OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 12:37:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate  (Read 5111 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: May 12, 2009, 01:08:13 AM »

http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html

Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon


A Statement by the Faculty
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Schoolof Theology
Brookline, Massachusetts
April 30, 2009

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith..."
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,888



« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 01:25:11 AM »

I am Orthodox because Andrew was the Rock, and he has the keys to heaven.
Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 03:33:16 AM »

http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html

Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon


A Statement by the Faculty
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Schoolof Theology
Brookline, Massachusetts
April 30, 2009

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith..."

Here is the entire statement....

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and

The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon

 

A Statement by the Faculty

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Brookline, Massachusetts

April 30, 2009

 

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

 

The Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons and often under difficult circumstances.

 

The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology profoundly regrets that statements recently have been made which misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Indeed, some injudicious remarks have insulted the person of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and have attempted to diminish the significance of his ministry.

 

These statements, made by bishops, priests and laity, have been widely distributed. Regretfully, they have done little to advance the cause of Orthodox unity and the witness of the Church today. Indeed, some observations have misrepresented the traditional basis of Orthodox ecclesiology. They contradict the admonition of St. Paul that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

 
Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization

 

The Church, chiefly through the Ecumenical Councils, has established significant principles of ecclesiastical organization. These principles are expressed in the canons of the Councils and in subsequent historical practices which have been sanctioned by the Church. These principles support the proclamation of the Gospel and strengthen the good order of the Church.

 

The Ecumenical Patriarch has been accorded specific prerogatives of witness and service from the time of the fourth century. This was a period when the Church was able explicitly to provide for canonical structures following the period of great persecution of the first three centuries. These prerogatives form the basis for his ministry to the entire Orthodox Church. These prerogatives distinguish the responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch from other bishops of the Orthodox Church. They clearly grant to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople a primacy among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities.

 

A number of recent commentators have challenged the leadership and responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They have misinterpreted canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and related canons and practices. In order to appreciate properly the significance of canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, it must be interpreted in the light of other canons and practices of the Church at that time. It is far from being irrelevant as some may claim.

 

The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (381) in canon 3 acknowledged that the bishop of Constantinople enjoys “prerogatives of honor (presveia times).” While recognizing that the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) ranked after the bishop of Old Rome, a parallel between the primatial positions of the two bishops was affirmed.

 

At the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople received further elaboration especially in canons 9 and 17. These canons stated that disputes in local churches could be appealed to Constantinople. Canon 28 of Chalcedon continued to draw a parallel between Old Rome and New Rome and reaffirmed the decision of 381. Canon 28 of the Council stated that the bishop of Constantinople had “equal prerogatives” (isa presveia) to those of Old Rome. Over two hundred years later, the distinctive position of Constantinople was also reaffirmed in canon 36 of the Penthekti (Quinsext) Council (in Trullo) in 692.

 

Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other Local (autocephalous) Churches. At the time of the fifth century, these regions commonly were referred to as ‘barbarian nations’ because they were outside the Byzantine commonwealth.  (St. Paul in Romans 1: 14 also had used the term ‘barbarians’ to refer to those beyond the old Roman Empire.)  Canon 28 of Chalcedon appears to clarify the reference in canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople which says that churches in the “barbarian nations” should be governed “according to the tradition established by the fathers.” 

 

This interpretation of canon 28 is supported by the fact that the geographical boundaries of the Local Churches are set. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Council of Constantinople in canon 2 clearly states: “Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…” This principle is also reflected in canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea (325) and in the Apostolic Canons 14 and 34, also dating from the fourth century.

 

The Church invested only the bishop of Constantinople with the responsibility to organize ecclesial life in the places not under the care of other Local (autocephalous) Churches. This is reflected, for example, in the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century. The pastoral and missionary activities inaugurated by St. John Chrysostom while Patriarch of Constantinople are especially instructive in this regard. One must also take note of the missionary activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Central and Eastern Europe from the ninth under Patriarch Photios and later on through the sixteenth centuries.  In these cases, the Ecumenical Patriarchate acted to spread the Gospel in territories beyond the boundaries of other Local Churches.  [1]

 

The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1589, confirmed in the Golden Seal Certificate in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in Constantinople in 1593 when patriarchal status was granted. In these Tomes, the territorial jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tome of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches. 

 

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has recently said:

 

The Orthodox Church is an orderly community of autocephalous or autonomous Churches, while she is fully aware of herself as the authentic continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. She fulfills her spiritual mission through the convocation of local or major Synods, as the canonical tradition has established it, in order to safeguard and affirm the communion of the local churches with each other and with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the First Throne in the Orthodox Church, has been granted by decisions of Ecumenical Councils (canon 3 of the II Ecumenical Council; canons 9, 17 and 28 of the IV Ecumenical Council; canon 36 of the Quinsext Ecumenical Council) and by the centuries-long ecclesial praxis, the exceptional responsibility and obligatory mission to care for the protection of the faith as it has been handed down to us and of the canonical order (taxis). And so it has served with the proper prudence and for seventeen centuries that obligation to the local Orthodox churches, always within the framework of the canonical tradition and always through the utilization of the Synodal system… [2]

 

History bears this out. It is attested to by innumerable examples of initiative undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to exercise leadership for those Local Churches prevented by unusual circumstances from doing so.  In this capacity, the Ecumenical Patriarchate elected patriarchs for other Sees when asked, acted as arbitrator in disputes, deposed controversial patriarchs and metropolitans outside its territory, and served on many occasions up to the present as mediator in resolving issues of Pan-Orthodox concern.

 

Especially important for the well-being of world Orthodoxy in recent times was the role of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in convening a series of Pan-Orthodox Conferences in 1961, 1963, 1964, and 1968 to address immediate issues requiring a Pan-Orthodox consensus, and to make preparations for the convocation of a Great and Holy Council. These Conferences marked the beginning of a new period of conciliarity among the Orthodox Churches. The Ecumenical Patriarchate acted with wisdom and love to draw the Churches out of their isolation so that they might address critical issues together.

Numerous consultations have taken place since then to examine the ten themes which were proposed by the Churches in 1976 for study in anticipation of the convening of a Great and Holy Council. Among these themes was the topic of the Diaspora.

 

When this conciliar process began in 1961, all the Autocephalous Churches recognized that it was the prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to lead this effort for the good of the entire Church. For over forty years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has wisely led this conciliar process with the concurrence of the other Autocephalous Churches.

 

In conjunction with this conciliar process, the distinctive initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch, with the collaboration of other Autocephalous Churches, have led to significant events in the life of the Orthodox Church.  Among these are: the re-establishment of the Church of Albania (1992); the arbitration of disputed patriarchal elections in the Churches of Bulgaria (1998) and Jerusalem (2005); and the establishment of an orderly succession of the Archbishop of Cyprus (2006). In all of these cases the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was of singular importance. It was a leadership fully recognized by all the Autocephalous Churches.

 

Far from acting in an arbitrary manner, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew personally has profoundly contributed to the life of the Orthodox Church through his persistent efforts to deepen the sense of conciliarity and common witness among the Autocephalous Churches.  In addition to the above developments, he has visited all the Autocephalous Churches and cultivated a personal relationship with their leaders. Most importantly, he has convened and presided at the historic Synaxis of Orthodox Primates in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2008.

 

The wise words of Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis should be recalled:

 

The Patriarch of Constantinople rejects any plenitudo potestatis ecclesiae and holds his supreme ecclesiastical power not as episcopus ecclesiae universalis, but as Ecumenical Patriarch, the senior and most important bishop in the East.  He does not wield unrestricted administrative power.  He is not an infallible judge of matters of faith.  Always the presupposition of his power is that in using it he will hold to two principles: conciliarity and collegiality in the responsibilities of the Church and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the other churches… [3]

 

With these observations in mind, the following must be noted with regard to the distinctive primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch.  Firstly, all the Autocephalous Churches recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch as the ‘first bishop’ of the Church. He has specific responsibilities for coordinating a common witness among the Autocephalous Churches.  As such, the Ecumenical Patriarch exercises this ministry first of all in relationship with the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch is the president of this Synod. He does not act over or above the other bishops. According to the Orthodox perspective, primacy involves conciliarity. He always acts together with the other bishops of the Patriarchal Synod. Likewise, in his relationship with other Orthodox, the Ecumenical Patriarch is honored as the protos, the first bishop of the Church. This position gives to the Ecumenical Patriarch the special responsibility for identifying issues requiring the attention of the entire Church and for convening appropriate meetings to address these issues.  When the Orthodox meet in a Synaxis, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the presiding bishop of the meeting.

 

As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has said, the Ecumenical Patriarchate constitutes par excellence the center of all the local Orthodox churches. It heads these not by administering them, but by virtue of the primacy of its ministry of Pan-Orthodox unity and the coordination of the activities of all of Orthodoxy.”  [4]

 

 
The Development of the Orthodox Church in the United States

 

At the most recent Synaxis in Constantinople in October 2008, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew proposed to the other Primates that renewed attention be given to the so-called Diaspora. A part of the process leading to the Great and Holy Council, representatives of the Autocephalous Churches had examined the topic of the Diaspora in 1990 and 1993, and made significant recommendations.  As one of his proposals, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew called upon the Churches to “activate the 1993 agreement of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of the Holy and Great Council in order to resolve the pending matter of the Orthodox Diaspora.”   [5]  This was a clear indication that the Ecumenical Patriarchate refused to accept indefinitely the present canonical irregularities in places such as the United States.

 

Moreover, the Primates in their Statement affirmed the proposal of Patriarch Bartholomew that meetings be held in the year 2009 to resume discussions on this critical issue. They affirmed their “desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology. In this respect we welcome the proposal by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to convene Pan- Orthodox Consultations within the coming year 2009 on this subject, as well as for the continuation of preparations for the Holy and Great Council. In accordance with the standing order and practice of the Pan-Orthodox Consultations in Rhodes, it will invite all Autocephalous Churches.” [6]

 

Under the leadership of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Primates indicated that the status quo in the so-called Diaspora was not acceptable. 

 

The development of the Orthodox Church in the United States is very complex. The early growth of the Orthodox Church in this country has resulted from immigration, missionary activity, and the return of Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy. In more recent decades especially, the Church also has received many persons who have found in Orthodoxy the fullness of the historic Apostolic Faith. Truly, the Orthodox Church in this country has become a salutary witness to Our Lord and His Gospel. Through its teachings, ecumenical dialogues and philanthropic activities, the Orthodox Church has contributed to the process of reconciliation and healing in our society. 

