Poll

Should the Holy and Great Council be postponed?

Yes, more preparational work is needed
17 (41.5%)
No, the historical Council should be held as scheduled
14 (34.1%)
No, it shouldn't be held at all until agenda changes
10 (24.4%)

Total Members Voted: 41

Voting closed: June 24, 2016, 09:11:23 AM

Author Topic: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016  (Read 104647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,866
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1035 on: December 23, 2016, 03:16:31 PM »
Admonishment Is Not the Same as Excommunication
http://myocn.net/admonishment-is-not-the-same-as-excommunication/
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,055
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1036 on: December 23, 2016, 09:22:50 PM »
Admonishment Is Not the Same as Excommunication
http://myocn.net/admonishment-is-not-the-same-as-excommunication/

What is pravoslavie.ru that they do not care if they are promulgating misinformation. Why does Fr. Peter Heers misinterpret the same text? It seems clear to me from the text that you have linked.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,179
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1037 on: December 23, 2016, 11:18:26 PM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1038 on: December 23, 2016, 11:30:26 PM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.


Right. I am not exactly a fan of Met Seraphim of Piraeus and the whole anti-ecumenist movement, but I have to ask what HAH would consider the limits of reasonable dissent, especially when expressed in churches not under his jurisdiction. Also, what does it mean for the Patriarch of one local church to excommunicate a few particular bishops of another local church? The document stinks of overreach and hubris to me. 
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,055
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1039 on: December 24, 2016, 01:14:27 AM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.


So as a matter of judging character, you are fine with this blatant lie :
Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter to the Archbishop of Greece: Defrock and Sever Communion with  those Opposed to our Council in Crete.

I am sensitive to this particular issue. And for the fourth time on this forum I need to provide this perspective of mine: I consider lies the worst and most destructive of all sins. Worse than taking a life.

« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 01:16:21 AM by Opus118 »
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 40,772
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1040 on: December 24, 2016, 01:41:19 AM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.


Right. I am not exactly a fan of Met Seraphim of Piraeus and the whole anti-ecumenist movement, but I have to ask what HAH would consider the limits of reasonable dissent, especially when expressed in churches not under his jurisdiction. Also, what does it mean for the Patriarch of one local church to excommunicate a few particular bishops of another local church? The document stinks of overreach and hubris to me.
Well, that is the Phanar's specialty...keeping up with Old Rome and all...
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

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1041 on: December 24, 2016, 07:52:34 AM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.


So as a matter of judging character, you are fine with this blatant lie :
Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter to the Archbishop of Greece: Defrock and Sever Communion with  those Opposed to our Council in Crete.

I am sensitive to this particular issue. And for the fourth time on this forum I need to provide this perspective of mine: I consider lies the worst and most destructive of all sins. Worse than taking a life.

You're right. The headline is misleading and indicates malice or poor reading comprehension. That said, the truth of what the HAH said isn't much better.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline DanielBodnar

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1042 on: December 24, 2016, 08:31:44 AM »
Admonishment Is Not the Same as Excommunication
http://myocn.net/admonishment-is-not-the-same-as-excommunication/

According to the Orthodox Christian Network, the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham (or was it Rev. John Chryssavgis?) recently commissioned "a careful and thorough translation" of the letter to Archbishop Ieronymos "to understand the true purpose and intent".

This is what they found (as well questions of mine that prevent me from acknowledging that EP's letter is OK):

1. Contrary to what many have falsely suggested, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not transgressing the independence of the Church of Greece; he is following proper protocol by asking Greece to address a problem of its clergy.

Is that right? But then what does this phrase mean: "The Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them?" Does it comply with the protocol and the Holy Canons?

2. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not requesting excommunication; he is recommending admonishment.

Well, doesn't he threaten to excommunicate them by himself?

3. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not criticizing opposition to the council; he acknowledges that reception and critical appraisal is vital in any conciliar decree and document.

Where it is said so? Maybe this statement is meant: "We responsibly denounce the above with painful soul and agonizing heart before this impious matter, which exceeds the right to free expression of constructive opinion, assumes larger and irreconcilable dimensions..."? Is it all? Is it about the vital role of reception and critical appraisal, really?

