OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 02:36:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is The Orthodox Church Roman?  (Read 21360 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
« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 2,165


+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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,200


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: 35,605



« 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: 2,165


+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: 35,605



« 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: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« 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: 35,605



« 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: 2,439



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 2,165


+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: 35,605



« 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: 2,439



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 35,605



« 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: 2,439



« 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
Tags: Roman EP Bashing nomenclature 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.347 seconds with 73 queries.