 

At the same time, it must be recognized that the proper development of the Church in this country has not always followed the principles of ecclesiastical organization reflected in the canons of the Councils which have already been mentioned. The presence of multiple jurisdictions from various Autocephalous Churches in the same territory and the presence of multiple bishops in the same territory are clearly contrary to the canonical tradition. The good order of the Church has been shaken by acts which have gone contrary to ecclesiological principles and historical praxis. [7]

 

Among these acts was the grant of ‘Autocephaly’ to the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (the Metropolia) by the Church of Russia in 1970, thereby renaming this jurisdiction the “Orthodox Church in America.”  This action had no canonical basis. From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the majority of other Autocephalous Churches have refused to recognize the “autocephalous” status of this jurisdiction. As a result, this jurisdiction has not been accorded a place in global Pan-Orthodox discussions in accordance with the agreement of the Autocephalous Churches.

 

Yet, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction. Indeed, in the 1990s the Ecumenical Patriarchate frequently received representatives of this jurisdiction to discuss its irregular status.  While recognizing the historical road of this jurisdiction, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has affirmed that the canonical irregularities have not been resolved.

 

Under the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a truly Pan-Orthodox solution must be found for the entire Church in the United States. Recent Ecumenical Patriarchs and their representatives have consistently reiterated this fact. During his pastoral visit to Washington in 1990, Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios said:

It is truly a scandal for the unity of the Church to maintain more than one bishop in any given city; it clearly contravenes the sacred canons and Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a scandal that is exacerbated whenever phyletistic motives play a part, a practice soundly condemned by the Orthodox Church in the last century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a supra-national Church serving the unity of the Church, is not indifferent to the condition that has evolved, and will exert every effort in cooperation with the other Holy Orthodox Churches, and in accordance with canonical order, to resolve this thorny problem.   [8]

In order to address the difficult situation in America, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has consistently supported efforts aimed at increasing cooperation among the jurisdictions and at establishing proper order in accordance with the canons. Archbishop Athenagoras proposed a Conference of Orthodox Bishops in 1936. This proposal was the basis for the “Federation” which came into existence in 1943.  Archbishop Michael convened a gathering of Orthodox bishops in 1952 with the intention of having regular meetings.  Archbishop Iakovos led the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops (SCOBA) in 1960.  Since that time, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has served as the chairman of SCOBA in accordance with the agreements affirmed in the Pan-Orthodox Conferences.

 

Moreover, it was under the leadership of the Exarch of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that meetings of all Orthodox bishops were convened in this country. Archbishop Iakovos presided at the meeting in 1994. Archbishop Demetrios presided at meetings in 2001 and 2006.

 

Members of the Holy Cross Faculty have been actively involved in a number of initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate aimed at addressing the canonical irregularities of church life in America. The Faculty of Holy Cross was invited in 1977 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to submit a vision of unity for the Orthodox Church in the United States. The draft of this vision constituted one approach to the models of unity under study. [9] Faculty members have been invited to participate in meetings related to the preparation for the Great and Holy Council. The present Dean of Holy Cross was involved in meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Switzerland in 1990 and 1993 as well as a related meeting in 1995. 

 
Conclusions

 

We believe that the Ecumenical Patriarchate possesses distinctive prerogatives to serve the unity and witness of the entire Orthodox Church in accordance with the canons and the praxis of the Church.  Since the fourth century, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has acted in accordance with the canons to maintain and strengthen the “unity of spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) among the Autocephalous Churches.

 

Directly related to our situation in the United States is the interpretation of canon 28 of Chalcedon and related canons.  Although it deals with a specific situation of its time, canon 28 nevertheless safeguards principles which constitute the basis of permanent aspects of our canonical tradition.  Other canons do the same.  One might consider, for example, canon 6 of Nicaea or canon 3 of Constantinople or canon 39 of the Penthekti (Quinsext) Council  (in Trullo), among others.  In the first instance, an established order of church government is confirmed; in the second, an adjustment of church order is made to accommodate a special need.  In both instances, principles are provided which reveal the manner in which the Church expresses herself in different situations.  So it is with canon 28 of Chalcedon.  It confirms what in practice was already in progress at that time – a primacy of honor among equals for the bishop of Constantinople, expressed in a way which reflected this reality.

 

While not diminishing the significance of canon 28 and related canons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has wisely recognized the distinctive and complex features of Orthodoxy in the United States especially.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate has recommended that a truly Pan-Orthodox solution must be found. It has advocated this perspective in recent Pan-Orthodox discussions. In light of canonical tradition and ecclesial praxis, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is alone in the position to guide the Autocephalous Churches toward a proper resolution for the Church in the United States. 

 

We rejoice that much is made of Orthodox unity and the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in achieving it.  This is good and hopeful, in view of the fact that it keeps alive and at the forefront of our concerns the quest for this noble goal.  At the same time, however, it raises, once more, the issue about the way in which this unity should be achieved.  At the center of this discussion is our Mother Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the understanding of its role in initiating the process of the goal towards unity.

 

We look to the venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate to continue to lead the Autocephalous Churches in addressing the difficult challenge of the Orthodox Diaspora, especially here in the United States.  The recommendations of the Inter-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Consultations in Chambésy in 1990 and 1993, as well as the meeting there in 1995, provide significant proposals for addressing the irregularities of Church structures in the United States.

 

We endorse the proposal of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to activate the 1993 agreement which proposed the establishment of an Episcopal Assembly in given areas.  We look forward to meetings scheduled to take place this year to continue to examine the topic of the so-called Diaspora. 

 

We appeal to all, both clergy and laity, to pray for the unity of the Church and to commit ourselves to words and deeds of healing and reconciliation so that our good and loving God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, will be honored and glorified. 

 

[1] See, Lewis J. Patsavos, Primacy and Conciliarity: Studies in the Primacy of the See of Constantinople and the Synodical Structure of the Orthodox Church, Brookline, 1995.

 

[2] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address to the Ukrainian Nation,” July 26, 2008.

 

[3] Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki, 1976, p. 236. This outstanding study documents the historic role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate especially in relationship with the other Autocephalous Churches.

 

[4] Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Encountering the Mystery, New York, 2008, p. xl.

 

[5]  Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, “Address at the Synaxis of the Heads of Orthodox Churches,” Constantinople, October 10, 2008.

 

[6] “Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Church,” Constantinople, October 12, 2008.

 

[7]  See, Thomas FitzGerald, The Orthodox Church, Westport, 1995, pp. 101-115.

 

[8]  “Remarks of Patriarch Dimitrios,” The Orthodox Church 26:9/10 (1990), p. 9.

 

[9]  See Lewis Patsavos, “The Harmonization of Canonical Order,” in Journal of Modern Hellenism, 19-20, 2001-02, pp. 211-28.
Logged

Joseph
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 09:36:05 PM »

I'm really surprised no one has said anything about this yet! Maybe everyone overlooked it like I did earlier today! Smiley

I actually won't make specific comments or observations because this letter makes my head spin, but am just surprised there isn't more talk about it by those with more theological teeth than myself.

Logged
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 09:38:28 PM »

In the right corner we have MP and in the left EP.  Seconds away!
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 09:50:11 PM »

http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html

Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon


A Statement by the Faculty
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Schoolof Theology
Brookline, Massachusetts
April 30, 2009

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle, the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith..."


I haven't the time yet to go through the whole thing (Lord willing I will), but just for starters...no less than four other of those fourteen Autocephalous Churches claim their roots in the preaching of St. Andrew, so St. Andrew is going to help the EP less than St. Peter has helped the Vatican.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 10:15:34 PM »

In the right corner we have MP and in the left EP.  Seconds away!

That's about the size of it.  Another trial ballon of the EP, with his name invoked but not affixed?

Quote
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has a particular responsibility to strengthen the unity of the Orthodox Churches and to coordinate their common witness. At the same time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has a specific responsibility to care for the faithful in lands beyond the borders of the other Autocephalous Churches. This is a ministry of service to the entire Church which the Ecumenical Patriarchate undertakes in accordance with the canons and often under difficult circumstances.

 

The Faculty of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology profoundly regrets that statements recently have been made which misinterpret the canonical prerogatives and distort historical facts related to the distinctive ministry of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Indeed, some injudicious remarks have insulted the person of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and have attempted to diminish the significance of his ministry.

 

These statements, made by bishops, priests and laity, have been widely distributed. Regretfully, they have done little to advance the cause of Orthodox unity and the witness of the Church today. Indeed, some observations have misrepresented the traditional basis of Orthodox ecclesiology. They contradict the admonition of St. Paul that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).


Yet another indication that someone has to be cured of serious delusions.  Though a in a much nicer tone, it nonetheless reflects the same revionism of the Chief Secretary and must be rejected for the same reason.  Not only that, but because they continue to make a canonical statement out of the Greek chairman of SCOBA, time has come to follow the letter of the law of SCOBA's constitution, and rotate the chairmanship.

Btw, did a Greek hierarch's seal this statement?  In patricular Arb. Demetrios, who heads the list of faculty, or the Metropolitans, who are on the Board of Trustees?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 10:21:05 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
shep4569
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2009, 01:47:32 AM »

There's so much in this statement with which I disagree. It would take me over an hour to write a response to every point with which I have a problem. Let's pretend for just a moment: What if the MP said "Hey we were wrong, we shouldn't have granted autocephaly, blah blah blah. EP, it's up to you." Then what would the EP do? What is the EP's endgame? Does the EP just want to have started every Orthodox church on the planet? If the MP opened a church in Antarctica, would the EP have a problem with that? Does the EP just want a big foam finger that says "I'm #1!"? Because judging by his actions and words, his claims to being "first among equals" are just rhetoric. Quoted from the article:

"They clearly grant to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople a primacy among the bishops of the Church. This primacy of service brings with it significant authority and responsibilities."

That sounds awfully centrist to me. My mind is a bit hazy, but I seem to recall another bishop of the early church being given titles and positions of honor, then he went and got carried away and started a schismatic church. Making statements like this gives a whole new level of credit to Ialmisry's use of the word "Ultramontanism" when referring to the EP.
Logged

In Christ,
Logan

"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." - Job 1:21
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,059



« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2009, 03:17:22 AM »

I am very pleased to see that the Holy Cross faculty has publically spoken out on this most important of issues.  The tone reflects one that is needed to work with the various positions on this matter and work toward a resolution.  The tone of the Chief Secretary of Constantinopole's Holy and Sacred Synod, only serves to drive away anyone who is under another patriarchate and would have wished to enter into a rational dialogue toward resolution of this anti-canonical administrative arrangement that exists in the diaspora for nearly 90 years now.

I am also pleased that the Ecumenical Patriarchate was able to coalesce the Holy Orthodox Churches into revisiting this pressing issue.  However, I have been disappointed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not publically solicited input from North America, both from its own jurisdictions, the others, and SCOBA.  The Holy Cross faculty indicates that it has provided input, but that was during Patriarch Dimitrios', of Thrice Blessed Memory, tenure, an era that was more inclusive than the current period. I'm reminded  that former Archbishop Spyridon had told us "Patriarch Bartholomew knows America better than you."

Only a loving, respectful, conciliar solution will make a difference in the current, regretfull, status quo.  Arguing about who has authority over the diaspora will result only in no progress and probably another decade or so delay in any action, much like the 20 year stalemate that occurred after the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly was issued.