4. Rather, the Patriarch is critical of scandal and division aroused by a small group of clerics who are deliberately trying to sow resistance to the Council among the faithful in other autocephalous churches.

As the letter says, "a delegation led by the aforementioned clergyman has already visited the Most Holy Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia, as well as the ecclesiastical Eparchy of Moldavia, creating turmoil among the faithful there and regrettably being received by brother Primates and Hierarchs of these Churches". So why EP has decided to interfere? Has any Autocephalous Church expressed concern over Greek Metropolitans visiting its clergy?

5. There is a genuine irony at play by those who accuse the Holy and Great Synod of heresy on the basis of ecumenism. By declaring the synod heretical, these rogue clerics are cutting themselves off from the communion of their own Church of Greece, which participated in the Council.

Moreover, have the Metropolitans mentioned by the Ecumenical Patriarch really called the Council as heretical? It seems to me that they criticize the Council for not condemning ecumenism (and thus clearing the path to it), but not for adoption a heresy itself. Anyway, even St. Cyril was respectful toward Nestorius as a bishop, even when pointing out how much of a heretic he was. Thus, as long as Metropolitans Seraphim and Amvrosios aren't anathemized and commemorate Archbishop Hieronimus II as their Primate, they keep being in communion with the Church of Greece. There is no contradiction or paradox.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2016, 08:37:15 AM by DanielBodnar »

Offline Rohzek

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 780
    • Shameless Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox and Postpositivist
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1043 on: December 24, 2016, 09:57:26 AM »
Lol I would stay away from Fordham's Orthodox theologians or historians. I have seen some of their twitter feeds. They put politics before sound theological or historical processes from what I have seen. They are great when they talk about 1000 years ago, but they suck for the present.
"What I have shown you is reality. What you remember, that is the illusion." - Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII

“Fools have a habit of believing that everything written by a famous author is admirable. For my part I read only to please myself and like only what suits my taste.” - Lord Pococurante in Candide by Voltaire

Check out my new blog: Shameless Orthodoxy Latest Post:  Latin Divorce & Remarriage: A Forgotten History

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,179
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1044 on: December 24, 2016, 11:20:30 AM »
The reaction to the letter, as I heard it, largely came from this phrase:

...the Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them...

Now, perhaps one could say that since this phrase within a paragraph addressing "Metropolitans of Kalavryta-Aigialeia and Seraphim of Piraeus," one could argue that that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is threatening hierarchs rather than clergy with excommunication, and is only asking for admonishment of clergy.

That could be construed as true. 

However, it must be said that that the word excommunication was raised by Patriarch Bartholomew first, and so only he can clarify exactly how it is that this threat would be implemented if his demands are not satisfied.  No one is imagining that word.  He wrote it himself.  Or, at the very least, he signed the letter that used that word.  In either case, he is still responsible for it being there and people assuming that he is threatening hierarchs (which may or may not include 'clergy' depending on how you split the hair) with excommunication.

Then again, one could say, "Oh, no, he is not asking the Church of Greece to excommunicate them, but rather he's asking them to be admonished, or else he will excommunicate them.  So, the Church if Greece isn't being asked to excommunicate anyone.  Why are you over-reacting?"

That would be something of a strawman argument.  People are objecting and reacting to this letter because the subject of excommunication is being brought up.  Period.  Who does the excommunicating, and who is excommunicated, are mere details.

The question is that if this standard, e.g. excommunication for criticism, is consistently held, one must wonder how many clergy or hierarchs other than the Church of Greece also fall under this ban.  In which case, we have the foundations of a schism.


So as a matter of judging character, you are fine with this blatant lie :
Patriarch of Constantinople's Letter to the Archbishop of Greece: Defrock and Sever Communion with  those Opposed to our Council in Crete.

I am sensitive to this particular issue. And for the fourth time on this forum I need to provide this perspective of mine: I consider lies the worst and most destructive of all sins. Worse than taking a life.

