Bulgarian Orthodox Leader Affirms Desire for Unity

[lubeltri]

GLOBAL ZENIT NEWS
Rome's Zenit News

Bulgarian Orthodox Leader Affirms Desire for Unity

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 22, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A Bulgarian Orthodox prelate told Benedict XVI of his desire for unity, and his commitment to accelerate communion with the Catholic Church.


At the end of Wednesday's general audience, Bishop Tichon, head of the diocese for Central and Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, stated to the Pope, "We must find unity as soon as possible and finally celebrate together," L'Osservatore Romano reported.

"People don't understand our divisions and our discussions," the bishop stated. He affirmed that he will "not spare any efforts" to work for the quick restoration of "communion between Catholics and Orthodox."
 
Bishop Tichon said that "the theological dialogue that is going forward in these days in Cyprus is certainly important, but we should not be afraid to say that we must find as soon as possible the way to celebrate together."

"A Catholic will not become an Orthodox and vice versa, but we must approach the altar together," he added.
 
The prelate told the Pontiff that "this aspiration is a feeling that arose from the works of the assembly" of his diocese, held in Rome, in which all the priests and two delegates from every Bulgarian Orthodox parish took part.

"We have come to the Pope to express our desire for unity and also because he is the Bishop of Rome, the city that hosted our assembly," he stated.

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=27299

[scamandrius]

Fortunately, I'm sorry to say, his views are NOT shared by the vast majority of Orthodox hierarchs.  I've never even heard of this particular bishop before now which probably means he is pretty insignificant and his comments are really not going to sway any other prelates of the Church.

[Asteriktos]

lubeltri

Maybe I've just been swayed too much by less ecumenically-minded Orthodox, but it seems to me that the issues seperating the two Churches are still many and profound. But as a knowledgable Catholic, what do you think? Would you agree with the many Catholics that I have talked to who say that the differences which seperate these two Churches are merely superficial or political?

[John Larocque]

Maybe I read his comments the wrong way, but the way I interpreted them was that he was genuinely interested and enthusiastic in seeing Orthodox and Catholic come together in the unity of faith, which would actually allow for "communion". I haven't seen anything from Cyprus that suggests this is around the corner any time soon but I'm not pessimistic either. I think people just need to take a deep breath - both the rabid ecumenists and the entrenched anti-ecumenists. In the case of the bishop, let's see if he clarifies his comments in a less problematic way.

[ignatius]

Talk... the spoken word doesn't bring unity nor do they define Truth. They are as with all words concepts pointing toward that which is unspoken... reality. Encountered but not captured, felt by not defined, we must recognize this before 'unity' will ever be a possibility and even then it will need to be buried within the hearts of those who have come to that place where love is stronger than doubts and truth casts us into it's darkness to overcome the brilliance of our ignorance. The two traditions will never be one because unity is not possible within the divided hearts of men. We have made our faith a mockery and we must lay in the beds that we have made.

[lubeltri]

lubeltri

Maybe I've just been swayed too much by less ecumenically-minded Orthodox, but it seems to me that the issues seperating the two Churches are still many and profound. But as a knowledgable Catholic, what do you think? Would you agree with the many Catholics that I have talked to who say that the differences which seperate these two Churches are merely superficial or political?

No, I would not say that they are merely superficial.

I WOULD say, however, that political and cultural factors were far more significant in causing the schism than theological ones---and certainly there are Orthodox like Met. Kallistos Ware who would admit this.

Yes, many issues separate the two Churches, but I don't consider most of these Church-separating issues. I'm sure many Orthodox online will dispute this, but on the ground opinions are a bit different.

The scope of the Pope is the real dealbreaker between the two, I think.

[Alveus Lacuna]

It looks like this is one Bulgarian bishop who oversees diaspora faithful in Western Europe.  That's not exactly the same as the Patriarch himself giving such hopeful pronouncements, but the wording of the article is sneaky and without a careful reading it give the impression that he is the Patriarch of Bulgaria.

[Basil 320]

"A Catholic will not become Orthodox and vise versa, but we must approach the altar together." 

Dream on, Your Grace.  That will never happen.  No Orthodox Christian, well maybe a very few out of our 270 million, would realistically want to proceed along such a path.