I cannot understand why so many, particularly those under the Church of Russia, question the Ecumenical Patriarchates role among the Holy Orthodox Churches, while I can understand their criticism of Patriarch Bartholomew's aggressive administrative style.  Our Holy Orthodoxy cries out for a central administrative point of reference, though one which lovingly facilitates cooperative efforts and action, not one which dictates.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2009, 05:05:10 AM »

Well one cannot take one side on the issue since it is complicated

To begin with it is obvious to me that both the Primacy of the Pope of Rome as well as of Constantinople as the New Rome simply reflect the POLITICAL and GEOSTRATEGICAL views of the then Roman Empire the capital of which was Rome and simply when Constantinople was founded as the capital of the Eastern State they have also made her the New Rome of Christianity. This reflects the perception of Romans, that Rome was both an administrative AND a religious centre, simply because the Caesars were considered as Gods.

A relic of the above mentality is the existence of the State of Vatican and the dogma that the Pope is infalable. To me it is obvious that the reasons for the primacy of Constantinople AT THAT TIME, were not really historical neither spiritual, since both Alexandria and Jerusalem are much older.

However the Bible teaches honour and respect to those who brought us to faith. Under this perspective yes, all European Patriarchates and Churches should honour Constantinople.

I must say that sadly there are ambitions from MP to expand to the New World and start Missions competing with the EP.

Is that "illegal"? Do the Russians or any other ethnic church have the right to establish own missions all over the world (as in Indonesia)? Is the question just whom are they going to commemorate in the Services or what language are they going to use? Are missions just an exclusive right of Constantinople? Should a Russian who wants to serve as a missionary proceed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

One the other hand ANYBODY from ANY church is he allowed do start a mission ANYWHERE he pleases and even teach the Africans or Asians false teachings as with the case of the Finnish Orthodox Church whose morals on sex for example are terribly lose ( I am deliberately not using the word "tolerant").

Too many questions to be answered before one replies with a Yes or a No on the issue of the Primacy of the EP.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2009, 09:34:24 AM »

I cannot understand why so many, particularly those under the Church of Russia, question the Ecumenical Patriarchates role among the Holy Orthodox Churches, while I can understand their criticism of Patriarch Bartholomew's aggressive administrative style.

For the time being, the question is can the two be distinguished: we are still reeling from EP Meletios' brief tenure.

The problem is Constantinople now finds itself in the position that Old Rome did during New Rome's rise to power.  A lot of the perrogatives that Constantinople claims stem not from Apostolic foundations (as Greece and Romania, for instance, can more than equal that) but from the presence of the emperor.  Since 1453 at the latest, the EP has not been up to the task, something it admitted in the Tomos of 1908.  Moscow, instead, now has the backing which was the basis of the elevation of Constantinople in the first place.  Given the mismanagement of the Phanar during the Ottoman period (which included the suppression of several Holy Orthodox Churches), the heavy hand of EP Meletios (which not only gave us the jurisdication problem, but the calendar schism as well), and the present EP's "aggressive administrative style" with some strange goings on with the Vatican about "sister churches," the other Churches have an existential necessity to question the EP's role, and a vested interest that the novel interpretation of canon 28 not make it into the Tradition.

Btw, does anyone have a link to th EP's Tomos of 1908 in English at least, better yet the Greek too?  Or if someone has a hard copy, can they do us the service and type it into a post?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 09:54:29 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
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 #11 on: May 13, 2009, 09:44:02 AM »

...  Our Holy Orthodoxy cries out for a central administrative point of reference, ...

That is exactly the second last thing we need.
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
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 #12 on: May 13, 2009, 09:44:04 AM »

...
The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1589, confirmed in the Golden Seal Certificate in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in Constantinople in 1593 when patriarchal status was granted. In these Tomes, the territorial jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tome of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches. 


This leaves Patriarchate of Georgia floating in the air. She was granted autocephalia not by EP, but by Antioch after Constantinopolis gained "the special worldwide privileges" in Chalcedon 431 A.D. according to the seminarians.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Georgia

Quote
The church was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Antioch in 466.
Logged

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

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2009, 09:59:42 AM »

...
The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1589, confirmed in the Golden Seal Certificate in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in Constantinople in 1593 when patriarchal status was granted. In these Tomes, the territorial jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined. This practice was followed in the Tome of Autocephaly for all subsequent Autocephalous Churches which were granted their status by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and confirmed by the assent of the other Autocephalous Churches. 


This leaves Patriarchate of Georgia floating in the air. She was granted autocephalia not by EP, but by Antioch after Constantinopolis gained "the special worldwide privileges" in Chalcedon 431 A.D. according to the seminarians.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Georgia

Quote
The church was granted autocephaly by the Patriarch of Antioch in 466.

I've posted the Georgian account of this which was translated into Armenian (Armenia had claims on Georgia, as she was involved in her evangeization as well. The Bagratids, the last dynasty of Georgia, which survived into Russian nobility, were Armenian (and according to the sources, Davidic) royalty.

Note: the granting of the 12 bishops was to make the Catholicos fully ennabled to act as an autocephalos Church.
C. Peter ruled (467-474)
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
MLPB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 68


« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2009, 10:01:51 AM »

If this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 10:04:44 AM by MLPB » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2009, 10:08:58 AM »

I this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?

Those who were against the Council of Ravenna thought it.

The arguments that are being advanced bear an eerie similtude to the same ones that Old Rome used to stop New Rome's rise, and for similar reasons: New Rome was an up and coming power whereas Old Rome was a has been village.  And unfortunately, every argument that the Phanar uses to promote its agenda and against, say, Moscow's objections, can be countered by the same arguments that Constantinople gave to Old Rome.  We know what road Old Rome took.  What road is New Rome going down, and what will she do if we refuse to go down that path?  Not an idle issue: Moscow (rather Kiev technically) became autocephalous when she refused to go in line after Constantinople in submitting to the Vatican.  The EP's primacy comes from adherence to Orthodoxy, not by virtue of sitting on the throne of New Rome.
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
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2009, 10:47:59 AM »

If this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?




Those were my thoughts exactly! When I first read it, (in fact I printed it out and read 3 or 4 more times just to make sure I was reading clearly) I thought the terms, phrases, and words seemed awfully "papal" to me. Even one of the arguments basically said the Church needs a "center" or a Bishop to gather around a sign of unity. (can't remember exactly where it was, but it was my impression anyway) They just seem to be using Catholic arguments here, without the actual historical and theological credentials to back it up. (I read somewhere that the idea St. Andrew was ever in byzantium didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not sure how true that is though)

My final impressions, along with a few people I pointed this article out to, all said, "if we want to be under a Pope, we'll take the real Pope"...Smiley (obviously meaning the Bishop of Rome)

Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2009, 11:02:48 AM »


The arguments that are being advanced bear an eerie similtude to the same ones that Old Rome used to stop New Rome's rise, and for similar reasons: New Rome was an up and coming power whereas Old Rome was a has been village.  And unfortunately, every argument that the Phanar uses to promote its agenda and against, say, Moscow's objections, can be countered by the same arguments that Constantinople gave to Old Rome.  We know what road Old Rome took.  What road is New Rome going down, and what will she do if we refuse to go down that path? 

A few people I've talked to actually feel like there is real chance that Constantinople might break Communion with the OCA, the question arises, which side would the MP end up on? Someone mentioned to me last night, just putting forth the question what if the "order" of the Patriarchal Sees was changed...now it's Contantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, but what if Moscow was made second behind Constantinople? I'm not well versed in canons and all that, but from my perspective such a thing seems at least plausible. If so would the MP then side with Constantinople? (should we even be calling Istanbul, Constantinople today, I sometimes feel like an enabler by doing so) Would the OCA end up in "uncanonical status"? Or are we talking about a worldwide split between Church loyal to Moscow, and Churches loyal to Constantinople?  Again, just speculation that someone mentioned to me. However I cannot imagine the Patriarchate would be claiming all this if they didn't feel like they had some trump card to play at some point.

Personally I was far more disturbed by the papal tone of the arguments of the whole thing, words like "perogatives", and terms like "the first bishop" and the "First Throne of the Church", and the like I'm really uncomfortable with. I hope people in the GOA in particular (of which I'm a part of) speak out against this stuff.

I don't say this to be "anti-Roman" in the least. But like I said, if I'm going to be have a Pope, I'll take the "real" Pope of Rome (or Alexandria in the Coptic Church) rather than "New Rome". Rome is long dead, Old and New, it's time they admit to such a reality and move on.


I've probably said too much and have probably ticked some people off in the process, but as someone who has been a staunch supporter of the GOA in this country, I feel a little betrayed by all this.

Just my opinion though, I could totally wrong.....
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2009, 11:13:48 AM »

If this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?
Those were my thoughts exactly! When I first read it, (in fact I printed it out and read 3 or 4 more times just to make sure I was reading clearly) I thought the terms, phrases, and words seemed awfully "papal" to me. Even one of the arguments basically said the Church needs a "center" or a Bishop to gather around a sign of unity. (can't remember exactly where it was, but it was my impression anyway) They just seem to be using Catholic arguments here, without the actual historical and theological credentials to back it up. (I read somewhere that the idea St. Andrew was ever in byzantium didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not sure how true that is though)

No, the tradition is Apostolic. Problem for the EP is that the same sources state that he went to Georgia, Romania and Russia/Ukraine, in addition to Greece.

The elevation of Constantinople, however, had nothing to do with St. Andrew.  The canons are quite clear that New Rome was elevated because of its secular importance.  Although the EP defends the title "Ecumenical" as a religious title, it's not: Ecumenical was bureaucracy's term for "imperial."

Quote
My final impressions, along with a few people I pointed this article out to, all said, "if we want to be under a Pope, we'll take the real Pope"...Smiley (obviously meaning the Bishop of Rome)
You can come over to Alexandria. Grin
« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 11:14:56 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
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2009, 12:08:01 PM »


Quote
My final impressions, along with a few people I pointed this article out to, all said, "if we want to be under a Pope, we'll take the real Pope"...Smiley (obviously meaning the Bishop of Rome)
You can come over to Alexandria. Grin


Yeah, that's not a bad idea! Cheesy
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,374


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2009, 12:24:38 PM »

I this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?

Those who were against the Council of Ravenna thought it.

The arguments that are being advanced bear an eerie similtude to the same ones that Old Rome used to stop New Rome's rise, and for similar reasons: New Rome was an up and coming power whereas Old Rome was a has been village.  And unfortunately, every argument that the Phanar uses to promote its agenda and against, say, Moscow's objections, can be countered by the same arguments that Constantinople gave to Old Rome.  We know what road Old Rome took.  What road is New Rome going down, and what will she do if we refuse to go down that path?  Not an idle issue: Moscow (rather Kiev technically) became autocephalous when she refused to go in line after Constantinople in submitting to the Vatican.  The EP's primacy comes from adherence to Orthodoxy, not by virtue of sitting on the throne of New Rome.

