time, he was the Archbishop of Athens).  That he couldn't have taken it too seriously is shown that when Greece lost the Eastern Aegean and he lost the ecumenical throne, he consoled himself to Alexandria, making her (in imitation of the Copts, I believe) mistress of All Africa.  The Chief Secretary's muddled reference to this shows the contradiction with the 28 canon interpretation.  He kept Greek (not Roman) hegemony of the Church by denying recognition of autocephaly of the Church of Albania on the grounds that it was a minority faith in country (at 20% of the population, and an Orthodox minister, it was in a better position than the Phanar in Istanbul), while extending the Phanar's reach into the Church of Russia, setting things up for recognition of the minority Church of Poland: Greece had designs on Albania, there was no chance Greece had a say in Poland.  That the GOA, Phanar, Greece, etc. acting today on the basis of his actions and decrees makes him an ever present reality.

Thanks for responding. I am not equipped (or, frankly, inclined) to dispute what you say about +Meletios. It would not surprise me at all to find that his motivations were flawed, at best. I would point out, however, that his opinions and motivations do not represent the entirety of what now comprises the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As I said in my original post on this subject, "Suffice to say that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, despite the Greek-ness of its cultural history, has a deeply felt responsibility to be more than "merely" Greek," although it must be admitted that the See has in the past battled, and still battles, "Hellenizing tendencies in itself, both clergy and laity."

Quote
Quote
I don't want to quibble right now about whether the past illumines the present, or whether or not those individuals do in fact represent the positions/goals of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. I'm sure you can sympathize with the possibility that, from the inside of the Greek Archdiocese, at least some of these facts admit of a different interpretation, at least at first glance.

Actually, the Chief Secretary and I agree on the origins of the GOA.  It is only on the nonexistence of the Russian mission and Archdiocese that we disagree.

In that disagreement with him, I agree with you. I do not know him personally, but I do know that his manner of constructing and presenting an argument often has the effect of making his allies wish he'd go help the other side out instead. Wink

Quote
Quote
I am more than willing to consider your facts and interpretation, but would ask that you, concisely, define, in your own words, Phanariotism and the threat it poses to the Church.

Phanariotism: the de facto (with de jure disclaimers) exclusive identification of the Roman ideal with Greek Nationalism, deriving Catholicity and Apostolicity ex officio the EP, centralizing Orthodoxy into the Greek minority of Istanbul and its links.

Dangers: ultramontanism, philetism, unietism.

On the problems with such a position, and the dangers thereof, we are agreed. I cannot speak to the question of how much "Phanariotism" drives the policies of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In my experience with the other priests and hierarchs of the GOA, as I have said in the past, identification with the Roman ideal is a tool for transcending Greek Nationalism and overcoming the traditional exclusivity of our parishes. As our hierarchs are in submission to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it is natural that they understand themselves to derive Catholicity and Apostolicity from their submission to and communion with it, but that is not extended outward to the other Churches of the Orthodox world. To do so, as you aptly point out, is to fly in the face of history, tradition, and dogma.  I mention this not to necessarily refute your assertions, but only wish to point out that, even assuming "Phanariotism" to be a vigorous and threatening trend within the Patriarchate, there are opposing trends present as well, and these trends will only accelerate in the years to come, as a result of the fact that so many of its active parishes, clergy, and hierarchs, are now something more than merely Greeks. If the Phanar, God forbid, were firebombed tomorrow and all those eligible for the office of Patriarch under Turkish Law were killed, the Patriarchate of Constantinople would persist, located in a different place, but it would survive. The establishment of ruling Metropolises throughout the world in the territories now claimed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople is without question highly controversial in any number of ways, but I have difficulty seeing how it is consistent with a Hellenocentric, Phanariocentric self-understanding on the part of the Patriarchate, for precisely this reason.

I imagine, however, that I will soon be enlightened in that regard. Wink

Regarding Jerusalem, however, I have little to say on the subject. I can well imagine that what you say is true, nor do I dispute that there is indeed a strong proclivity towards Hellenocentrism that can all too easily tend towards a pastorally indefensible neglect of those outside the Greek Omogeneia. The situation you describe is absolutely unacceptable.

But there are, as I said, also strong trends against this, and it makes much more sense to me to support these trends within the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Unless it is irredeemably corrupt and inextricably beholden to ethnophyletic Hellenism (is this what you are saying?), it stands in need of allies in its own reclaiming of its proper place as a universalizing influence in the Orthodox world.

Quote
Is that what y'all fill the heads of your young leaders with off there in MA?

Considering that I've never read most of what you cite, I would say the answer is no.

I wasn't speaking to you directly Father, in general.