As a former journalist and frequent victim of click-bait headlines in news stories, I could care less what the headline is of practically any story.  They are mostly lies anyhow, and this one is misleading. 

My response was to the content of the Patriarch's message itself, which I think is far worse than any headline on some internet site.  Excommunication is a serious matter, as opposed to the misleading proclamations of some digital forum.

So, please do not misread what I wrote.  I am not distracted from the real core of this matter: the threat of a potential schism of the Church.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,055
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1045 on: December 24, 2016, 12:50:46 PM »

As a former journalist and frequent victim of click-bait headlines in news stories, I could care less what the headline is of practically any story.  They are mostly lies anyhow, and this one is misleading. 

My response was to the content of the Patriarch's message itself, which I think is far worse than any headline on some internet site.  Excommunication is a serious matter, as opposed to the misleading proclamations of some digital forum.

So, please do not misread what I wrote.  I am not distracted from the real core of this matter: the threat of a potential schism of the Church.


Thanks Father. In regard to your last sentence, I have the same concern. I guess from my background, I see a lot of extrapolatory conclusions. May be some are relevant, but I am wary.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline mcarmichael

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1046 on: December 24, 2016, 10:27:50 PM »
Isn't it that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the one who is allowed to call a council? So what is this about?
Sun Tzu said:
This is war.
It is the most important skill in the nation.
It is the basis of life and death.
It is the philosophy of survival or destruction.
You must know it well.

"Mouth make trouble, mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,179
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1047 on: December 25, 2016, 12:06:51 AM »
Isn't it that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the one who is allowed to call a council? So what is this about?

Historically speaking, the "Ecumenical Councils" were largely imperial affairs, many called by Roman Emperors, and all bearing the approval of the emperor of the time.

Since there isn't really an 'ecumene' (i.e. 'household' of the Empire), we really can't speak of anything we do these days as being an 'Ecumenical Council.'  And, since there aren't any 'laws' pertaining to how councils are called, there's no real 'right answer' to who can or can't call a council.  There are local councils which are now universally recognized as having the weight of the Church in their contents, while others which are called "Robber Councils" or are not generally accepted.

Councils are a difficult subject, which we often simplify for the sake of adult catechism.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline Georgios Scholarios

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • Georgios Scholarios
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1048 on: December 25, 2016, 12:53:16 AM »
Surprised to see nobody talking about the recent message put out by the Romanian Patriarchate about the Council:

Communique: Any clarification regarding faith must be made in ecclesial communion, not in disunion

It's a very moderate approach that seems hard to argue with.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,898
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Candle-lighting Cross Kisser
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1049 on: December 25, 2016, 02:22:53 AM »
Surprised to see nobody talking about the recent message put out by the Romanian Patriarchate.

Who cares about Romanians?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 02:23:05 AM by hecma925 »
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,016
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1050 on: December 29, 2016, 11:10:39 AM »
At the clergy laity conference Archbishop Demetrios compares those Churches that did not attend Crete with those who were condemned in the ecumenical councils

...

Iin Romania, those who oppose are being crushed by the Church, monks expelled

Citations?

Regarding Romania,p

He

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2245564.html

Spoke this:

http://nftu.net/bishop-longinus-to-romanian-patriarchate-stop-persecuting-those-who-stand-for-orthodoxy/

-- r

Regarding GOARCH, Google clergy laity congress 2016 and it hopefully will come up, make sure it had a q and a section

archbishop Demetrios is in center, but there are others

If find it, listen for them comparing, when questioned about those who did not attend Crete, them comparing them to those condemned in the council. Essentially using the argument that all councils have those who do not accept it

I can't link it because everytime I leave this page to youtube on my phone I lose my draft!
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,016
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1051 on: December 29, 2016, 11:27:51 AM »
Admonishment Is Not the Same as Excommunication
http://myocn.net/admonishment-is-not-the-same-as-excommunication/

According to the Orthodox Christian Network, the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham (or was it Rev. John Chryssavgis?) recently commissioned "a careful and thorough translation" of the letter to Archbishop Ieronymos "to understand the true purpose and intent".