[ignatius]

"A Catholic will not become Orthodox and vise versa, but we must approach the altar together." 

Dream on, Your Grace.  That will never happen.  No Orthodox Christian, well maybe a very few out of our 270 million, would realistically want to proceed along such a path.

This is what I have been saying for months now. The West and the East will 'never' join. Period. Stop talking about it and be at the spiritual work of perfecting our hearts. There is much work to do but obsessing about union is nothing but a distraction. I love the idea of using this division as an encouragement to pursue holiness all the more on both our parts. I firmly believe that if we focus on the Kingdom unity would happen naturally.

[lubeltri]

Check out the video of the initial meeting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdlYrSeHneI&feature=player_embedded

Is it typical of Orthodox hierarchs to genuflect before another hierarch when they greet him?

[scamandrius]

^Before Orthodox hierarchs, yes, but not before heretics and their hierarchs.  I hope the Patriarch of Bulgaria disciplines these prelates for such egregious and inappropriate behavior.  It doesn't matter if this was done "to be nice."  You genuflect and bow only to your superiors.

Also, when listening to the audio the announcer says that "The president of the diocese of Central and Western Europe of the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, Tichon, Ivanov, told the Pope that the union is necessary because citizens do not understand the divisions and discussions between Catholics and Orthodox."  We need unity because most Orthodox and Catholics are unaware or do not understand what divides us?  What kind of logical reasoning is that?  I don't understand the difference between papadic tone 4 and sticharic tone 4.  Does that mean I should just chant them the same way?  Bishop TICHON should be reprimanded by the Patriarch and I sincerely hope he is.

[Orthodoc]

It looks like this is one Bulgarian bishop who oversees diaspora faithful in Western Europe.  That's not exactly the same as the Patriarch himself giving such hopeful pronouncements, but the wording of the article is sneaky and without a careful reading it give the impression that he is the Patriarch of Bulgaria.

I asked my Bulgarian foster son about this.  He said that his mother told him after this was reported the calls of complaints to the Patriarchate were so high that the circuits were overloaded and the entire system went down.  His mother was one of the callers.  He is on his way to Bulgaria right now and should arrive tomorrow. He will find out more.

He also said that the Catholic press exaggerates things.  Example:  That church in Rome that was reported given to the BOC was not given.  They received permission to serve Liturgy on Sundays only.  Weekdays it is used by Benedictne Monks.

Orthodoc

[Basil 320]

To REPLY #10 Re. Greetings Between Hierarchs

I noticed on the YouTube videos of Patriarch Bartholomew's visit to New Orleans this week, Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta, in whose diocese His All Holiness is visiting, after His All Holiness descended the stairs of the air plane, Metropolitan Alexios bowed his head slightly, kissed His All Holiness' right hand, and they both exchanged kisses on their cheeks.  Archbishop Demetrios of America went into the plane, so I couldn't see how he greeted the patriarch.  There was no genuflecting.  Knowing what I know about Patriarch Bartholomew, I'm sure every protocol must be extended to him.  I've never seen an Orthodox bishop genuflect to another hierarch, however, I've not been to a Liturgy with more than one hierarch celebrating (assisting) at the point before the Liturgy begins, when the priests "take kiero," from the celebrant bishop (I don't know how to translate this into English).

[Ortho_cat]

"A Catholic will not become Orthodox and vise versa, but we must approach the altar together." 

Dream on, Your Grace.  That will never happen.  No Orthodox Christian, well maybe a very few out of our 270 million, would realistically want to proceed along such a path.

You either accept the Petrine Primacy or you don't.  It's quite simple, and Rome wouldn't have it any other way.

[Ortho_cat]

Lord have mercy!

[Papist]

lubeltri

Maybe I've just been swayed too much by less ecumenically-minded Orthodox, but it seems to me that the issues seperating the two Churches are still many and profound. But as a knowledgable Catholic, what do you think? Would you agree with the many Catholics that I have talked to who say that the differences which seperate these two Churches are merely superficial or political?

I'm gonna through in a few words on this.
I think some issues are substantial.
Some issues are a matter of using the same word to describe different things.
Some issues are very superficial.
Some issues are exteremely political.
Some issues didn't even come into existence until the last two centuries.