This has become its own thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21224.0.html

*sigh* I've seen it, and read it. With the exception of the argumentation regarding Canon 28 of Chalcedon, I found it balanced and respectful, far more conciliatory than Fr. Elpidophorus' screed of a few months ago. The role that Constantinople is properly to play in world Orthodoxy is, frankly, precisely that which Rome played in the first millenium. It is not surprising, therefore, that any discussion of what that role is may well be reminiscent of papal claims. I find it very significant, however, that at every point, the actual points at which the claims of Rome exceed the tradition and canons of the Church (papal infallibility, universal administrative jurisdiction, etc) are unequivocally rejected, not just by the professors at Holy Cross in this particular publication, but by the Patriarch of Constantinople. If I missed something significant that smacks of actual papism, please call my attention to it. I'd like to know.

As for Canon 28...I remember vividly my class with Dr. Patsavos on precisely these issues. There was much discussion of this Canon, of Constantinople's and Moscow's divergent interpretations. The class at large (with one exception who is well-known to this forum in both his Christian and post-Christian versions) found both arguments lacking, at the least significantly over-stated. Dr. Patsavos was very helpful in illuminating the background of the Canon, in recommending balanced sources for further research, and generally very non-dogmatic about the entire affair.

For myself, I wish the Canon 28 argument would be abandoned by the Patriarchate. As far as my understanding goes, it does not in fact support what it is used to support. I support the end that is sought by means of said argument, but have difficulty accepting the argument. There are better ones out there that much more accurately reflect the reality of both fifth century history and 19th/20th century history. But those arguments severely weaken the respective cases of both Constantinople and Moscow, and it seems to be a core principle of politics, ecclesiastical or otherwise, to claim much more than you have a right to claim so that, once concessions have been made on all sides, what you have left is more or less what you should have.

Hence my *sigh* at the beginning. I don't care for the way these things are done.

Quote
Quote
I've visited the Romanity site, certainly--found a number of the assertions intriguing, but the scholarship was clearly, shall we say, flawed to nonexistent, and I saw little use in carefully perusing the site.

I have, however, seen its viewpoint over and over and over again, including the Chief Secretary's.  The site is useful for the simple reason it comes out and says what it is evident, many think.

Fair enough, I suppose. Just know that, in general terms at least, you're preaching to the choir any time I'm involved.

Quote
Quote
My training before HCHC was in Classical Studies. I am more than competent with the Greek and Latin languages, fairly knowledgeable about my history,


By "my history," am I correct in thinking you are refering to Constantinople/Greece?  I so read the first time, but honestly can't say for sure.

When I say, "my history," I mean it in an idiomatic sense. More accurately, I should say, "my historical understanding is fairly well-informed" speaking of history in general. I have a decent idea of what I know and what I don't know, one I hope is reflected in my approach to your assertions regarding Jerusalem, the Balkans, etc. My "specialty," if an amateur historian such as I has any right to the term, is the ancient and late-antique world. The history of the Orthodox Churches between the fall of Constantinople and the 20th century is, frankly, extremely depressing at large; whether one looks at Russia, Greece, the Balkans, or the so-called Levant, the integrity of the Church is again and again undermined by ethnic wars, political abuse, and subservience to the political ends of either the czars, the sultans, or the nascent nationalist governments and identities of the Balkans. I do not, frankly, have the stomach to dig deeply into it. But I have at least some awareness of what went on during the period, and how we got from the Apostles to Constantine and from Constantine to now.
Quote
The problem the Chief Secretary of Romanity, is that he obvious doesn't know Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian (to be clear, FYOM), Albanian and Arab (Orthodox) history, or ignores it.  Otherwise, he wouldn't make such statements.

Agreed

Quote
Quote
and, whatever my credentials or lack thereof, and have enough self-respect to pay a little more attention to what is and what is not propoganda than I think you give credit for.

Personally, I didn't find anything that questioned you personally. I don't know you, Father, nor have I much to go on to evaluate.  I write with the view that this is a public forum.

True enough. I took certain comments you made as directed to me, when evidently they were not. It's obvious that you're responding to many people at once, and I ought to have taken notice of that.

Quote
Quote
As a priest,


Honestly, I wasn't aware.  Looking through your posts and replies I did, but I didn't do that until you wrote this.

*chuckles* I would have thought my username would have given it away. No matter, though.
Quote
Quote
I would certainly think that a bit more respect might be given. If I am personally not deserving of it, then my office in the Church is,


I am not afraid, if need be, to take to task those who disgrace their office.  Such, however, is not the case in your case (I haven't seen you write of do anything unworthy of priest), I write this only in that the appeal to authority can be a fallacy in argumentation.  Such has not been the case in your posts, so I am a little perplexed by your present reference to your (unbenonced to me until now) priesthood.

Again, I was referring to the broad tone of your responses, which I took to be directed at me. As I said, I was frankly surprised by it, since I had thought myself to be very careful to be respectful and appropriate in my posts, to which you seemed to responding. And, again, I assumed that you had noticed my username. I'm sure, when one is following all the threads you clearly follow, it becomes difficult to keep track of peripheral information about every random new poster.