Which arguments exactly are you referring to?  (aka can you provide me a source that has the arguments you are creating parallels to, cuz otherwise I just gota take your word for it). 
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2009, 12:34:28 PM »

I this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?

Those who were against the Council of Ravenna thought it.

The arguments that are being advanced bear an eerie similtude to the same ones that Old Rome used to stop New Rome's rise, and for similar reasons: New Rome was an up and coming power whereas Old Rome was a has been village.  And unfortunately, every argument that the Phanar uses to promote its agenda and against, say, Moscow's objections, can be countered by the same arguments that Constantinople gave to Old Rome.  We know what road Old Rome took.  What road is New Rome going down, and what will she do if we refuse to go down that path?  Not an idle issue: Moscow (rather Kiev technically) became autocephalous when she refused to go in line after Constantinople in submitting to the Vatican.  The EP's primacy comes from adherence to Orthodoxy, not by virtue of sitting on the throne of New Rome.

Which arguments exactly are you referring to?  (aka can you provide me a source that has the arguments you are creating parallels to, cuz otherwise I just gota take your word for it). 

when I go through the whole thing, Lord willing, I'll be refering to them.  For one the contrast between secular power (now Russia, but then Constantinople) and a claimed superior ecclessiastical origin (now Constantinople, then Rome) as an attempt to delegitimize the formers leadership in favor of the latters.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2009, 03:10:20 PM »

Quote
http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html



A Statement by the Faculty

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Brookline, Massachusetts

April 30, 2009

It took us almost two weeks to get this?

 

Quote
The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is the preeminent Church in the communion of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.


First problem: there are fifteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches.

Now, I know that the EP doesn't want to recognize that. Hence why the number was stuck in instead of just leaving it "the communion of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches."

But the later would have sufficed just as well, unless one is trying to prove a point without arguing it.  So the autocephaly of the OCA is disputed. So?  That fact that the whole situation is North America is disputed is supposedly why the EP called this meeting in the first place.  The fact that he ignores the existence of the OCA, and calls a meeting on Cyprus of all places (canon 8 of Ephesus, safeguarding autocephalous Churches from interference  in internal affairs by others, was issued in repsonse to the call of the Church of Cyprus) without giving the most affected Church the floor to contest the EP's conclusion shows that he is trying to push his agenda as a fait accompoli.  Granted, if he invited the OCA, then that would have undermined the EP's stance.  But by stacking the deck, he is painting the other Churches, particularly the plurality that recognize the OCA, into a corner where they have a vested interest in opposing the EP's pet interpretation of canon 28.

Quote
Reflecting the witness of St. Andrew, the First Called Apostle,


I've already commented above on the problems of making St. Andrew a Phanariot Peter.  In reference to Serb's question, this is one of the arguments.  Rome insisted on its prerogatives on the basis of St. Peter, and claimed the same for Alexandria and Antioch (Jerusalem didn't count, because St. James the Brother of God outshown St. Peter in the Apostolic Foundation of that See), making much of St. Peter being the "Prince of the Apostles."  It derided Constantinople as an upstart, whose position was solely based on secular motives.  At the same time Rome denied that the secular world had any role in its importance (nonsense), because at the time Rome had long ceased to have any secular importance, was only the capital emeritas (i.e. no power) and was on its way to becoming the medieval hamlet it would become.

On the Apostolic mission of St. Andrew:
Quote
Eusebius "History of the Church," Book III. Chapter I.—The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached Christ. 1. Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. Parthia,according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia, to Andrew, Asia to John.who, after he had lived some time there, at Ephesus.2. Peter appears to have preached, in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, to the Jews of the dispersion.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.i.html
Here's a map of Scythia. Byzantium isn't on it:

http://www.brama.com/news/press/thumbs/scythiamap.gif

It's not in Scythia of the 1st century either:

http://www.pridnestrovie.net/images/scythia.jpg

The Constitution of the Apostles (see the Quinsext council), enumerates those ordained by the Apostles, without mentioning St. Andrew
Quote
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these.....Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois;and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me.  Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, ArchippusOf Colossæ, Philemon.Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus.These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Quote
the enduring mission of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople is to proclaim the salutary Gospel of Jesus Christ in accordance with the Apostolic and Orthodox Faith.

True, but also true of any local Church primate.  Here a special claim is made for the EP that it is "enduring" (valid for all times) and Ecumenical/Universal because it is Constantinople.  But Old Rome showed that one can be parochial on a world wide scale (insisting the DL be in the local language of Rome, giving titular Churches to the episcopacy of distant sees, treating the episcopacy as the clergy of the metropolis etc).  One has to live up to the Roman ideal to be universal: just sitting on Rome's throne doesn't do it.  And since the EP's position was not from the Apostles, but a creation of the Church under the Emperors, the EP doesn't have the appeal to antiquity that Rome had against the changed political circumstances.

Rome could make the claim that there was never a time where there was no Pope of Rome.  Constantinople cannot make the claim that there was never a time where there was no EP of Constantinople.  Hence, whereas the Pope could claim that there would be a Pope until the end of time (something proved wrong: we are still here after his apostacy), the EP has to confess that his office can end in time.

and another parrallel the EP might think about: the original elevation had less to do with Rome than with Heracleia, the see to which Byzantium, then Constantinople was suffragan.  The OCA isn't the top priority of Moscow, but Moscow can see how benefiting the OCA benefits Moscows aspirations.


 

« Last Edit: May 13, 2009, 03:21:01 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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


« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2009, 03:31:44 PM »

If this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?
Those were my thoughts exactly! When I first read it, (in fact I printed it out and read 3 or 4 more times just to make sure I was reading clearly) I thought the terms, phrases, and words seemed awfully "papal" to me. Even one of the arguments basically said the Church needs a "center" or a Bishop to gather around a sign of unity. (can't remember exactly where it was, but it was my impression anyway) They just seem to be using Catholic arguments here, without the actual historical and theological credentials to back it up. (I read somewhere that the idea St. Andrew was ever in byzantium didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not sure how true that is though)

No, the tradition is Apostolic. Problem for the EP is that the same sources state that he went to Georgia, Romania and Russia/Ukraine, in addition to Greece.

The elevation of Constantinople, however, had nothing to do with St. Andrew.  The canons are quite clear that New Rome was elevated because of its secular importance.  Although the EP defends the title "Ecumenical" as a religious title, it's not: Ecumenical was bureaucracy's term for "imperial."

Quote
My final impressions, along with a few people I pointed this article out to, all said, "if we want to be under a Pope, we'll take the real Pope"...Smiley (obviously meaning the Bishop of Rome)
You can come over to Alexandria. Grin

But you ignore said ordering of the patriarchates was made in ecumenical council, despite your preference for historical interpretation.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2009, 07:14:01 PM »

If this is all accurate, I have to conclude the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is centered in Rome, Italy!  One could quibble on the fringes, but the whole thrust is clear.  Who "woulda thunk it" - the Holy Cross faculty essentially writes an apology for the papacy?
Those were my thoughts exactly! When I first read it, (in fact I printed it out and read 3 or 4 more times just to make sure I was reading clearly) I thought the terms, phrases, and words seemed awfully "papal" to me. Even one of the arguments basically said the Church needs a "center" or a Bishop to gather around a sign of unity. (can't remember exactly where it was, but it was my impression anyway) They just seem to be using Catholic arguments here, without the actual historical and theological credentials to back it up. (I read somewhere that the idea St. Andrew was ever in byzantium didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not sure how true that is though)

No, the tradition is Apostolic. Problem for the EP is that the same sources state that he went to Georgia, Romania and Russia/Ukraine, in addition to Greece.

The elevation of Constantinople, however, had nothing to do with St. Andrew.  The canons are quite clear that New Rome was elevated because of its secular importance.  Although the EP defends the title "Ecumenical" as a religious title, it's not: Ecumenical was bureaucracy's term for "imperial."

Quote
My final impressions, along with a few people I pointed this article out to, all said, "if we want to be under a Pope, we'll take the real Pope"...Smiley (obviously meaning the Bishop of Rome)
You can come over to Alexandria. Grin

But you ignore said ordering of the patriarchates was made in ecumenical council, despite your preference for historical interpretation.

No, I don't. I just gotten to that part of the program yet.  The problem, from Constantinople's point, is that she is entirely a creation of the Ecumenical Council.  Not so Old Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus (and Armenia): they have an irreducable core not dependent on the Ecumenical Council, because the Councils, recognized but did not create their prerogatives.

Which is the problem for this view of an "enduring mission" is that it can very easily be given to another (say, Moscow) that better fit the criteria why it was given to Constantinople.  I'm not for tinkering with the diptychs like this, but I can't say that they don't have an argument.
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
Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2009, 07:35:45 PM »

I read somewhere that the idea St. Andrew was ever in byzantium didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not sure how true that is though

On the issue on St Andrew a good friend of mine is doing since 5 years ago a HUGE research based on books in many languages as well local traditions from Scotland to Upper Nile and from Valaam in Karelia to the borders of China. He hasn't finished yet the book (it is already 2000 pages big) but they just called him from Russian television to make a documentary on his life and the places he has been.

He is a great saint, he appeared to an Italian friend (when he converted and he was baptized in Mt Athos), in order to encurage him in his new life.
Logged
Theoprovlitos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 94


« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2009, 08:03:56 PM »

Here is a link about St Anrew's Journeys.

http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_19/The_Astonishing_Missionary_Journeys.pdf

and in Russian parts I and 2

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051005144521.htm
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051011102945.htm

I agree however that any kind of primacy cannot be based on any Apostolic Journeys
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2009, 10:35:05 PM »


The Church, chiefly through the Ecumenical Councils, has established significant principles of ecclesiastical organization. These principles are expressed in the canons of the Councils and in subsequent historical practices which have been sanctioned by the Church.

...
Furthermore, canon 28 of Chalcedon explicitly granted to the bishop of Constantinople the pastoral care for those territories beyond the geographical boundaries of the other Local (autocephalous) Churches.
...
The Church invested only the bishop of Constantinople with the responsibility to organize ecclesial life in the places not under the care of other Local (autocephalous) Churches. This is reflected, for example, in the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century.