This is what they found (as well questions of mine that prevent me from acknowledging that EP's letter is OK):

1. Contrary to what many have falsely suggested, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not transgressing the independence of the Church of Greece; he is following proper protocol by asking Greece to address a problem of its clergy.

Is that right? But then what does this phrase mean: "The Ecumenical Patriarchate will address the problem that has emerged by severing ecclesiastical and sacramental communion with them?" Does it comply with the protocol and the Holy Canons?

2. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not requesting excommunication; he is recommending admonishment.

Well, doesn't he threaten to excommunicate them by himself?

3. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not criticizing opposition to the council; he acknowledges that reception and critical appraisal is vital in any conciliar decree and document.

Where it is said so? Maybe this statement is meant: "We responsibly denounce the above with painful soul and agonizing heart before this impious matter, which exceeds the right to free expression of constructive opinion, assumes larger and irreconcilable dimensions..."? Is it all? Is it about the vital role of reception and critical appraisal, really?

4. Rather, the Patriarch is critical of scandal and division aroused by a small group of clerics who are deliberately trying to sow resistance to the Council among the faithful in other autocephalous churches.

As the letter says, "a delegation led by the aforementioned clergyman has already visited the Most Holy Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia, as well as the ecclesiastical Eparchy of Moldavia, creating turmoil among the faithful there and regrettably being received by brother Primates and Hierarchs of these Churches". So why EP has decided to interfere? Has any Autocephalous Church expressed concern over Greek Metropolitans visiting its clergy?

5. There is a genuine irony at play by those who accuse the Holy and Great Synod of heresy on the basis of ecumenism. By declaring the synod heretical, these rogue clerics are cutting themselves off from the communion of their own Church of Greece, which participated in the Council.

Moreover, have the Metropolitans mentioned by the Ecumenical Patriarch really called the Council as heretical? It seems to me that they criticize the Council for not condemning ecumenism (and thus clearing the path to it), but not for adoption a heresy itself. Anyway, even St. Cyril was respectful toward Nestorius as a bishop, even when pointing out how much of a heretic he was. Thus, as long as Metropolitans Seraphim and Amvrosios aren't anathemized and commemorate Archbishop Hieronimus II as their Primate, they keep being in communion with the Church of Greece. There is no contradiction or paradox.


His is so funny to see. No. This was a facebook post by George Demacopolous giving a different translation, and giving his revised opinion about it. (It was like his third revision of his opinion).

 Then, a few days later, he posted it on the Fordham blog they set up, probably because someone in facebook comment asked him to. I think it's funny seeing it treated as some in depth study by the Jesuit university in these reposts elsewhere, It really was just him making a Facebook post and reposting it to his blog, which, of course Fordham is glad to have its name attached to (that university which is so well known for pushing boundaries of even Roman Catholic teachings)

Anyway, The first English translation was by Father Peter Heers or the group he surrounds himself with, and he has this response regarding the post by Professor George (this was after George posted it on Facebook, but before George posted it on the Fordham blog site):



-------------------

Mr. George Demacopoulos has posted some commentary on the Ecumenical Patriarch's letter to the Archbishop of Athens, which seeks the punishment of two bishops and several clergy who stand opposed to the "Council" in Crete. This is the letter which we originally made available in English on orthodoxethos.com. He has also re-translated the text in an attempt, as he says, to correct some errors in the original translation.

The implication is that with the new translation something has essentially changed, revealing the Patriarch's letter in a new, more pastoral light. Rather, nothing of essence has changed by re-translating it (on first glance the new translation seems fine to us). The letter is clear and the new translation doesn't change that clarity: he is calling on the Holy Synod of Greece to silence the bishops and clergy in question, and if they do not cease their opposition to the "Council", to impose the consequences foreseen by the canons [ = deposition, the word used in the original translation]. Likewise, the new translation has changed nothing in terms of what the EP will do if the two bishops are not silenced: sever communion (= excommunicate them).