Quote
Quote
and you serve no one by the vitriol in your tone.

If my tone is harsh, it is because this is an issue that, unlike what some think, will go away, resolve itself, or can be put off much longer.  I have seen Churches (like Jerusalem) being destroyed by this.

Point taken. Although I am of the opinion that, if current trends continue, any Hellenocentrism in the Patriarchate of Constantinople will, in fact, be naturally resolved, simply as a function of those who now comprise said Church, I am also in agreement with you that it is necessary to oppose it in every way possible. We may well differ as to the methods--perhaps simply because I am inside the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and you are not. I would humbly suggest that those who oppose "Phanariotism" and "Ultramontanism" in the EP from outside might do well to temper their rhetoric, because there are many inside the EP who equally oppose such anti-Orthodox trends, but they are often offended by the heightened rhetoric, which seems to indicate a hatred of all that is Greek about the EP. It may be a cliche to say that you'll catch more flies with honey, but in this case it may well be true.

Quote
Btw, I can't find this post you quote:

As a matter of curiousity, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "take with a grain of salt alleged struggles against Hellenism"?

It was said by Second Chance here, in response to my first post on this subject a few weeks ago, in the "How are Moscow and Constantinople so Different" thread. I hope I did not inaccurately attribute the quote to you.
Quote
Quote
So...can we talk, or not?

sure, anytime.

Glad to hear it.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
franthonyc
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA Metropolis of Detroit
Posts: 84


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 13, 2009, 05:34:36 PM »

Father Anthony,

I have already responded to most of the topics in our debate by my three posts dated yesterday, but they haven't passed moderation. I simply have no will for writing them again. Perhaps you may get them into inbox if PP admin.

There is no need to apologize, I don't hold you infallable.

I should hope not. Nonetheless, I would not wish to lose credibility by making unfounded claims, and inasmuch as my faulty memory of a subject last studied in depth three years ago allowed me to do just that, I think it important to acknowledge the error.

Quote
Father, I don't know where to begin in pointing to contradictions and inaccuracies in presented interpretation. The point is that history and interpretation of legal norms are not matter of dogma.

I have to confess I am uncertain what you mean by the second sentence above, and find myself at a loss to locate any demonstration of contradictions and inaccuracies in your response below. I must say, however, that since the Canons of the Church are the products of a specific time and place, and yet are supremely relevant to our current situation, the history and interpretation of legal norms which inform their interpretation are, while not "matters of dogma" supremely pertinent in regard to the application of those canons to the current reality of the Church.

Quote
a) Cyprus was always a province; if all the provinces were autocephalous in the meaning we know today, there would have been no need for granting autocephalia to the Church of Cyprus explicitly. Specifically, autocephalia was granted to Cyprus, (the same as status of Patriarch was granted to Constantinopolis and Jerusalem, unlike Alexandria, Rome and Antioch in case of which the Councils just sanctioned ancient custom) since Antioch was appointing bishops there for some time. (Isa Almisry would know more specifics about that). The rest of the quoted 8 canon of 3rd council could be interpreted in a number of ways, one of which is that it underlined the need for discipline in not overreaching the boundaries.

I'm sure that this interpretation is held by some, but it is not supported by history or the actual text of the canon. The autocephaly of Cyprus was upheld, not granted, by Canon 8. The Council examined carefully how the last three Metropolitans of Constantia had been elected and ordained--it was established to the satisfaction of the council that they had been locally elected and ordained, without any involvement from Antioch. The reason the issue was brought up was that +John of Antioch had persuaded a military leader to intervene in Cyprus to prevent the clergy there from electing a new metropolitan when the incumbent metropolitan reposed. The clergy, against the threats of this soldier (Dionysius, magister utriusque militiae), elected and ordained Rheginus, who then went to the Council to ask its support against further interference from Antioch.

The fact that +John was absent from the council meant that he was unable to give any proof (supposing he possessed any) that Cyprus had in more ancient times been dependent on Antioch, so it is historically possible that Cyprus here did, in fact, gain its autocephaly where none had existed before, gained it specifically in despite of the unspecified claims of Antioch to broader jurisdiction mentioned and upheld in Nicaea 6. But, from the perspective of the Council of Ephesus itself, Cyprus' autocephaly was maintained, not granted for the first time. Had it not existed from the beginning, it would not have been granted. This is made very clear in the text of the canon itself.

Quote
b) Ethiopia was never part of the Empire, therefore they wouldn't fit into definition of "autocephalous" metropolias that followed the borders of provinces. They were granted autocephalous recently, by OO Copt Patriarch of Alexandra, which wouldn't be the case if they follow presented interpretation of Nicea. Armenians, too, wouldn't fit into Nicea criterion for autocephalia, neither Georgia, whom was granted status of Patriarchate by Antioch after Chalcedon - they were not part of the Empire, except partly Armenia, and that was briefly.