Let us examine some bits of history regarding "responsibility" of Constantinopolis to "organize eclessial life in the places not under care of other Local (autocephalous) Church".

http://kosovo.net/socheng2.html#renewal

About flock disobedient to Canon 28 and "responsibility"  to "organize eclessial life in places...":

Quote
(iv) Orthodox Serbs in Dalmatia For centuries, Serb spiritual centers in Dalmatia were monasteries such as Krka, Krupa and Dragovic (Dragovich). After re-establishment of the Pec Patriarchate they came under the spiritual jurisdiction of Metropolitans of Dabro-Bosna who were appointed Patriarch’s “Exarchs for the Whole of Dalmatia”. After the Peace of Karlovac (1699) and the Peace of Pozarevac (1718, Pozharevats), Turks lost Dalmatia and it came under the rule of the Venetian Republic. Venetians put all Orthodox faithful in Dalmatia under the spiritual jurisdiction of Archbishop of Philadelphia who had previously agreed to a Union with the Roman Catholic Church. Serbs opposed this move and never accepted his jurisdiction while staying firmly faithful to the Pec Patriarchate. As a result, Venetian authorities forbade Serbs to elect and appoint their own bishops. It is interesting to know that this prohibition was completely ignored, and that Orthodox Serbs elected as their bishop archpriest Simeon Koncarevic (Koncharevich) from Benkovci (Benkovtsy). He was ordained by the Metropolitan of Dabro-Bosna, but quickly banished from Dalmatia by Venetian authorities. He became author of several texts concerning history of Dalmatia but died in Russia as a truly homesick man.

In case one wants to see the successor of the bishop of Philadeplhia, check here http://www.ec-patr.org/hierarchs/show.php?lang=en&id=44

My brother Sdcheong would illustrate this with a middle finger shown to the "responsibility", something I can't do.

and about the Church disobedient

Quote
(iii) Metropolitanate of Montenegro (Crna Gora)

After several unsuccessful attempts, Turks managed in 1499 to crush the resistance of the ruling Crnojevic (Tsrnoyevich) Dynasty and annex their domain which covered a good part of today’s Montenegro. Turks never managed to subdue all Serbian mountain dwellers in these regions. However, most of them did pay taxes to the Ottomans, but since these payments were never regular this came to be the cause of many conflicts with the oppressor. Most serious point of concern was the fact that as time went on, quite a considerable number of Montenegrins converted to Islam. This became a very serious matter until definite action was taken at the beginning of 18th century during the reign of Metropolitan Danilo Petrovic Njegos (Daniel Petrovich Nyegosh) to solve this problem. The event of the so-called “purge of converts” inspired Njegos to write his poem “Gorski Vijenac” (“Mountain Wreath”). Serbs fought several battles against Turks, most famous of which was the battle of Carevi Laz in 1712. It ended as a major defeat for the Turks. However, Ottoman retaliation was fierce and it was during this period of time that they sacked the monastery of Cetinje. This initiated Montenegrin links with Imperial Russia, which was to become the main benefactor of Montenegro by giving it both economic and political support.

      His nephew Metropolitan Sava, who lacked fighting spirit, succeeded metropolitan Danilo. He came to be aided by his nephew, the future Metropolitan Vasilije (Basil), in the task of running the country and the Church. Vasilije visited Russia three times on Church and State business and he even died there in 1766. Abolishment of the Patriarchate of Pec in 1766 was a great loss both for the Church and the Montenegrin population in general. Confusion brought about by difficult times was exploited by a mysterious usurper calling himself Scepan Mali (Schepan Maly, Stephen the Little) who falsely claimed to be the assassinated Russian Emperor Peter III. He, somehow, even managed to be installed as the ruler of Montenegro (1767-1773), but was himself assassinated by a Greek mercenary of the Turks. Metropolitan Sava then continued ruling both the Church and the State. He made several unsuccessful attempts to re-establish the Patriarchate of Pec and, as his predecessors, leaned heavily on Russian support.

and the emphasize about disobedience, where five consecutive bishops of Montenegro were first elected by their flock, then went to Russia for hirotonia as bishops, to get back to rule Montenegro, which was teocracy that time. For more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrovic_Njegos

One wonders home come Constantinopolis hasn't questioned legitimacy of bishop of Montenegro, that himself bore the title "Exarchate of the Throne of Pec", but allowed his incorporation into Serbian Patriarchate back in 1920?

Were bishops of Montenegro canonical or uncanonical for those 200 years of disobedience to newly discovered ancient prerogatives of Phanar?

And, of course, not to forget "responsibility" itself

http://kosovo.net/socheng2.html#renewal
Quote
ABOLISHMENT OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF PEC

After the “Great Migration” of Serbs of 1690 ...

He was banished to Cyprus as an enemy of Turkish State. He was succeeded by a Greek, Kalinik II (1765-1766), who performed an unprecedented deed — he resigned his title of Patriarch of Pec and, with other five bishops, sent a petition to the Oecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople asking for the abolishment of the Patriarchate of Pec. Accumulated Patriarchate debts were quoted as the main reason for this motion.

Or, in other words, he "cared" so much to accumulate debts, then requested liquidation of his "care" on the grounds of the very same debts.
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
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2009, 10:29:38 AM »

Here is a link about St Anrew's Journeys.

http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_19/The_Astonishing_Missionary_Journeys.pdf

and in Russian parts I and 2

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051005144521.htm
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051011102945.htm

I agree however that any kind of primacy cannot be based on any Apostolic Journeys


I think maybe people misunderstood my statement about St. Andrew. I wasn't trying to imply that he was an "invented" Apostle or that he wasn't a great saint...and I was fully aware that there is an Apostolic tradition that he went to "scythia" north of the black sea etc....what I had read was an invention was that Andrew was ever in the Greek city of Byzantium. If not an invention, out right, no one until the 7th or 8th century ever claimed it. (around the same time Old Rome was really pressing "primacy" over Constantinople)

Again I realize he was a missionary in that general area, I think Eusebius wrote that, however I'm wondering what the earliest claim is to Andrew actually being in Byzantium itself? It is the answer to that question that I had heard/read didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not his general missionary work "north of the black sea" which I realize is an ancient tradition.

Anyways just thought I should clarify...

thanks for the links BTW I look forward to reading the english. (as I don't read Russian...lol!)
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2009, 11:00:50 AM »

Here is a link about St Anrew's Journeys.

http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_19/The_Astonishing_Missionary_Journeys.pdf

and in Russian parts I and 2

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051005144521.htm
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/051011102945.htm

I agree however that any kind of primacy cannot be based on any Apostolic Journeys


I think maybe people misunderstood my statement about St. Andrew. I wasn't trying to imply that he was an "invented" Apostle or that he wasn't a great saint...and I was fully aware that there is an Apostolic tradition that he went to "scythia" north of the black sea etc....what I had read was an invention was that Andrew was ever in the Greek city of Byzantium. If not an invention, out right, no one until the 7th or 8th century ever claimed it. (around the same time Old Rome was really pressing "primacy" over Constantinople)

Again I realize he was a missionary in that general area, I think Eusebius wrote that, however I'm wondering what the earliest claim is to Andrew actually being in Byzantium itself? It is the answer to that question that I had heard/read didn't arise until the 7th or 8th century, not his general missionary work "north of the black sea" which I realize is an ancient tradition.

Anyways just thought I should clarify...

thanks for the links BTW I look forward to reading the english. (as I don't read Russian...lol!)

No, there are sources that are pre-Constantine that state that St. Andrew specifically went to Byzantium.  It was a large and important city (it was beseiged by the Romans for an extended period).  It just wasn't the most important see in the area (which was Heracleia).
Logged

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

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


« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2009, 11:05:34 AM »

Byzantium large and important? Not hardly until St. Constantine located capital there.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2009, 11:31:33 AM »

Byzantium large and important? Not hardly until St. Constantine located capital there.

Large an important enough to withstand a Roman seige for three years:

Cassius Dio, writing a century before Constantinople's founding:
Quote
10 The Byzantines performed many remarkable deeds both while Niger was still living and after his death. Their city is most favourably situated in relation both to the two continents and to the sea that lies between them, and possesses strong defences both in the lie of the land and in the nature of the Bosporus. 2 For the city is built on high ground and juts out p185into the sea; and the latter, rushing down from the Euxine like a mountain torrent and hurling itself against the headland, is diverted in part to the right, forming there the bay and the harbours, but the greater part of the water flows on with great speed past the city itself toward the Propontis. 3 Moreover, their walls were very strong. The breastwork of the walls was constructed of massive squared stones fastened together by bronze plates, and on the inside they were strengthened with mounds and buildings, so that the whole seemed to be one thick wall on top of which there was a covered passageway easy of defence. 4 There were many large towers constructed on the outside of the wall and provided with windows set close together on every side, so that anyone assailing the wall would be intercepted between them; for as they were built at short intervals and not in a straight line, but some here and some there along a rather crooked circuit, they were bound to command any attacking party from every side. 5 The sections of the wall on the land side were raised to a great height, so as to repel even any chance assailants from that quarter, but the portions along the sea were lower; for there the rocks on which the walls were built and the dangerous character of the Bosporus proved wonderfully effective allies for the Byzantines. The harbours within the wall had both been closed with chains and their breakwaters carried towers that jutted far out on either side, making approach impossible for the enemy. 6 In a word, the Bosporus is of the greatest p187advantage to the inhabitants; for it is absolutely inevitable that, once anyone gets into its current, he will be cast up on the land in spite of himself. This is a condition most satisfactory to friends, but most embarrassing to enemies.

11 It was thus that Byzantium had been fortified; and in addition there were engines in the greatest variety along the entire length of the wall. Some, for example, hurled rocks and wooden beams upon any who drew near, and others discharged stones and other missiles and spears against such as stood at a distance, with the result that over a considerable area none could come near them without danger. 2 Still others had hooks, which they would let down suddenly and so draw up ships and machines through the short intervening space. Priscus, a fellow-countryman of mine, designed most of the engines, and for this very reason was both condemned to death and spared; for Severus, learning of his skill, prevented his execution, and later made use of his services on various occasions, especially at the siege of Hatra, where his machines were the only ones not burned by the barbarians. 3 The Byzantines had also got ready five hundred ships, most of them with one bank of oars, but some with two, and all equipped with beaks. Some of them were provided with rudders at both ends, at the prow as well as the stern, and had a double complement of helmsmen and sailors, in order that they might both attack and retire without turning round and might out-manoeuvre their opponents both in advancing and in retreating.

12 Many, now, were the exploits and the experiences p189of the Byzantines, since for the entire space of three years they were besieged by the armaments of practically the whole world. I shall relate a few of the incidents that were in any way marvellous. They used to capture not only ships that were sailing past, by making opportune attacks, but also triremes that were in their opponents' roadstead. 2 They accomplished this by causing divers to cut their anchors under water and drive in the ships' sides nails that were attached by ropes to the friendly shore; then they would draw the ships towards them, so that these appeared to be sailing up all by themselves, of their own accord, with neither oarsman nor wind to urge them forward. 3 There were even instances in which traders purposely allowed themselves to be captured by the Byzantines, though they pretended it was against their will, and after selling their wares for a great price, made their escape by sea.

When all the supplies in the city had been consumed both their fortunes and the hopes based thereon had been reduced to extreme straits, 4 at first, even though they were in dire distress, cut off as they were from all outside aid, they nevertheless continued to resist. For their ships they used timbers taken from the houses and braided ropes made from the hair of their women; and as often as any of the foe assaulted the wall, they would hurl down upon them the stones from the theatres and whole bronze horses and statues of bronze. 5 When even their customary food failed them, they proceeded to soak hides and eat them. Then, when these, too, were used up, the greater part of the population, after waiting for a storm and rough p191water, so that no one could put out against them, sailed away with the determination either to perish or to secure provisions; and falling upon the countryside without warning, they plundered everything indiscriminately. Those who were left behind did a monstrous thing; 6 for when they were reduced to the last extremity, they had recourse to themselves and devoured one another. Such was the condition in which these people found themselves.