There is nothing new here except for Mr. Demacopoulos' stance. It is interesting and noteworthy that Mr. Demacopoulos initially was just thrilled at the idea of "cutting off their heads", but when he realized that this didn't make the EP look so benevolent, he dialed it back. Contrary to comments to the contrary, the only agenda being served by the letter and its re-translation is that of the EP: further Crete at all costs, including short-circuiting the process of reception (or, rather, rejection) by silencing the opposition.

As an introduction to the new translation, Mr. Demacopoulos wrote the following misleading points:

"Let me make a few additional observations about the letter:

1. Contrary to what many have falsely suggested, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not transgressing the independence of the Church of Greece; he is following proper protocol by asking Greece to address a problem of its clergy.

2. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not requesting excommunication; he is recommending admonishment.

3. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not criticizing opposition to the council; he acknowledges that reception and critical appraisal is vital in any conciliar decree and document.

4. Rather, the Patriarch is critical of scandal and division aroused by a small group of clerics who are deliberately trying to sow resistance to the Council among the faithful in other autocephalous churches.

5. There is a genuine irony at play by those who accuse the Holy an Great Synod of heresy on the basis of ecumenism.  By declaring the synod heretical, these rogue clerics are cutting themselves off from the communion of their own Church of Greece, which participated in the Council."

Fortunately, for his readership, there was a very good response to Mr. Demacopoulos' points, by Mr. Anthony Ladas, who offered this:

"I have to disagree with you, Professor. I think the fundamental issue here is misconceptions about ecclesiology. I’ll try and go point-by-point to stay organized.

1. I agree that brother bishops may ask each other to address issues with their clergy if it affects their particular church. In the case of the clergy in question, they may not travel without their bishop’s permission, and they may not be received in another bishop’s canonical territory unless given permission by that bishop. If Georgia or Bulgaria did not want these clerics in their territory and the clerics went there anyway, they would have every right to complain. However, that is not the case. The Ecumenical Patriarch is out of line and is questioning the authority of these clerics’ Greek bishops and the Georgian and Bulgarian bishops that received them. The only Patriarchate I know of that sends clergy without asking for canonical permission first is, ironically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They receive complaints and continue doing what they’re doing. They don’t have a leg to stand on, here.

2. He is recommending admonishment and threatening excommunication if the hierarchs do not fall in line as per his recommended admonishment.

3. I’m not sure how the above can be interpreted in any way other than criticizing opposition to the Council. What action in particular are the two named Metropolitans (these are not the only ones opposed to the council, they are just easy targets) being admonished for other than that? I do not see it in the letter.

4. In both cases, the clerics in question were invited by the churches that they went to. They are free to express their viewpoint about the Council if asked.

5. This point isn't true. Simply because the Church of Greece participated in the Council does not mean that hierarchs in the Church of Greece that disagree with it are cutting themselves off. If this were the case, it would justify the non-participation of churches. This is the “binding” language being used by representatives of the EP that is simply incorrect. The representatives were to return from Crete and discuss acceptance of the Council synodally. They delayed doing so and finally met in the end of November, but had still not come to an agreement on whether or not to accept the Council. As of now, the Church of Greece has neither accepted nor rejected it. Metropolitans both present and not present at the Council did not agree with all of its final texts."

Many thanks to Mr. Ladas for allowing us to re-publish his response.

-------------------------------
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,318
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1052 on: December 29, 2016, 12:24:15 PM »
Mr Ladas is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to Dr Demacopoulos. 
Just grab them by prayer.


Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!

The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,055
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1053 on: December 29, 2016, 01:18:56 PM »
Mr Ladas is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to Dr Demacopoulos.

Mr Ladas excels in this particular subsection of theology?

I do not know who Mr Ladas is, as there are no links and according to OCnet Search this is the first instance of Ladas.

I think Mr. Rakovsky is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to most people at OCnet. This is a statement of opinion.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,318
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1054 on: December 29, 2016, 01:25:25 PM »
Mr Ladas is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to Dr Demacopoulos.

Mr Ladas excels in this particular subsection of theology?