Ok...but what was the status of Ethiopia in the beginning, before the "monophysite" schism? Was it always under Alexandria? Or did Alexandria gain primacy over it in the process of expansion of supra-metropolitan authority after Nicaea?

I am not arguing that only Roman provinces are permitted autocephaly, by the way. Simply that autocephaly was of a much more local character in the early centuries of the Church, and that, by extension, the centralization of smaller, autocephalous, local churches into ethnic churches is one which ought to be examined, particularly since many of the forces which made that centralization necessary or expedient are no longer necessarily applicable today. But those forces were active both inside and outside the Roman Empire, often, in fact, as a result of conflict with the Roman Empire.

Quote
c) Competences of Constantinopolis were not finally set by canon 28 of the 4th council, but by 2nd canon of 6th council, that elevated local council of Sardica to be universaly binding. On the grounds of the council of Sardica, that granted competence for hearing appeals to Rome, interpreted in connection with the canon of elevating Constantionpolis to the Second Rome (for she was likewise "a Royal City"), the Constantinopolis gained the competences she is exercising/overstepping today.

Thanks for the reminder of the importance of Sardica to the process. My point remains that the Patriarchal system was never (to the best of my knowledge) explicitly enshrined by the canons of the Church. Constantinople's jurisdiction is explicitly defined in Canon 28 of Chalcedon, with the universal right of appeal added in Penthekti as an extension of the rights of Rome. The final abrogation of the rights of the Metropolitans in favor of the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem is never, as far as I know, enshrined in the canons. It is simply accepted by the Church. That does not make it any less valid for the time it held, nor necessarily for the present, but it does highlight the fact that, although reality caught up with the ideal set out at Nicaea, that ideal was never explicitly abandoned by the Church gathered in council.

Quote
Briefly, an autocephalous - "self thinking" or "thinking for herself" - Church is a result of grouping of several dioceses/eparchias around one and formation of separate bodies of such groupings that communicate with other autocephalias on equal footing. That process has not been completed before decisions of 6th ecumenical council entered into force.

That's a definition of autocephalous that I've not heard before. My understanding of the technical definition of an Autocephalous Church is one that elects and ordains its own Primate, without any dependence on an outside see. In the Orthodox world today, there are 15 Churches that function in this way. In the Church of the Nicene Council, there were nearer to a hundred, at least by the letter of Canon 4 of Nicaea. In the Orthodox world today, those churches are, with some super-national exceptions, defined on the national level. In the Church of the Nicene Council, they were defined on more local lines.

Quote
[qoote author=franthonyc link=topic=21155.msg320280#msg320280 date=1242188879]However, each of the national churches has, I suspect, similar stains on its history (unless we are to believe that in all cases, the Phanariot Greeks were the aggressors and villains ...

This is the problem, you suspect and draw the conclusions on that.

Greeks are my older brothers.[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean here. I certainly have no interest in researching and then outlining the faults on all sides in the course of the last three centuries. But I know they exist, and urge against a blanket condemnation of only the Phanariot Greeks when all have a share in the blame.

Quote
[qoote author=franthonyc link=topic=21155.msg320280#msg320280 date=1242188879]Please remember, I do serve a Greek parish. I do know how the people think, what they are like, and how they would respond if placed under a non-Greek bishop. I can well imagine the reaction of the people of Romania, Serbia, or Bulgaria if their ecclesiastical independence were revoked and they were placed under foreign bishops.

Your parishioners were mainly descendants of Greek refugees from what's know today as Turkey. That fact slightly differ their identity from the Greeks in Greece.[/quote]

You assume this, and in my case falsely. Most of my parishioners are Greeks from Greece. That certainly is the mindset of the parish--those few who came from Asia Minor have largely been subsumed into the broader and shallower Hellenic identity of the parish at large.

Quote
That reaction, however, is part of the problem. It speaks to the reality that, for most of the people in the Orthodox Churches around the world, ethnicity is all too often more important than Faith.

Quite the contrary. Diaspora Greeks are known to be more ethnic than the others, to the extent it was difficult for me to believe about certain issues when I've heard about them for the first time. We don't mind it, because we understand the difficulties their ascendants undergone, and the need to shield their identity after the disaster they survived. They did the best they could, I'm sure.

The problem is, what you describe as over-emphasize on ethnicity is exactly process of their de-Christianization, namely, "Hellenization". They can't be too "Hellenic", but they can be less Christian than needed, as happens sometimes, by your own witness.

Therefore, no need for Hellenization. That's exactly what caused what you describe as a problem.