[scamandrius]

^But you'd agree that those issues are not simply "inconveniences" to be swept under the rug for the sake of false unity, right?

[Basil 320]

CORRECTION TO MY REPLY #12

I want to correct something I wrote in Reply #12, two days ago, having since reviewed the YouTube video of the welcoming of Patriarch Bartholomew at the New Orleans airport, last week.  Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta did make a quick metania as His All Holiness approached him.  It was a quick one, not fully touching the ground, because His All Holiness approached him before he had a chance to do a full metania, then, they exchanged the kiss of peace.

Also, the poster's use of the term "genuflect" as to Bishop Tikhon's greeting to Pope Benedict had confused me.  I assumed it was the Roman Catholic genuflection, but it was the Orthodox metania, having since viewed it, not that that should affect our understanding of what occurred at that encounter.

[Papist]

^But you'd agree that those issues are not simply "inconveniences" to be swept under the rug for the sake of false unity, right?

The substantial ones are much more than "inconveniences" to be swept under the rug. That being said, after having been on this forum for several years, reading articles writtne by Eastern Orthodox theologians and clergy, and talking to persons who are Eastern Orthodox, I have come to believe that there are very few substantial issues that separate us. Probably the Papacy is the most substantial one. Another that I can think of is the Immaculate Conception. Maybe the last one I can think of is the Atonement and not because Catholics buy into the Legalist view of the atonement as protestants do but only because modern EOs almost make Christ's sacrifice accidental to the incarnation. I don't even think that the Filioque is a big one because the Catholic Church has stated time and time again that we believe that "from the Son" is the same as "through the Son".

[scamandrius]

I don't even think that the Filioque is a big one because the Catholic Church has stated time and time again that we believe that "from the Son" is the same as "through the Son".

Except that it isn't.

[Mickey]

Except that it isn't.

 

[Papist]

I don't even think that the Filioque is a big one because the Catholic Church has stated time and time again that we believe that "from the Son" is the same as "through the Son".

Except that it isn't.

Except that it is. I know you guys love anti-latin polemics but come off it. This is actually one of the many things that keeps me away from Eastern Orthodoxy: creating issues where none exist. Even St. Maximos was willing to admitt that the west and east may actually mean the same thing concerning this issue. I am convinced that in essence they do mean the same thing and that those who think otherwise do so out of some childish "NO We're RIGHT!!!" complex.

[scamandrius]

I don't care how the Roman Catholic Church justifies "through" and "from" as meaning the same thing.  We're not buying it; we won't and that's final.  St. Maximos wasn't and isn't the supreme arbiter on that.  ANd I'm not going to be sucked into yet another "filioque" debate as that has been rehashed on this board many times. Maybe you can go back and read through a few of those.

BTW, if we're acting childish because we refuse to accept what you believe, then you are acting equally childish because we won't play the game according to your rules.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I don't even think that the Filioque is a big one because the Catholic Church has stated time and time again that we believe that "from the Son" is the same as "through the Son".

Except that it isn't.

Except that it is. I know you guys love anti-latin polemics but come off it. This is actually one of the many things that keeps me away from Eastern Orthodoxy: creating issues where none exist. Even St. Maximos was willing to admitt that the west and east may actually mean the same thing concerning this issue. I am convinced that in essence they do mean the same thing and that those who think otherwise do so out of some childish "NO We're RIGHT!!!" complex.

Pardon me, but words should count for something, no? The Catholic Church has been doing some backtracking on this and other doctrinal positions but she has yet to change the words to reflect what they now say they mean.

[Orthodoc]

I don't care how the Roman Catholic Church justifies "through" and "from" as meaning the same thing.  We're not buying it; we won't and that's final.  St. Maximos wasn't and isn't the supreme arbiter on that.  ANd I'm not going to be sucked into yet another "filioque" debate as that has been rehashed on this board many times. Maybe you can go back and read through a few of those.

BTW, if we're acting childish because we refuse to accept what you believe, then you are acting equally childish because we won't play the game according to your rules.

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.. You insult our intelligence.