I do not know who Mr Ladas is, as there are no links and according to OCnet Search this is the first instance of Ladas.

I think Mr. Rakovsky is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to most people at OCnet. This is a statement of opinion.

lol
Just grab them by prayer.


Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!

The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Be good works the daily nourishment of your hearts
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1055 on: December 29, 2016, 01:42:01 PM »
1054 replies, this rings a bell.  :D
"Behold, the mystical sacrifice, fully accomplished, is ushered in. In fervent faith let us draw near, that we may become sharers in everlasting life. Alleluia."

Please pray for myself, my family and my friends.

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese). Last article: Fontes de fé da Igreja Ortodoxa

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,920
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1056 on: December 29, 2016, 03:51:44 PM »

https://orthodoxethos.com/post/final-decision-of-the-church-of-georgia-on-the-council-of-crete-summary
In the synodical decision issued by the Georgian Orthodox Church the hierarchy of the Church of Georgia stated that:

1. The Cretan Council is not a Pan Orthodox Council, as four Churches did not participate in it;

2. The decisions of the Council of Crete are not obligatory for the Georgian Church, since the Council of Crete abolished the principle of consensus;

3. The documents issued by the Council of Crete do not reflect important critiques made by the Local Churches, and thus it is necessary for them to be corrected;

4. The documents of Crete need to reflect the teaching of the Orthodox Church; this is not the case with the present set of texts.

5. It is necessary for the Holy and Great Council to be held and we are confident it will be and that this future Council will make decisions by consensus, based on the teaching of Orthodox Church.

6. It is, thus, for this purpose that the Holy Synod has formed a theological commission to examine the documents accepted in Crete and to prepare for the future Council which will be Pan Orthodox.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline mcarmichael

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1057 on: December 29, 2016, 04:10:01 PM »
Isn't it that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the one who is allowed to call a council? So what is this about?

Historically speaking, the "Ecumenical Councils" were largely imperial affairs, many called by Roman Emperors, and all bearing the approval of the emperor of the time.

Greetings, Fr. Giryus,

Okay, but historically speaking, did that (the emporer's approval) ever matter to anybody?  I mean, of course people's lives were affected by it, but did anybody ever say that it (the emporer's approval) actually made any difference? I'm sure that's never been codified.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 04:17:28 PM by mcarmichael »
Sun Tzu said:
This is war.
It is the most important skill in the nation.
It is the basis of life and death.
It is the philosophy of survival or destruction.
You must know it well.

"Mouth make trouble, mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

Offline Georgios Scholarios

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
    • Georgios Scholarios
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1058 on: December 29, 2016, 04:18:12 PM »
Mr Ladas is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to Dr Demacopoulos.

Mr Ladas excels in this particular subsection of theology?

I do not know who Mr Ladas is, as there are no links and according to OCnet Search this is the first instance of Ladas.

I think Mr. Rakovsky is a superior theologian, esp. when compared to most people at OCnet. This is a statement of opinion.

"Mr. Ladas" is Anthony Ladas, a layman who left a comment on Demacopoulos's Facebook post. I think his objections are fair, and I'd like to see how Demacopoulos responds.

In the synodical decision issued by the Georgian Orthodox Church the hierarchy of the Church of Georgia stated that:

5. It is necessary for the Holy and Great Council to be held and we are confident it will be and that this future Council will make decisions by consensus, based on the teaching of Orthodox Church.

6. It is, thus, for this purpose that the Holy Synod has formed a theological commission to examine the documents accepted in Crete and to prepare for the future Council which will be Pan Orthodox.


This is very reasonable. It reminds me of this in the Romanian Patriarch's message:

Quote
It has also been recalled that if the synodal Fathers who participated in the Second Ecumenical Council (381) made 3 omissions and 10 additions or amendments to the text of the Creed formulated by the Holy Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (325), in order to clarify and complete the initial Synodal text, all the more a future Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church can explain, nuance and develop the documents formulated and approved by the Council in Crete, in order to avoid misinterpretations that harm the peace and unity of Christ’s Church.