I would be curious to know a little more about the mindset, worldview, and priorities in general of most Orthodox Christians in the mother countries. The impression I have gotten at every turn is that, while there are still many faithful Christians in each country, the preponderance of the population, whether in Russia, or Greece, or Serbia, have the same issues as the "Diaspora" (though perhaps to a lesser degree) with conflating their ethnicity and their Faith, often subordinating the latter to the former. If you contend that this is truly and significantly not the case, I am overjoyed to hear it. I must wonder, however, how it can be that the people of the Mother Countries are so pious and devout, yet the statistics of failed marriage, fornication, and abortion are so catastrophically high.

As for the fact that their over-emphasis on ethnicity contributes to their de-Christianization--that's exactly what I am trying to say.

Quote
Regarding the ethnicity issue, I believe you would be interested in hearing the witness of Fr. Ambrose, posting here as Irish Hermit. He is of Irish origin, tonsured monk and priest in Serbia some thirty years ago, and has been transferred to ROCOR in New Zealand some fifteen years ago. Maybe either his ethnic background, or the fact that he was a convert from Roman Catholicism, was an impediment for him to become a bishop or patriarch already, but certainly not prevented us, online Orthodox (and several dozens converts he helped to attract) of various etnicities, to love and respect him very much.

I have been struck, of course, by Fr. Ambrose's presence on the site. It doesn't surprise me, however, that a group of Orthodox Christians who have gravitated to a forum dedicated to Orthodox Christianity would view their Faith as the center of their identity, above their ethnicity, and therefore welcome converts to that Faith, regardless of their ethnicity. That, unfortunately, tells me nothing about those who are not active on this forum, and nothing about the degree to which they do or do not subordinate their Faith to their nationalism.

Quote
Personally, I wouldn't have any problem of being of the flock of a bishop of a "foreign" (as if someone could be of a "foreign" ethnicity among the Orthodox Christian, as if we are not brothers and sisters) ethnicity, but I would have a problem in being of the flock of a bishop of doubtful Orthodoxy. Seeing the history of Phanar, particularly of the last eight decades, and the surprising fact that we've been encountering letters that emphasize on good examples of Athenagroras and Mekletios Metraksasis, I feel the need for the greatest possible distance from them not because of their ethnicity, but for other reasons.

I'm glad to hear you have no necessary objection to a bishop of another ethnicity. The point about doubtful Orthodoxy is a worthy one--though I have not yet encountered a convincing argument outlining the specific violations of Orthodoxy attributed to the two you mention. Most mention the diologue with the Roman Catholics first of all, but I have yet to see the Faith violated. So far, it is Rome that has made the concessions, that has admitted to wrongs in the past, that has conceded our correctness on the Creed, etc. Believe me, if that ever changes, I'll be singing a different tune. But so far, they are coming to us, as far as I can tell.

Quote
Forgive me for everything.

Nothing to forgive. I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness.
Logged

Τῷ μεγάλῳ χρίεται μύρῳ καὶ χειρονεῖται βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ τῶν Ῥωμαίων, πάντων δηλαδὴ τῶν χριστιανῶν...οὐδὲν οὖν ἔνι καλὸν, υἱέ μου, ἵνα λέγῃς, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν ἔχομεν, οὐχὶ βασιλέα, οὐκ ἔνι δυνατὸν εἰς τοὺς χριστιανοὺς, ἔκκλησίαν ἔχειν καὶ βασιλέα οὐκ ἔχειν. – EP Anthony to Basil of Moscow c. 1395
eleni-sinner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 9


« Reply #108 on: June 29, 2009, 04:18:25 AM »

Hello to all/

Is the Church Roman?

I recently found some very interesting History facts about Byzantine History....all the Atheist of the History books written to destroy ORTHODOXY is not a coincidence,but a fact.
May the Lord Go Jesus Christ give us back Agia Sophia...
Please read about the History!
Quote
  One of the great differences between the Byzantines and the Latins was that the former considered the emperor to be the representative of God on Earth and the most sacred personage of all, while the patriarch was reduced to representing the Church as such.  The Latins, on the other hand, saw the Pope as the representative of God, and rulers were subject to the will of the Church.  It is for this reason that the history of Byzantium is the story of the competition between the Byzantine emperors and the Roman Papacy, until the definitive break of 1054.

Later, the Byzantine Church saw its power grow while the emperors saw theirs shrink, so much so that after 1453 it was the Orthodox Church that kept alive the tradition of the Empire, its ideas and its culture, up to this very day.

I hope this website will help to share the truth about the Empire, its culture, its people and its life. I hope that those who read it will realize that the story of Byzantium is as interesting as that of Rome, and that Byzantine civilization was the most advanced of the Middle Ages, at a moment when the West was but a shadow lost in ignorance.
http://www.imperiobizantino.com/byzantium.htm
And please pass this on if any of you write in other forums!

ICXC NIKA
eleni
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 29, 2009, 04:22:12 AM »

Quote
President Karolos Papoulias of Greece on Wednesday visited the Patriarchate of Roman Orthodox in Damascus.