Orthodoc

[Papist]

I don't care how the Roman Catholic Church justifies "through" and "from" as meaning the same thing.  We're not buying it; we won't and that's final.  St. Maximos wasn't and isn't the supreme arbiter on that.  ANd I'm not going to be sucked into yet another "filioque" debate as that has been rehashed on this board many times. Maybe you can go back and read through a few of those.

BTW, if we're acting childish because we refuse to accept what you believe, then you are acting equally childish because we won't play the game according to your rules.

Childish because it amounts to arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Papist]

I don't even think that the Filioque is a big one because the Catholic Church has stated time and time again that we believe that "from the Son" is the same as "through the Son".

Except that it isn't.

Except that it is. I know you guys love anti-latin polemics but come off it. This is actually one of the many things that keeps me away from Eastern Orthodoxy: creating issues where none exist. Even St. Maximos was willing to admitt that the west and east may actually mean the same thing concerning this issue. I am convinced that in essence they do mean the same thing and that those who think otherwise do so out of some childish "NO We're RIGHT!!!" complex.

Pardon me, but words should count for something, no? The Catholic Church has been doing some backtracking on this and other doctrinal positions but she has yet to change the words to reflect what they now say they mean.

We have said that it means the same thing for centuries. Even Thomas Aquinas recognizes that the ideas are equivalent.

[Papist]

I don't care how the Roman Catholic Church justifies "through" and "from" as meaning the same thing.  We're not buying it; we won't and that's final.  St. Maximos wasn't and isn't the supreme arbiter on that.  ANd I'm not going to be sucked into yet another "filioque" debate as that has been rehashed on this board many times. Maybe you can go back and read through a few of those.

BTW, if we're acting childish because we refuse to accept what you believe, then you are acting equally childish because we won't play the game according to your rules.

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.. You insult our intelligence.

Orthodoc

I don't insult your intelligence... Just the maturity of pomlemicists.

[Mickey]

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.

Let's not hold our collective breath. 

[Papist]

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.

Let's not hold our collective breath. 

I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

[scamandrius]

We have said that it means the same thing for centuries. Even Thomas Aquinas recognizes that the ideas are equivalent.

BUT WE DON'T.  You expect us just to throw our doctrine to the wind because the great and mighty Aquinas says so.  He's your doctor, not ours.  We are no more bound to listen to him than you are to listen to Palamas.

If anyone is arguing for the sake of arguing it is you.  You are being childish about this. 

[Orthodoc]

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.

Let's not hold our collective breath. 

I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

But your church obviously does or it would have done it already.  Put your money where your mouth is.  That fact that your church won't, insults or intelligence regarding saying one thing rather than the other and saying it means the same. thing.

Orthodoc

[scamandrius]

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.. You insult our intelligence.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc,

I am defending the Orthodox position by pointing out how "from" NOT AND is not the same thing as through.   I said nothing of the sort which you are implying. You insult my intelligence.  I think an apology is in order since you have more or less accused me of indulging heretical teaching.

[Papist]

We have said that it means the same thing for centuries. Even Thomas Aquinas recognizes that the ideas are equivalent.

BUT WE DON'T.  You expect us just to throw our doctrine to the wind because the great and mighty Aquinas says so.  He's your doctor, not ours.  We are no more bound to listen to him than you are to listen to Palamas.

If anyone is arguing for the sake of arguing it is you.  You are being childish about this. 

And Maximos belongs to both our Churches.

[Basil 320]

Orthodoxy's dispute with Roman Catholicism's "Filioque," is probably the most substantive issue in dispute between the two churches, for two primary reasons. 

1) The language of the Symbol of Faith was supported by scripture: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me," Gospel of St. John, 15: 26. 

2) The Symbol of Faith (the Creed), was written and promulgated by the First and Second Ecumenical Synods, subsequently accepted by the clergy and faithful of the Undivided Church; and ratified by the subsequent Ecumenical Synod (Council).  That rendered it doctrinal, infallible doctrine, a matter that must be believed.  A Pope had those words emblazoned upon the walls of the Vatican in silver, so that those words would not be lost or changed.  Yet, a subsequent Pope, and his followers, felt he had the authority to add language to those words of the Creed, centuries later.  Ascribing that authority to one bishop of the church, not-with-standing his primacial authority, the Pope superseding scriptural based dogma of two Ecumenical Synods, was not accepted by Orthodoxy at the time, nor can it be acceptable today.