13 The rest, when they had laden their boats with even more than these could bear, set sail, after waiting this time also for a great storm. They did not succeed, however, in profiting by it; for the Romans, observing that their vessels were overheavy and weighted down almost to the water's edge, put out against them. 2 So they fell upon the craft, which were scattered about as wind and wave carried them, and what followed was anything but a naval battle; for they simply battered the enemy's boats mercilessly, thrusting at many of them with their boat-hooks, ripping many open with their beaks, and even capsizing some by their mere onset. 3 The people in the boats were unable to do anything, however much they might wish; and when they attempted to escape anywhere, they would either be sunk by the force of the wind, to which they spread their sails to the full, or else would be overtaken by the enemy and destroyed. 4 The people in Byzantium, as they watched this scene, for a time kept calling on the gods for help, and uttering various shouts at the different incidents, according as one was affected by the spectacle or the disaster. But when they saw their friends perishing all together, the united throng sent up p193a chorus of groans and lamentations, and after that they mourned for the rest of the day and the whole night. 5 The total number of the wrecks proved so great that some drifted on the islands and the Asiatic coast, and the defeat became known by these relics before it had been heard of. The next day the horror was increased still more for the townspeople; 6 for when the waves had subsided, the whole sea in the vicinity of Byzantium was covered with corpses and wrecks and blood, and many of the remains were cast up on shore, with the result that their disaster appeared even worse to their eyes than it had been in reality.

14 The Byzantines, accordingly, were constrained to surrender the city at once. The Romans put to death all the soldiers and magistrates, but spared all the rest except the pugilist who had greatly aided the Byzantines and injured the Romans. He perished at the very outset; for, in order to make the soldiers angry enough to kill him, he promptly struck one of them with his fist and leaped upon another with his heels. 2 Severus was so pleased at the capture of Byzantium that he blurted out the fact to his soldiers in Mesopotamia, where he was at the time: "We have taken Byzantium, too." 3 He deprived the city of it independence and of its proud position as a state, and made it tributary, confiscating the property of the citizens. He granted the city and its territory to the Perinthians, and they, treating it like a village, visited every kind of p195insult upon it. 4 Thus far he seemed, in a way, to be justified in what he did; but in demolishing the walls of the city he failed to cause the inhabitants any greater grief than was involved in the loss of the glory which they had derived from the displaying of their walls; whereas he did destroy a strong Roman outpost and base of operations against the barbarians from Pontus and Asia. 5 I myself saw the walls after they had fallen, looking as if they had been captured by some other people rather than by the Romans. I had also seen them standing and had even heard them "talk." I should explain that there were seven towers extending from the Thracian Gates to the sea, and if a person approached any of these but the first, it was silent; 6 but if he shouted anything at that one or threw a stone against it, it not only echoed and "spoke" itself, but also caused the second to do the same; and thus the sound continued from one to another through the whole seven, and they did not interrupt one another, but all in their proper turn, as each received the sound from the one before it, took up the echo and the voice and sent it on.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/75*.html
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 11:33:31 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2009, 04:38:15 PM »

I am Orthodox because Andrew was the Rock, and he has the keys to heaven.
Actually, Peter's name in Greek, "Petros," literally means "rock." Andrew's name "Anthropos" means "man."
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2009, 04:40:19 PM »

I am Orthodox because Andrew was the Rock, and he has the keys to heaven.
Actually, Peter's name in Greek, "Petros," literally means "rock." Andrew's name "Anthropos" means "man."

Andrew's name is "Andreas" which is from "Andras" which means "man, male."  "Anthropos" means "man, human" more than "man, male," even though it can mean both.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,059



« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2009, 05:35:46 PM »

For those who do not believe there should be a "central point of reference for the Church," please help me to understand your reasoning.

I cannot accept this argument re. the circumstances of the time which lead the Ecumenical Synods to grant "privileges" to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  All laws and guidelines have a context with which they were developed, but changes in circumstances, even one half of a millennium later, does not negate, in my opinion, maintaining them.

I believe a First Throne should be a coordinator of "matters of common concern" for our Holy Orthodoxy; to speak to the world of our salvic message; and to address problems such as the multiple jurisdictional anomalies in the diaspora, etc.  If this role is performed in love, for the greater benefit of all the "Holy Churches of God," and their faithful adherents; and is not dictatorial, aggressive or unilateral, but fosters loving, conciliar action, the Church's mission benefits.  The failure to act together, to publically fight amongst ourselves, at best, keeps our message marginalized, if not not wholly irrelevant. 
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2009, 08:02:01 PM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2009, 09:33:42 PM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.

Define important.  As late as Heracleus, it wasn't "important" enough that no other city was considered for the capital.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 09:42:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2009, 11:33:10 PM »

For those who do not believe there should be a "central point of reference for the Church," please help me to understand your reasoning.

I cannot accept this argument re. the circumstances of the time which lead the Ecumenical Synods to grant "privileges" to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  All laws and guidelines have a context with which they were developed, but changes in circumstances, even one half of a millennium later, does not negate, in my opinion, maintaining them.

I believe a First Throne should be a coordinator of "matters of common concern" for our Holy Orthodoxy; to speak to the world of our salvic message; and to address problems such as the multiple jurisdictional anomalies in the diaspora, etc.  If this role is performed in love, for the greater benefit of all the "Holy Churches of God," and their faithful adherents; and is not dictatorial, aggressive or unilateral, but fosters loving, conciliar action, the Church's mission benefits.  The failure to act together, to publically fight amongst ourselves, at best, keeps our message marginalized, if not not wholly irrelevant. 

I guess I gotta leap frog.  I could have chosen any one of many paragraphs of the statement, but I chose this one to reply here:

http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html

While not diminishing the significance of canon 28 and related canons, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has wisely recognized the distinctive and complex features of Orthodoxy in the United States especially.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate has recommended that a truly Pan-Orthodox solution must be found. It has advocated this perspective in recent Pan-Orthodox discussions. In light of canonical tradition and ecclesial praxis, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is alone in the position to guide the Autocephalous Churches toward a proper resolution for the Church in the United States. 

I might as well be up front: since the Phanar, including but not limited to Arbp/EP Meletios, has injected itself as a party into the dispute in the Church in the United States, not only is the EP NOT in a position to guide the Autocephalous Churches (or anyone) toward a proper resolution, but the EP has in fact DISQUALIFIED himself from doing so. Not diminishing the significance of canon 28 and related canons?  No, he is attempting to magnify his interpretation of canon 28 and twisting all the canons to support it.

We've had canon 28 pasted before, but I do not know if we have had the interpretation of St. Nicodemos the Athonite:

Quote
Since at this Fourth Council c. III of the Second Council was read, which decrees that the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy priorities of honor with the Bishop of Rome, seeing that it is New Rome, therefore the fathers of this Council too, by means of their present Canon, renew and confirm the said Canon, and they decree and vote the same things as regards the priorities of the same city of Constantinople which is also known as New Rome. For, they say, just as the Fathers bestowed privileges upon the throne of Old Rome on account of the fact that it was the capital of an empire, and were fully justified in doing so, owing, that is to say, to his being first in point of order among the rest of the Patriarchs. In exactly the same way and motivated by exactly the same object and aim, the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved bishops of the second Council have bestowed exactly the same and equal privileges of honor also upon the most holy throne of New Rome[112] — of Constantinople, that is to say — deeming it quite reasonable that this city, in view of the fact that it has been honored by being made the seat of an empire and of a senate, in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, ought to enjoy the same and equal privileges in a similar manner as has also (old) Rome, and to be magnified herself also in exactly the same way as the latter is in connection with ecclesiastical matters, with the sole difference that old Rome is to be first in order, while new Rome is to be second in order. In addition to these things we decree and vote that only the Metropolitans (but not also the Bishops, that is to say, that are subject to the Metropolitans; for each of these is ordained by his own Metropolitan together with the bishops of the province, just as the divine Canons prescribe, especially c. VI of the First) shall be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of Constantinople. Not only are the Metropolitans of the said dioceses to be ordained by him, but indeed also the bishops located in barbarian regions that border on the said dioceses, as, for instance, those called Alani are adjacent to and flank the diocese of Pontus, while the Russians border on that of Thrace. Nevertheless, the said Metropolitans are not to be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople just as he pleases and decides, but he must take the votes of the Synod under him into consideration as reported to him in accordance with established custom, and then ordain those men on whom the voters have agreed, either unanimously or as a majority.[113]
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1W.HTM

and the commentary of the Pedalion's translator:

Quote
The principal reason for issuing the present Canon were five, of which three were remote, while two were necessary and proximates: 1) Since c. XXXIV of the Apostles commands that the bishops of each nation ought to have one of their number as chief, and to regard him as their head, and since cc. VI and VII of the First made some dioceses subject to the Bishop of Rome, and others subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, and others to the Bishop of Antioch, and others to the Bishop of Jerusalem, the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and of Thrace, being autocephalous, ought by the same token to have the Bishop of Constantinople as their chief and head, and ought to come under his jurisdiction, and ought to be ordained by him, because he was their neighbor, and especially because such a custom had ensued from the beginning. For the Patriarch of Constantinople had ordained many Metropolitans from among them. For St. Chrysostorn ordained Heracleides Bishop of Ephesus, and by going to Ephesus and returning to Constantinople he deposed thirteen bishops from office. The Bishop of Ancyra, too, and Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus (who acted as the primate of the Third Ecum. Council) were ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople. So that it appears that what we said above is true as the solution of the puzzling question in the Footnote to the ninth Canon. Accordingly, then, it appears that it subordinates the Metropolitans of these dioceses to the judgment of the Patriarch of Constantinople. 2) Since the Second Ec. C. also in its c. Ill accorded priorities of honor to the Bishop of Constantinople, it was in keeping therewith to bestow upon him also priorities of authority. 3) The fact that the Bishop of Constantinople ought to receive privileges of authority because various Patriarchs and Prelates used to come to the Emperor to beg for his help in their exigencies, and it was necessary for them first to meet the Bishop of Constantinople, in whom they found a man to co-operate with them and to lend them assistance, and through him they were enabled to approach the Emperor, just as, in confirmation of the ancient custom, Justinian prescribed this. This is why, in Act 16 of the Fourth Council, the Bishop of Laodicea, Nounechius, said, when the legates of the Bishop of Rome were displeased by the priorities granted to the Bishop of Constantinople: “The glory of Constantinople is our glory, because it undertakes our cares.” 4) The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have received the privileges of authority over the above-mentioned three dioceses because, as appears from Act 13 of the Fourth Ec. C., many scandals arose in Ephesus on account of the illegal ordinations of Stephanus and Basianus, as well as in Asia and Pontus and Thrace similar scandals ensued, where, upon the death of bishops, many disturbances followed in the wake of the votes and on the heels of the ordinations, owing to the fact that they were without a governing head, according to the letter of the same Fourth Council addressed to Leo. And between Eunomius the Bishop of Nicomedia, and Anastasius the Bishop of Nicaea, a great many noisy brawls occurred in regard to the bishopric of Basilinoupolis. 5) And finally, because ungodly Dioscorus at the Latrocinium, or Robber Synod, held in Ephesus, placed the Bishop of Constantinople Flavian, not first, but fifth in order, contrary to the Canons, which even Leo the Great, who was the Pope of Rome, and his legates resented, in this Fourth Council, wherefore they reproached Dioscorus.