The Greek President listened to an explanation by Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim of Antioch and all the East for Roman Orthodox on the Virgin Mary cathedral which is considered as one of the important Christian historic sites in Syria which dates back to the 2nd century A.C. President Papoulias was accompanied by State Minister for Presidential affairs Mansour Azzam.

source

I like Arabs writing 'bout Orthodoxy Wink
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #110 on: January 13, 2010, 12:03:11 PM »

Can Patriarch Ignatius speak Greek?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2010, 01:42:55 PM »

Can Patriarch Ignatius speak Greek?

He's fluent in Arabic, English and French, but I would assume he would also have at least some knowledge of it since the Patriarchate of Antioch still makes use of plenty of Greek in its liturgies, and he would undoubtedly have studied Greek during his time at seminary in Paris.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2010, 01:43:11 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #112 on: February 10, 2010, 04:28:41 AM »

A Proto-Romanian (a Latin speaker from the Balkans).  What about him?
Uh huh.
So I guess it was the Romanian Empire....

Could be.  In the Latin of the time and area, it was the same word.  As a matter of fact, at the time the word "Romania" had gained currency as the name of the empire.  Emperor Theodosius (a Latin speaker, but being from Spain you would expect that) does refer to his "desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness..."  No mention of the bishop of New Rome, to whom the edict was addressed. Oh, well.

Quote
Roll Eyes
Nice picture too.

Here are nicer ones.  Is that Greek?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/ConstantineCoin.jpg

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/

http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/

Render unto Caesar.

Quote
I'll make a note on ratemyprofessor.com

is there a ratemytherapist?
Wow man thanks for telling me, Teodosio el Sevillano basically made Christianity the imperial religion.
makes me proud to be a sevillano/hispalense.
all you orthodox Christians should thank the city of Seville for producing such a great saint that changed the world forever.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2010, 05:09:45 AM »

if it weren't for Spanish emperors from Seville i.e. Theodosius the Great who made Christianity the imperial religion, the world wouldn't be Christian as we know it.
All the churches in the world trace their heritage back to Theodosius the great, Spanish emperor from Seville, all orthodoxy in the east, and catholicism in the americas,  and whatever protestant states out there came from Theodosius' imperial decree.
Spain (really Seville) made the Roman Empire Christian.
Theodosius two sons each became an emperor in both halves of the Roman Empire.
So The Greek Roman empire was ruled by a Spaniard, so too was the western one.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arcadius
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theodosius_the_Great_(emperor)
Honorius western emperor
 Spain one of the Greatest Defenders and propagators of Christianity.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #114 on: February 10, 2010, 05:15:14 AM »

so whenever you see Christianity in Government,Europe, or the Americas think of The Spanish Emperor Theodosius the great.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #115 on: February 10, 2010, 05:19:17 AM »

Topic split from this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20839.0.html
ozgeorge




even though some of us supposed barbarians are actually roum decedents. 

You can't have it both ways. Smiley
Either you are roum, or that term is meaningless.
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 14,723

Yeah The Orthodox Church is Roman, you're even in it.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,909


"My god is greater."


« Reply #116 on: February 10, 2010, 10:24:24 AM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #117 on: February 10, 2010, 10:28:29 AM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?
Life is vain, deal with it.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,909


"My god is greater."


« Reply #118 on: February 10, 2010, 10:32:40 AM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #119 on: February 10, 2010, 10:36:55 AM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
The orthodox church is not ethno centric right?
and that it tolerates all races.
And besides I don't want to be orthodox, if they discriminate against Spanish (roman) culture, which made Orthodoxy the state religion of Greece (the emperor Theodosius was Spanish), I'd rather be Roman Catholic.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 10:38:30 AM by Christianus » 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 #120 on: February 10, 2010, 10:53:58 AM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
The orthodox church is not ethno centric right?
and that it tolerates all races.
And besides I don't want to be orthodox, if they discriminate against Spanish (roman) culture, which made Orthodoxy the state religion of Greece (the emperor Theodosius was Spanish), I'd rather be Roman Catholic.

So you don't want to be in the Church of Christ?? Good to know.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #121 on: February 10, 2010, 12:01:01 PM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
The orthodox church is not ethno centric right?
and that it tolerates all races.
And besides I don't want to be orthodox, if they discriminate against Spanish (roman) culture, which made Orthodoxy the state religion of Greece (the emperor Theodosius was Spanish), I'd rather be Roman Catholic.

So you don't want to be in the Church of Christ?? Good to know.
Who said I didn't?
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #122 on: February 10, 2010, 12:04:38 PM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
The orthodox church is not ethno centric right?
and that it tolerates all races.
And besides I don't want to be orthodox, if they discriminate against Spanish (roman) culture, which made Orthodoxy the state religion of Greece (the emperor Theodosius was Spanish), I'd rather be Roman Catholic.
There have always been Neo-Latin/Romance speaking populations in the Orthodox Church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #123 on: February 10, 2010, 01:50:11 PM »

Wow, this discussion is even more pointless than the Macedonia naming dispute.
you make a better discussion, and tell the romans that orthodoxy never was roman, even in the first 1000 years of christianity, and that the roman culture is discriminated against in Orthodoxy. eh?