Then, to have the audacity to pronounce an "Anathema" upon the primal patriarch of the East for not accepting this papal innovation, raises the West's self-assumed authority, to be way beyond anything that Orthodoxy could even entertain for compromise resolution.

[Orthodoc]

If what you say is true, then the RCC could solve the problem by changing 'and' to 'through' if it means the same thing.. You insult our intelligence.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc,

I am defending the Orthodox position by pointing out how "from" NOT AND is not the same thing as through.   I said nothing of the sort which you are implying. You insult my intelligence.  I think an apology is in order since you have more or less accused me of indulging heretical teaching.

Yes I do and I am sincerely sorry.  I misread the post.  Thought I was addressing a reply by Papist.  Again, I'm sorry.


Orthodoc

[Papist]

Orthodoxy's dispute with Roman Catholicism's "Filioque," is probably the most substantive issue in dispute between the two churches, for two primary reasons. 

1) The language of the Symbol of Faith was supported by scripture: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of me," Gospel of St. John, 15: 26. 

2) The Symbol of Faith (the Creed), was written and promulgated by the First and Second Ecumenical Synods, subsequently accepted by the clergy and faithful of the Undivided Church; and ratified by the subsequent Ecumenical Synod (Council).  That rendered it doctrinal, infallible doctrine, a matter that must be believed.  A Pope had those words emblazoned upon the walls of the Vatican in silver, so that those words would not be lost or changed.  Yet, a subsequent Pope, and his followers, felt he had the authority to add language to those words of the Creed, centuries later.  Ascribing that authority to one bishop of the church, not-with-standing his primacial authority, the Pope superseding scriptural based dogma of two Ecumenical Synods, was not accepted by Orthodoxy at the time, nor can it be acceptable today.

Then, to have the audacity to pronounce an "Anathema" upon the primal patriarch of the East for not accepting this papal innovation, raises the West's self-assumed authority, to be way beyond anything that Orthodoxy could even entertain for compromise resolution.

I remain unimpressed.

[Asteriktos]

Papist,

Out of curiosity, have you ever read On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius?

[LBK]

Papist,

Out of curiosity, have you ever read On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius?

You mean St Photius the Great, the Pillar of Orthodoxy, along with his fellow "Pillars" St Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus? 

[Basil 320]

You're just not easy to impress, Papist.  I guess the Pope's subsequent emissary's of the 4th Crusade (1204), who sacked Constantinople, and had a women of ill repute dance upon the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarch, wouldn't impress you either, nor is the Jesuit "mission" within Greece, in the 18th century, during Ottoman occupation, impressive either; and the proliferation of Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia, during the "Dialogue of Love," likewise, unimpressive.

[lubeltri]

You're just not easy to impress, Papist.  I guess the Pope's subsequent emissary's of the 4th Crusade (1204), who sacked Constantinople, and had a women of ill repute dance upon the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarch, wouldn't impress you either, nor is the Jesuit "mission" within Greece, in the 18th century, during Ottoman occupation, impressive either; and the proliferation of Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia, during the "Dialogue of Love," likewise, unimpressive.

[Whistles.] That's quite a chip you have on your shoulder.

BTW, the Fourth Crusade was not the Pope's. Read Innocent III's angry response to the sacking---pretty strong stuff.

Have a nice day.

[Papist]

You're just not easy to impress, Papist.  I guess the Pope's subsequent emissary's of the 4th Crusade (1204), who sacked Constantinople, and had a women of ill repute dance upon the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarch, wouldn't impress you either, nor is the Jesuit "mission" within Greece, in the 18th century, during Ottoman occupation, impressive either; and the proliferation of Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia, during the "Dialogue of Love," likewise, unimpressive.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the current Catholic-Orthdox dialogue.

[Papist]

Papist,

Out of curiosity, have you ever read On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius?

I have read portions. Again, I remain unimpressed.

[Asteriktos]

I have read portions. Again, I remain unimpressed.