Anyway, I acknowledge that a lot of the anti-ecumenists love God far more than I do, and such is simply zeal not enlightened by knowledge, but I have to say, anti-ecumenists tend to be dishonest in the arguments they make. They quote saints like St. Photius and St. Mark of Ephesus to support their stance, but fail to mention the ecumenical activities Photius did with the Armenians, and Mark tried to do with the Latins before getting chased away by the Thomist version of anti-ecumenists. They also hate the WCC and forget that St. Nikolaj Velimirovic attended a WCC meeting in 1954 in Evanston, IL. It's also interesting to note that some ultra-Greek Orthodox consider St. Nektarios a latinophron and ecumenist because he took St. Augustine's position and believed that heretics and schismatics had valid sacraments, something a lot of "trad Orthodox" who do venerate St. Nektarios fail to mention.
Slightly related, the anti-ecumenism site NFTU has an article implying that Fr. JP Manoussakis wants same-sex marriage when it's clear if you read the original source of his words that he's making the opposite point (i.e., that Protestants dropping clerical celibacy in the West led to the devaluation of celibacy, which has led to Protestant denominations allowing gay marriages).

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,318
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1059 on: December 29, 2016, 06:33:31 PM »
...but I have to say, anti-ecumenists tend to be dishonest in the arguments they make.

Yup.
Just grab them by prayer.


Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!

The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.

Offline Photinia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Faith: Orthodox Cristian
  • Jurisdiction: UOC KP
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1060 on: February 13, 2017, 03:05:04 PM »
Seems like Roman Catholics considered the Council held in June, 2016 in Crete as nothing but an "Orthodox Vatican II" that would help them to absorb World Orthodoxy.

The idea that "...the historic Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which took place in Crete this past June, sought to bridge the gap between Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches..." is repeatedly expressed in the article published in the Crisis Magazine ("A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity"):
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/orthodox-council-unity
That's how Vatican "supports" Ukrainian people in their fight with invader - and for the One Local Orthodox Church!

IMO, it's indeed worth to be regretted that the Council played with Roman Catholics, addressed ecumenism, fasting, marriage (on which it said nothing clear or new) - and failed to even consider the Ukrainian issue. Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew neither fulfilled the expectations of the West nor made any difference for about 30 mln Orthodox believers in Ukraine.
Well, now EP is under the fierce criticism as Papist and ecumenist, the Council failed to meet what could happen to be its only reason d'etre, and now I have absolutely nothing to say in the defense of Constantinople...


Offline Tamar78

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1061 on: February 14, 2017, 05:21:37 AM »
The article mentioned by Photinia quotes the following words of Roman Catholic professor from Seton Hall University concerning the EP's letter to the Archbishop of Athens: "Interference and pressure to excommunicate might sound more as rules/jurisdiction that apply in the West (...) The patriarch might be viewed by many as ‘the Pope of the East’ or ‘Orthodox Pope’” with this level of interference."
IMO, the very this aspect (along with the fair acknowledgment of an ecumenical orientation of the gathering in Crete) should have attracted attention of Orthodox readers.

Besides that, the article cites the conciliar document named "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World" as follows: "The Orthodox Church considers all efforts to break the unity of the Church, undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly defending true Orthodoxy, as being worthy of condemnation."
Honestly, I don't fully understand why this paragraph was included exactly in this document... Does it mean that Roman Catholics and numerous Protestant denominations are already (or still?) parts of the Church? Or is it supposed that the very this document on Relations with Non-Orthodox Cristian communities will cause division or schism in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and therefore it blames opponents of the Unia in advance?

Let's not forget that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html) stating that the Orthodox Church suffers from a "defectus", politely translated from Latin as "a wound", since it failed to recognize the primacy of the Pope. And this statement was made in 2007, i.e. long after the Vatican II! Moreover, according to the George Alexander's book "The Orthodox Dilemma", it was Pope Benedict XVI who said in one of his speeches, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church and the others are not Christians at all! So how on earth can we trust Vatican and embrace a "hierarchy of difficulties" concept (which was quite justly equated on Reddit with the boiling frog story)?