Or maybe you can explain why this matters?
The orthodox church is not ethno centric right?
and that it tolerates all races.
And besides I don't want to be orthodox, if they discriminate against Spanish (roman) culture, which made Orthodoxy the state religion of Greece (the emperor Theodosius was Spanish), I'd rather be Roman Catholic.
Well then you have other problems: Rome supressed Spain's native rite, when there was a Spain (there was no Spain in Theodosius' day).
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,859



« Reply #124 on: February 10, 2010, 02:22:24 PM »

Well then you have other problems: Rome suppressed Spain's native rite, when there was a Spain (there was no Spain in Theodosius' day).

Stop with all of the details!
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #125 on: February 10, 2010, 02:28:45 PM »

The Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church. Nationality and ethnicity mean nothing in the Church. Thus the Orthodox Church cannot be Roman, nor can it be Greek, or Russian, or American, or Athenian, or Parisian, or New Yorker, etc...
However, a person can be a Roman and be Orthodox. For example, I'm American by nationality, and Irish/Scot/Brit/Cherokee/Dutch by blood, and I'm Orthodox.

Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

The Orthodox Church is of the Body of Christ. It is part of the Heavenly Kingdom, the Kingdom not of this world. To claim it is a part of any earthly kingdom, IMO would make it a mere man-created religion.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:29:38 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #126 on: February 10, 2010, 02:31:21 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:31:55 PM by augustin717 » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #127 on: February 10, 2010, 02:39:21 PM »

Just because it was the Imperial Church doesn't mean it was of the Roman Empire. It's currently the state religion in nations like Greece & Russia, but that doesn't make it Greek or Russian. IMO to claim that the Orthodox Church is of a worldly nation is bordering on heresy/blasphemy. It's ethnocentrism and nationalism, both of which have NO place in the Church. You can be proud of your country and of your race, but being an Orthodox Christian comes first.

Just because I'm Orthodox doesn't make me Roman, nor does it make me Russian or Greek. Being Orthodox makes me Orthodox, it makes me a part of the Kingdom of God.
Because I'm Orthodox, means I am, by the blood of Christ, the brother of millions of Orthodox Christians. Through this, and by membership of the body of Christ, I can share in the culture of my brothers & sisters. However when it comes down to it, just because I'm Orthodox, that doesn't automatically make me a citizen of any earthly empire, and it certainly doesn't change my race.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - John 18:36
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:44:01 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #128 on: February 10, 2010, 02:45:10 PM »

You make claims that ignore history: the church at that time saw itself both catholic and roman. Actually when they talked about the world "icumeni", they only meant the empire.
If being Roman hadn't had any importance in the church's own self-understanding, why was Constantinople called "Nea Romi" and then, why would even the Russians claim the title, later, for themselves?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:47:25 PM by augustin717 » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #129 on: February 10, 2010, 02:49:24 PM »

Are you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?

What do the Saints & Church Fathers say about this? It doesn't matter to me what the everyday Christian thought, or even what the Emperors thought, if the Saints & Church Fathers disagree, then it's wrong.

Ethnocentrism & nationalism are disgusting blights and no Orthodox Christian should ever find themselves holding to either of those. (You could even argue they are heresies... at the least they are sins that need to be repented of)

You could certainly argue that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot say the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said before, the Orthodox Church belongs to the Kingdom of God, NOT to the Roman Empire or any other earthly kingdom.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:53:03 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #130 on: February 10, 2010, 02:55:38 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #131 on: February 10, 2010, 02:57:45 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 02:58:40 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #132 on: February 10, 2010, 02:58:37 PM »

Quote
You could certainly argue that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot say the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said before, the Orthodox Church belongs to the Kingdom of God, NOT to the Roman Empire or any other earthly kingdom.
The OC was certainly Roman (Imperial). Maybe too much. That's why it lost the Egypt, Syria and their native churches.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #133 on: February 10, 2010, 03:00:14 PM »

Quote
You could certainly argue that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot say the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said before, the Orthodox Church belongs to the Kingdom of God, NOT to the Roman Empire or any other earthly kingdom.
The OC was certainly Roman (Imperial). Maybe too much. That's why it lost the Egypt, Syria and their native churches.
I'm sorry but that is certainly not correct. The leaders of the Orthodox Church may have made those mistakes, but the Orthodox Church itself was never Roman. You are treating the Orthodox Church like it's the same as the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. We aren't the same as them.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #134 on: February 10, 2010, 03:03:49 PM »

I make historical claims to which you always answer with dogmatic/theological claims.
Dialogue of the deaf.
Quote
you are treating the Orthodox Church like it's the same as the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. We aren't the same as them.
I never quite thought that out, because it never troubled me.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #135 on: February 10, 2010, 03:06:50 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #136 on: February 10, 2010, 03:19:10 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.
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
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #137 on: February 10, 2010, 03:20:39 PM »

Quote
Even during the days of Justinian, Constantine and other Emperors, the Orthodox Church was simply the Orthodox Church. A country, a city, a people can be Orthodox, but Orthodoxy cannot be of any earthly organization.