                For all these reasons, then, the Council, renewing c. III of the 2nd by means of the present Canon, conferred upon the Bishop of Constantinople the same and equal privileges of honor that had previously been bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, namely, the Patriarchal dignity and office, and also the same and equal privileges of authority that had previously been bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome, namely, the right of ordination in the three said dioceses of the Metropolitans, not only as a matter of custom, but also as one established by means of a Canon, on the ground that they are included in the territorial jurisdiction of Constantinople. For precisely as the Bishop of Rome has the priorities of honor and of authority, which amounts to saying the Patriarchal dignity and office, comprising the right of ruling his own parish in the West, so and in like manner the Bishop of Constantinople has the same priorities — that is to say, the Patriarchal dignity and office and the right to rule the above-mentioned Metropolitans who are comprised in his own parish. Accordingly, these are the ecclesiastical affairs mentioned here in the Canon, wherein the Bishop of Constantinople is magnified just as is the Bishop of Rome, without any difference save this, that the Bishop of Rome is first in point of order, while the Bishop of Constantinople is second in point of order. These privileges of the Bishop of Constantinople were confirmed and ratified not only by the Fathers of this Council, but also by the entire Senate of civil rulers, notwithstanding that the legates of the Pope, though they had previously reproached Dioscorus, yet perceiving that the bounds of Constantinople were being widened, nearly fainted in their desperate attempt to oppose them. Hence the Pope-worshipers are manifestly lying when they say that the primacy and priority of Rome, and its right to be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs, lend the Pope a special privilege of authority in the Church as a whole, which amounts to saying, in other words, a monarchal and inerrable dignity. For if these facts indicated any such thing, the Bishop of Constantinople too would have to possess the same dignity, since the Bishop of Constantinople, according to the Canons, is a measure and standard of exactly the same and equal value respecting honor of authority and respecting grandeur as is the Bishop of Rome. But, as a matter of fact, that was never bestowed upon the Bishop of Constantinople by the Canons, nor, it may hence be inferred, upon the Bishop of Rome. But neither are the priorities of Rome those which were conferred by the legendary edict of Constantine the Great upon Silvester, the Pope of Rome, as they allege — which is to say, more plainly speaking, the privilege of walking about with the decorations of imperial majesty in imitation of an emperor; the right to wear upon his head a brilliant riband in place of a wreath or garland; the right to wear an imperial pallium (or omophorion) and a purple robe and a scarlet tunic; the right to have his horse caparisoned in imperial style, with all the imperial insignia and emblems, and to hold the bridle of his horse like a strator, after the manner of an emperor; and the privilege of conceding to the clergy of his Church, as well as to the Senate thereof, the right to magnify themselves and to put on airs of grandeur both in the matter of wearing apparel and in the matter of footwear as well as in the matter of cavaliership. These external manifestations of splendor and luster, I say, are not the priorities and dignities conferred upon the Bishop of Rome by the Canons. By no means. Firstly, because if they were, they would have had to be conferred similarly and equally upon the Bishop of Constantinople also; and secondly, because, according to c. XVI of the 7th Ec. C. and c. XXVII of the 6th, splendid and lustrous clothes, and every other stultification and adornment of the human body are alien to and inconsistent with clergymen and the priestly order, and because the smokelike puffiness (or pretentiousness) of mundane authority must be taboo to priests of God, according to the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestinus. Ap. c. LXXXIII, too, deposes those who wish to exercise both Roman imperiousness and sacerdotal government. The Lord, too, in the Gospels, commands us to beware of those who wish to walk about in costumes. On this account, again, the vain and legendary edict is judged to be spurious and fictitious. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true, yet, in view of the fact that it is obviously opposed to the sacred Canons, it is invalid and void and no longer in force. For when at any time or place current forms conflict with the Canons, they are invalid and void, as we stated in the beginning of this Manual. The priority and primacy of Rome’s Bishop, therefore, consists, as we have said, in his having authority over all the bishops and metropolitans included in the see, or diocese, of Rome, so that he, together with the other bishops of the see, has the right to ordain them, and in his being entitled to come first in order among the Patriarchs, the other Patriarchs coming second, third, etc. He received these privileges, not because Rome was the seat of St. Peter, not because the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ, as the Roman Catholics vainly insist — by no means, but primarily because Rome was honored as the capital of an empire. For, says the present Canon, “the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital”; consequently, because of the ancient custom which it followed, exactly as Rome was a capital city, it becomes proper to concede the first place to her Bishop and to regard him as the first, or most notable, bishop — or, as we say in English, the primate — and, by further consequence of this fact, because just in the same way that the same privilege was bestowed upon the Bishop of Constantinople too owing to Constantinople’s being (at that time) an imperial capital, and New Rome, the Canons conferred such a privilege upon the Bishop of Rome for the same identical reason. Thus, too, because it was an imperial capital, it became an ancient custom for the Bishop of Constantinople to ordain the bishops in Asia, Pontus, and Thrace; and because it became a custom, the Canons were adopted and the ancient custom was ratified. Note that in addition to the equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome which the Bishop of Constantinople received, he further received also these two titles, namely, the appellation of “All-holiest” and of “Ecumenical,” by way of differentiation from the other Patriarchs. The appellation of “All-holiest” was first accorded to the Bishops of Constantinople Sergius and Peter by Macarius of Antioch at the Sixth Ec. C. in the seventh century A.C.; while that of “Ecumenical” was bestowed by the clergymen of Antioch and the Orthodox Christians in Byzantium upon the Bishop of Constantinople named John the Cappadocian in the reign of Justin the Thracian during the sixth century. I said that the Bishop of Constantinople was given the appellation by way of differentiation, because, although the Bishop of Rome was given by many the appellation of “All-holiest,” and so were the Bishops of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, and, in fact, all Patriarchs in common were called “All-Holiest” by various persons and at various times, yet, in spite of this, usage won out ultimately in the custom of according this appellation exceptionally and exclusively to the Bishop of Constantinople. Likewise the appellation of “Ecumenical” was also used by some in reference to tne Bishop of Rome, though very seldom; whereas from the time that the Bishop of Constantinople began being called Ecumenical Patriarch he never ceased being called such. Hence in times subsequent to the Cappadocian the Bishops of Constantinople Epiphanius, and Anthimus, and Menas, and Eutychius were called Ecumenical Patriarchs by Justinian in his Novels and Edicts, insomuch that at the Seventh Ecum. Council Peter the legate of the Pope called Tarasius the Ecumenical Patriarch. That is why divine John the Faster in the reign of Muricius, following the practice of continuing the use of such a title which had been initiated by others in deference to the Bishop of Constantinople, became the first to subscribe himself as Ecumenical. As for the title of “All-holiest,” this denotes (speaking of the corresponding Greek word “Panagiotatos”) “in all respects most holy”: in the same vein, that is to say, as Tarasius and Photius wrote to Popes Adrian and Nicholas “To in all respects most holy brother and fellow minister Adrian (or Nicholas), the Pope of Rome.” The title of Ecumenical,” on the other hand, denotes two different things: for it is either taken in general as applying to the Church as a whole, by way of describing a bishop as being entitled to exercise personal and monarchal authority in the Church as a whole; or else it denotes a major part of the inhabited earth — that is to say, more exactly speaking, that a bishop’s authority extends over a major part of the inhabited portion of the earth’s surface. This is in conformity with the fact that many emperors, notwithstanding that they are not lords of the whole inhabited earth (called in Greek the “Oikoumene,” or, according to another method of transliteration “Ecumene”), are nevertheless called (in Greek) lords of the inhabited earth, as Evagrius called Zeno (or Zenon), in allusion, that is to say, to the fact that they exercise authority over a major part of the inhabited surface of the earth. In the first sense of the word, therefore, the Bishop of Constantinople is never called an Ecumenical Patriarch, nor is the Bishop of Rome, or anyone else, excepting only Christ, who is indeed truly a Patriarch of the whole inhabited world and to whom was given all authority in heaven and on earth. But he is called Ecumenical in the second sense of the word on account of the fact that he has under him a major part of the inhabited earth, and furthermore on account of the zeal and providence which he exercises in watching over the faith and preserving the traditions and teachings of both the Councils (including Synods) and the Fathers, not only in his own See (or Diocese), but also in all the rest of the Sees (or Dioceses) throughout the length and breadth of the various lands of the earth. It was hence a result of the double entendre involved in the word Ecumenical that scandals arose between the Father, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Popes of Rome named Pelagius, and Gregory Dialogus. For these Popes, taking the word Ecumenical in the first sense, characterized this title as blasphemous, diabolical, and many other opprobrious epithets; and they further declared that whoever wishes to be called and styled “the Ecumenical Patriarch” is a forerunner of the Antichrist (letter of Gregory to Mauricius), and in this respect they were within the truth. The Faster, however, and Mauricius, and the succeeding Patriarchs and Emperors, understanding the title in accordance with the second signification of the word, were unconcerned, and in this respect they too were within the truth. That is why the Council held in St. Sophia states clearly that the one called Ecumenical (Patriarch), on the ground that he has authority over the greater part of the inhabited earth, is not the Antichrist. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that both these titles are designations conferred, not by any Canons of the Councils or of the Fathers of the Church, but given by custom to the Bishop of Constantinople. The contents of this Footnote have been gleaned also from other sources, but more especially from the Dodecabiblus of Dositheus.

Note that this Fourth Council in its Act 15 promulgated these thirty Canons; but I know not how it came about that this Twenty-eighth Canon and the Twenty-ninth and the Thirtieth are not to be found either in the Collection of Canons of John of Antioch, or in the Nomocanon of John of Constantinople surnamed the Scholasticus, or even in the Arabic paraphrase of Joseph the Egyptian. They are included, however, in all the others.