Surprisingly, it seems like we Orthodox Christians should beware of papists among us more than of the Pope of Rome himself! What a pity if it's really so...

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1062 on: February 14, 2017, 10:24:20 AM »
Well, I'm going to wait for Daniel Bodnar and Sophia Iliadi to weigh in on this one before I jump to any conclusions.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Sophia Iliadi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1063 on: February 16, 2017, 12:30:50 PM »
Well, I've read recent posts. And I've read the article in question as well.

Firstly, I can't remember anyone from the EP saying that the Council's goal was NOT to get closer with Non-Orthodox. They rather advocated its agenda in terms of "building bridges" and blamed its opponents as fundamentalists, sectarians and so on. As for me, I just don't want to be fooled with a "hierarchy of truths" or "hierarchy of difficulties" since I believe any minor teological compromise is apostasy, and fuzziness in wording only clears way to it.
When referring to Non-Orthodox as Churches we essentially adopt the protestant "Invisible Church" concept - the one which even Roman Catholics find insufficient: what they want is not merely "peaceful co-existence" but "visible unity in the shared faith, in the sacraments and in ecclesial ministry" (https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2017/02/christian-unity). So, what will stop us from an apostatic union after we are cought in the trap of "historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her" and thus acknowledge Papal primacy?

Secondly, I failed to find any proof of Benedict XVI saying "the others are not Christians at all". And I don't sure George Alexander is a reliable source...

And finally, I really appreciate that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece didn't responded harshly to the Phanar's papist letter and gave them time to rethink their attitude.

Offline Sophia Iliadi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1064 on: February 17, 2017, 10:27:38 AM »
There is also something else here...
Is anyone OK with the tenor and intent of Svitlana's post?

IMO, it's indeed worth to be regretted that the Council played with Roman Catholics, addressed ecumenism, fasting, marriage (on which it said nothing clear or new) - and failed to even consider the Ukrainian issue. Thus, Patriarch Bartholomew neither fulfilled the expectations of the West nor made any difference for about 30 mln Orthodox believers in Ukraine.
Well, now EP is under the fierce criticism as Papist and ecumenist, the Council failed to meet what could happen to be its only reason d'etre, and now I have absolutely nothing to say in the defense of Constantinople...

I'm almost blown away by it! How can it be so ethnocentric?! How can one be so obsessed with an issue of single nation's concern and be blind to things the whole Orthodox Christian World is talking about?
Does anybody really think Ukrainian issue could happen to be "the only reason d'etre" of the Council in Crete???

Offline mcarmichael

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 930
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1065 on: February 17, 2017, 11:38:34 PM »
I'm almost blown away by it! How can it be so ethnocentric?! How can one be so obsessed with an issue of single nation's concern and be blind to things the whole Orthodox Christian World is talking about?
Does anybody really think Ukrainian issue could happen to be "the only reason d'etre" of the Council in Crete???
Ethnic, maybe.
Sun Tzu said:
This is war.
It is the most important skill in the nation.
It is the basis of life and death.
It is the philosophy of survival or destruction.
You must know it well.

"Mouth make trouble, mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

Offline Tamar78

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Re: Various Discussions about The Holy and Great Council of Crete 2016
« Reply #1066 on: Yesterday at 03:04:25 AM »
Secondly, I failed to find any proof of Benedict XVI saying "the others are not Christians at all". And I don't sure George Alexander is a reliable source...

I failed to verify this either... ??? However, I don't think George Alexander is less reliable source than others.

And finally, I really appreciate that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece didn't responded harshly to the Phanar's papist letter and gave them time to rethink their attitude.

Seems like the Ecumenical Patriarchate makes overtures to Greek authorities, scholars and  NGOs. At least in the eyes of the former, Phanar plays kind of "Disneyland Daddy" since it doesn't rise such "annoying questions" as of building mosques,  state-sponsored religious education etc. while presenting itself as a possible mediator in the USA in the context of obtaining financial help for the crisis-torn Greek economy. However, this is just my first glance opinion...

« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:19:24 AM by Tamar78 »