 Every body knows that our church was the Imperial Church, thence the Roman Church, back in the day. And Rome shared into this, as well.

The first nation to make the Orthodox Church the state Church was Armenia, which was not within the Roman empire, in 301.  Ever since the early days, before the Church even reached Antioch, the Roman Empire did not contain all of the Church.

What about the Ethiopian Church?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #138 on: February 10, 2010, 03:47:45 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.

The physical institution is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church is both physical and spiritual. I don't see how you could have thought I was saying otherwise.

I make historical claims to which you always answer with dogmatic/theological claims.
Dialogue of the deaf.
Quote
you are treating the Orthodox Church like it's the same as the Roman Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions. We aren't the same as them.
I never quite thought that out, because it never troubled me.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you aren't realizing that the Orthodox Church is not a religion. It's a faith. All those others are religions. Yes you can look at the Orthodox Church from a historical perspective, and we should. However we shouldn't do it in the way the world does. The world sees us as just another religion, yet we recognize that we are much more than that. Our historical perspective of our Church is seen through the eyes of the Church, not through the eyes of the world.
The world says that the Orthodox Church & the Byzantine Empire were (almost) one in the same in many aspects. Yet we recognize that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. The Empire was an icon of the heavenly kingdom, but it isn't the heavenly kingdom. The Church IS part of the heavenly kingdom, not just as an icon but in reality.
The Church is in the world, but is not of it.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 03:50:25 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #139 on: February 10, 2010, 03:50:36 PM »

The physical institution is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church is both physical and spiritual. I don't see how you could have thought I was saying otherwise.

When the Hierarchy are Roman and the Emperor calls the Councils, how do you honestly separate the Church from Rumm?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #140 on: February 10, 2010, 03:57:52 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

I am Orthodox. Therefore, this means I am of the Church. Because I am of the Church, is the Church also of me? No. The Church is of God.
The Romans were of the Church. The Church was not of the Romans.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 04:08:18 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #141 on: February 10, 2010, 04:13:35 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

It seems to me that 'the Church' as a visible institution is a man-made institution. Perhaps spiritual inspired but not everyone 'in' that visible institution is truly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I am thinking of the Parable of the Sower...

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. (Mat 13:24-30)

The visible institution is a mixture of Saints and Sinners, Good Seed and Cockle.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #142 on: February 10, 2010, 04:19:59 PM »

Easy, the Roman Empire was a human institution formed by men. Kingdoms are from men, their leaders are only in place by the grace of God, but that doesn't make their kingdoms and extension of the Kingdom of God.

Would you say the Orthodox Church is Russian if President Medvedev called a council and if the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church all Russian? After all, he's Orthodox, so is Putin, and so are the leaders of the Orthodox Church, so does that make the Orthodox Church Russian or does that make Russia Orthodox?

The fact that the Emperor called councils and the leaders of the Church were Roman meant that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. It doesn't mean the Orthodox Church was Roman.

It seems to me that 'the Church' as a visible institution is a man-made institution. Perhaps spiritual inspired but not everyone 'in' that visible institution is truly in the Kingdom of Heaven. I am thinking of the Parable of the Sower...

Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. (Mat 13:24-30)

The visible institution is a mixture of Saints and Sinners, Good Seed and Cockle.


Again I don't disagree, but all Saints and Sinners in the Church are members of the Body of Christ and partake of his Body and Blood.
There is the Kingdom in Heaven and the Kingdom on Earth. The Kingdom on Earth is the Church. However the Church is the Church, not a government institution.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,449



« Reply #143 on: February 10, 2010, 04:22:12 PM »

A
Quote
re you claiming that our Church is earthly and that the Roman Empire was simply an extension of Gods kingdom?
I only claim that there was a time when it was commonly accepted in the church that the empire of the romans had vast spiritual signification, being an icon of the Kingdom of heaven.

I don't disagree with that, I'm simply saying that you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman. As I said in my previous post, the Orthodox Church is of the Kingdom of Heaven, and not of any earthly kingdom. It's perfectly fine to say that the Roman Empire was Orthodox. But you cannot claim that the Orthodox Church was Roman.

So you are arguing that it's Spiritual without an actual physical institution? That sounds objectively Protestant of you.
No, he was arguing that the Church isn't the arm of any state.
Logged

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