On the Pedalion itself, Arb. L'Huillier of blessed memory (OCA) wrote:
Quote
The era of Ottoman domination is far from being devoid of interest for the historian of canon law. Nonetheless, even more than in the Middle Ages, the actions of the hierarchy on this subject were taken in the field of case law.19 We have to wait till the turn of the eighteenth century to see the appearance of a new commentary on the corpus of received canons in the Greek Orthodox Church. In 1800, the first edition of the Pedalion was published.20 The text of each canon is followed by a paraphrase in modern Greek along with a commentary often based on Byzantine canonists. Moreover, we find disgressions on different canonical or liturgical points among these numerous and often wordy notes. According to the title of the work, the editors were hieromonk Agapios and the monk Nicodemus (St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite). In reality the essential parts of the work are the work of the latter.21 After some delays, the book received the official approval of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The reservations set out in the letter of Patriarch Neophyte VII, August, 1902, concerned only changes introduced by hieromonk Theodoret without the knowledge of the authors.22
The Pedalion has always enjoyed a great reputation in Greek-speaking Churches; this is obvious from its many reprintings, without, of course, the far-fetched additions of Theodoret. We can explain this success in different ways: the translation of the canons was done in paraphrases; the commentaries and the notes make for relatively easy reading, even for churchmen and monks having little education. The liturgical and pastoral directives, as well as other additional material, are of obvious practical interest for the clergy. This recension of the canons is on the whole correct, as we can see by comparing the present text with critical editions which we now have. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite was no stranger to the concerns of textual criticism; this is obvious from his notes, which give the most characteristic variants of the recension of John the Scholastic. Having said this, we must not, however, overestimate the value of the Pedalion. It constitutes, first and foremost, a valuable witness for the understanding of the milieu in which it was formed.23 As for treating the Pedalion as the perfect and therefore untouchable expression of Orthodox canon law, such an attitude is a manifest exaggeration which we often meet in a strict, integrist environment. St. Nicodemus' position on the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism is particularily appreciated in that milieu.24
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1.HTM
http://books.google.com/books?id=Umse6CFnt3MC

I'll cut this post short: there's enough commentary in what I've emphasized (I know many don't like me doing so, but then they don't like the message either, so I can't worry myself over that), and comment more in the next post, in shaa' al-Rabb.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2009, 06:34:57 AM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.
Define important.  As late as Heracleus, it wasn't "important" enough that no other city was considered for the capital.
Actually, it seems you the one who must better define 'important'.  A highly defensible redoubt protecting a mercantile center doesn't quite make your argument. Neither does the 3 years that it took Rome to successfully assail the town. Greekworld was 600 city states at the time. Some captulated quickly, others resisted.

 Three years? The Turks NEVER took Montenegro; does that qualify it as a great and important center?

You wanted examples of your prooftexting  history to fit your personal interpretations? This is one.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2009, 07:00:11 AM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.
Define important.  As late as Heracleus, it wasn't "important" enough that no other city was considered for the capital.
Actually, it seems you the one who must better define 'important'.  A highly defensible redoubt protecting a mercantile center doesn't quite make your argument.

But being able to outfit 500 warships does.

 
Quote
Neither does the 3 years that it took Rome to successfully assail the town. Greekworld was 600 city states at the time. Some captulated quickly, others resisted.

Out of those 600, which would you say were "important centers?"

Quote
Three years? The Turks NEVER took Montenegro; does that qualify it as a great and important center?

Uh, no: it counts as a country: Montenegro had its own Prince-bishops, later kings, who continued the Serbian patriarchate when the Phanar abolished it.  Since, as you point out, the Turks never took Montenegro, the Phanar wasn't able to get to Montenegro to abolish its autocephalous Church either.

Not a great and important country, but a country nonetheless.  Which is to say great and important enough.

Quote
You wanted examples of your prooftexting  history to fit your personal interpretations? This is one.

And what "personal interpretation" would that be?
Logged

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

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


« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2009, 08:01:55 AM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.
Define important.  As late as Heracleus, it wasn't "important" enough that no other city was considered for the capital.
Actually, it seems you the one who must better define 'important'.  A highly defensible redoubt protecting a mercantile center doesn't quite make your argument.

But being able to outfit 500 warships does.

Maybe in Isaland, but the crew/warrior complements of 500 "warships" of the day would barely make a respectable land army in Aristokliland.

 
Quote
Neither does the 3 years that it took Rome to successfully assail the town. Greekworld was 600 city states at the time. Some captulated quickly, others resisted.
Quote
Out of those 600, which would you say were "important centers?"
Hmmm.let's see...in Greekworld...ALEXANDRIA, Thessalonika, Corinth, Ephesus, even then lowly Athens.

Quote
Three years? The Turks NEVER took Montenegro; does that qualify it as a great and important center?
Quote
Uh, no: it counts as a country: Montenegro had its own Prince-bishops, later kings, who continued the Serbian patriarchate when the Phanar abolished it.  Since, as you point out, the Turks never took Montenegro, the Phanar wasn't able to get to Montenegro to abolish its autocephalous Church either.

Not a great and important country, but a country nonetheless.  Which is to say great and important enough.

Your opinion, again, along with the ever-present Greek-bashing. This jihad seems a bit of a psychosis.

Quote
You wanted examples of your prooftexting  history to fit your personal interpretations? This is one.
Quote
And what "personal interpretation" would that be?
To wit: this tangent, for one.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2009, 09:47:29 AM »

Christ is Risen!

http://www.oca.org/news/1836

From June 18-20  St Vladimir's Seminary in New York will host a conference on the past and future of Orthodoxy in America

Canon 28 will have an important place in the work of the Conference.

One speaker is a renowned schoar on Canon 28, Archimandrite Kirill (Hovorun), head of the Department of External Church Relations for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC.)

I have a monograph of his (but only in Russian) on the "Historical Context of Canon 28" and would be happy to share it with anyone interested.  Just get my e-mail from my profile and write to me.


Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2009, 09:47:29 AM »

http://www.hchc.edu/holycross/about/news/news_releases/1165.html

Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and
The Significance of Canon 28 of Chalcedon


A Statement by the Faculty
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Schoolof Theology
Brookline, Massachusetts
April 30, 2009

http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=129

Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Effect?

George C. Michalopulos

"ABSTRACT: Orthodoxy today is at a crossroads in America and
throughout the world. One of the great challenges facing us has to do
with inter-Orthodox cooperation. Specifically, how are new mission
fields identified? Which of the established churches evangelizes them?
And how are they granted autocephaly? What is the purpose of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and by what authority does it claim primatial
honors? More importantly, is there a difference between primacy and
supremacy? The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the primatial
claims of the Church of Constantinople and specifically, Canon 28 of
the Council of Chalcedon, which has become the proof-text as it were
of recent Constantinopolitan claims which have startled many in the
Orthodox world.

"Recent events have forced the issue of Constantinopolitan supremacy to the fore....."
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,679



« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2009, 11:01:47 AM »

Thanks for the cut n' paster above, Isa, on Byzantium, a well known defensible location. But still not a great or important center until after 313 AD.
Define important.  As late as Heracleus, it wasn't "important" enough that no other city was considered for the capital.
Actually, it seems you the one who must better define 'important'.  A highly defensible redoubt protecting a mercantile center doesn't quite make your argument.

But being able to outfit 500 warships does.

Maybe in Isaland, but the crew/warrior complements of 500 "warships" of the day would barely make a respectable land army in Aristokliland.

Odd tactics in Aristokliland, fighting a naval battle with a land army.

In the Roman empire, 690 warships at Actium decided the fate of the Senate and People of Rome. Octavian, now Augustus, thought it important.

Neither does the 3 years that it took Rome to successfully assail the town. Greekworld was 600 city states at the time. Some captulated quickly, others resisted.
Out of those 600, which would you say were "important centers?"
Hmmm.let's see...in Greekworld...ALEXANDRIA,
Alexandria on the Latmos?
Alexandria of the Troad?

Those are the only ones I know in "Greekland."

Or perhaps a little ethnocentricism is showing, and you are referring to Alexandria at Egypt.  That being the second city of the empire (and Church), Byzantium was of course not at that level of importance.  Nor did I imply it was.

Quote
Thessalonika,

a capital in Macedonia. Still above Byzantium's level, but getting closer.  Part of its importance came from being a hub on the Via Egnati (laid 2 cent. B.C.), which conected (after jump over the Adriatic, sorry your land army would get wet) via the Appian Way Rome to....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Via_Egnatia-en.jpg

Quote
Corinth,

Of comparable importance to Byzantium. Glad you agree.

Quote
Ephesus,

A city more in the Rome/Alaxandria at Egypt league, above Byzantium.

Quote
even then lowly Athens.

Lowly Athens at the time was so low that the city walls no longer enclosed the agora. Centuries earlier Sulla had levelled it (except the monumental buildings).  Hadrian did rebuild it somewhat, but Athens' importance even then lay in its past.

Culturally Byzantium couldn't compete, but as far as ranking cities, she suppassed Athens even then.

Three years? The Turks NEVER took Montenegro; does that qualify it as a great and important center?

Uh, no: it counts as a country: Montenegro had its own Prince-bishops, later kings, who continued the Serbian patriarchate when the Phanar abolished it.  Since, as you point out, the Turks never took Montenegro, the Phanar wasn't able to get to Montenegro to abolish its autocephalous Church either.

Not a great and important country, but a country nonetheless.  Which is to say great and important enough.
Your opinion, again, along with the ever-present Greek-bashing. This jihad seems a bit of a psychosis.

Praise for the Montenegrins is bashing of the Greeks.  That's some problem you have there. Tongue

Lest I be accused of derailing threads, I thought I would open this one on a topic whose very existence has been questioned: Phanariotism.
I've already posted some documents, including a historical source:
[Letter of Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer to Mr. William E. Gladstone [British PM, no?], February 13, 1878
If I am eager for the liberation of the oppressed peoples of European Turkey, I mean by that not only the Slavs but also the Greeks. This time, it is true, they have behaved most unworthily; just as their behaviour was truly unworthy and shameful when like cowards they lost their capital Constantinople to the advancing Turks. None the less, their liberation also should be achieved to-day, in the interest of humanity and the permanent pacification of these parts of Europe.

Secondly, my noble friend, I have to recommend to you the Serbs and the Montenegrins...The Montenegrins with their splendid and truly heroic prince, I hardly need to recommend to you. If any little people deserves the world's admiration, it is this splendid Montenegrin people, which has taken up its abode like an eagle on a lofty and barren crag, in order to buy its freedom and independence by a thousand sacrifices and renunciations for centuries.


You wanted examples of your prooftexting  history to fit your personal interpretations? This is one.
And what "personal interpretation" would that be?
To wit: this tangent, for one.

You might want to open a thread to continue, rather than unraveling this one.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 11:13:46 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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2009, 11:15:50 AM »

ialmisry,

Are you by any chance copying your text to a text editor, making a reply, and then pasting it back to post?

I noticed that when you quote text from Aristocles, there is no Greek but rather a series of question marks. That would suggest a non-unicode text editor.

I'm just curious since I only see the corruption happening in your posts, and not in the very ones he has nested quotes in.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 11:16:06 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tags: Ecumenical Patriarch EP Bashing 
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.258 seconds with 71 queries.