Well, I didn't really think it would convince you to change your position and become Orthodox or something, I was just curious what you would think of it. I think "unimpressed" sufficiently answers my curiosity.   I must admit that that text didn't really make me any more sure of the doctrine, and I was Orthodox. For my own part, I found the sections about saints making mistakes (Mystagogy, 68-72) to be more interesting. But fwiw, if you're ever interested in reading the whole thing, it's available for free online.

[Papist]

I have read portions. Again, I remain unimpressed.

Well, I didn't really think it would convince you to change your position and become Orthodox or something, I was just curious what you would think of it. I think "unimpressed" sufficiently answers my curiosity.   I must admit that that text didn't really make me any more sure of the doctrine, and I was Orthodox. For my own part, I found the sections about saints making mistakes (Mystagogy, 68-72) to be more interesting. But fwiw, if you're ever interested in reading the whole thing, it's available for free online.

Thank you very much for the link. I would much rather read the whole thing rather than bits and pieces. Even if I am not convinced of his arguements its still of academic interest.

[Orthodoc]

You're just not easy to impress, Papist.  I guess the Pope's subsequent emissary's of the 4th Crusade (1204), who sacked Constantinople, and had a women of ill repute dance upon the Throne of the Ecumenical Patriarch, wouldn't impress you either, nor is the Jesuit "mission" within Greece, in the 18th century, during Ottoman occupation, impressive either; and the proliferation of Roman Catholic dioceses in Russia, during the "Dialogue of Love," likewise, unimpressive.

[Whistles.] That's quite a chip you have on your shoulder.

BTW, the Fourth Crusade was not the Pope's. Read Innocent III's angry response to the sacking---pretty strong stuff.

Have a nice day.

You mean as he left the doors of the Vatican Treasury and main Cathedrals open  to take in the stolen looy that went on for the next 4060 years?

Orthodoc

[scamandrius]

Yes I do and I am sincerely sorry.  I misread the post.  Thought I was addressing a reply by Papist.  Again, I'm sorry.


Orthodoc

Orthodoc,

Thanks.  I'm sorry for getting snippy about it.  Carry on!

[Robb]

Was not Bulgaria the country that betrayed her Orthodox allies, Russia, and Serbia, during World War I by joining the Central Powers and fighting against Orthodoxy?  I also recall reading that the King of Bulgaria told the Pope that he was going to convert his country to Catholicism after the war (thank God the Bulgar's lost or this might have occurred).  These events, if some of you want to look them up, occurred in 1915.

Bulgaria must not betray the faith of her fathers for the sake of western praise.

[John of the North]

Was not Bulgaria the country that betrayed her Orthodox allies, Russia, and Serbia, during World War I by joining the Central Powers and fighting against Orthodoxy?  I also recall reading that the King of Bulgaria told the Pope that he was going to convert his country to Catholicism after the war (thank God the Bulgar's lost or this might have occurred).  These events, if some of you want to look them up, occurred in 1915.

Bulgaria must not betray the faith of her fathers for the sake of western praise.

How is that relevant to this thread??

[Robb]

What could happen once might happen again?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

What could happen once might happen again?

Ridiculous. What never occurred cannot, by definition, happen again.

[Asteriktos]

I don't know about 20th century happenings, but Bulgaria did flip flop between Constantinople and Rome a few times in the 9th century.

[Orthodoc]

I don't know about 20th century happenings, but Bulgaria did flip flop between Constantinople and Rome a few times in the 9th century.

From my Bulgarian Orthodox fosterson -

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

This week the Holy Synod of the BOC removed from office Simeon, Metropolitan of Central and Western Europe along with his Vicar Bishop Tichon.  Tichon was fullfilling the duties of Simeon (who has been in the hospital for a long time). Tichon was the one who made some scandalous remarks to the media with respect to our relations with the roman catholics i.e. they were not heretics, they are the other half and other such nonsense.

I am so happy that the Synod swiftly removed both of them!

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

Orthodoc

[Michał Kalina]

Who will take their place? What are that removed Hierarchs going to do know?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Who will take their place? What are that removed Hierarchs going to do know?

Probably someone who doesn't publicly fraternize with heretics.

We all want unity in faith and communion, but it has to be real.

[Ortho_cat]

Mispost. I just realized the former bishop has been removed.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Bulgarian Orthodox Leader Affirms Desire for Unity