OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 04:53:12 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 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Oh Those Russians  (Read 18009 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« on: December 29, 2009, 07:16:23 AM »

Prompted by a post in another thread, I was reading the news item: "Russian cathedral in Jerusalem vandalized" ( http://www.rusdm.ru/en/index.php?item=30 )
Interesting. Why is there a "Russian Cathedral" in Jerusalem in the first place? It turns out that this is the Cathedral Church of the "Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem" which is under the Moscow Patriarchate.
But wait! There's more!
It seems that ROCOR also has and Ecclessiatical Mission in Jerusalem: http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/history.html and on its history page, we read: "In 1920, when contact with Moscow was lost and Metropolitan Anthony organized the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops), the Mission immediately submitted itself under its jurisdiction."
Is this common for Russians to enter another Bishop's territory (In this case, the Patriarch of Jerusalem's territory) and just set up missions under their own Bishops?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 07:21:55 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2009, 07:48:39 AM »

Prompted by a post in another thread, I was reading the news item: "Russian cathedral in Jerusalem vandalized" ( http://www.rusdm.ru/en/index.php?item=30 )
Interesting. Why is there a "Russian Cathedral" in Jerusalem in the first place? It turns out that this is the Cathedral Church of the "Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem" which is under the Moscow Patriarchate.
But wait! There's more!
It seems that ROCOR also has and Ecclessiatical Mission in Jerusalem: http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/history.html and on its history page, we read: "In 1920, when contact with Moscow was lost and Metropolitan Anthony organized the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops), the Mission immediately submitted itself under its jurisdiction."
Is this common for Russians to enter another Bishop's territory (In this case, the Patriarch of Jerusalem's territory) and just set up missions under their own Bishops?

No, dear man.

1.  The Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem exists at the pleasure of the Patriarch of Jerusalem

2.  No Russian Church Abroad bishop has ever been appointed for Jerusalem.   That would be a
     a canonical violation of the Patriarchate's territory. There is simply an Archimandrite
     in charge of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission (a pre-Revolutionary body)

3.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem entrusted the Russian Church Abroad with the care of the Russian churches and
     monasteries in the Holy Land after the Bolshevik Revolution

4.  The clergy of the Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem serve Liturgy on Antimensia supplied and signed by
     the Patriarch of Jerusalem

5.  The clergy of the Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem at Liturgy
     and all other Services

6.  The abbesses of the monasteries of the Russian Church Abroad are installed only with the approval of the
     Patriarch of Jerusalem who sometimes conducts the installation himself.



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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2009, 08:06:30 AM »


http://www.interfax-religion.ru/print.php?act=news&id=5819

Summary of article:

"Russian-speaking Orthodox believers today outnumber Orthodox Arabs in the Jerusalem Patriarchate -- according to Metropolitan Timothy, the Jerusalem patriarchate's Secretary General. Some statistics indicate 300,000 Russian Orthodox while others state no more than 150,000. In either case, they outnumber the Arab Orthodox faithful."

-oOo-

These Russian Jewish believers naturally come under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and they will eventually have some impact on the future of the Patriarchate.  Churches are being built for them in Israel, including two already built at Beer Sheba.  Probably for the first time since the Apostles, Orthodox Christians are worshipping in the Holy City, using Hebrew in the Liturgy!! (Church Slavonic is also used of course.)   While other Churches in Israel are experiencing falling numbers and an uncertain future, God has so arranged it that the influx of Russian Orthodox has brought fresh promise to the ancient Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
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: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2009, 10:02:28 AM »

Prompted by a post in another thread, I was reading the news item: "Russian cathedral in Jerusalem vandalized" ( http://www.rusdm.ru/en/index.php?item=30 )
Interesting. Why is there a "Russian Cathedral" in Jerusalem in the first place? It turns out that this is the Cathedral Church of the "Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem" which is under the Moscow Patriarchate.
But wait! There's more!
It seems that ROCOR also has and Ecclessiatical Mission in Jerusalem: http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/history.html and on its history page, we read: "In 1920, when contact with Moscow was lost and Metropolitan Anthony organized the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops), the Mission immediately submitted itself under its jurisdiction."
Is this common for Russians to enter another Bishop's territory (In this case, the Patriarch of Jerusalem's territory) and just set up missions under their own Bishops?

No, that would be the Greeks.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22981.0.html

And in the case of Jerusalem, I fail to see why Phanariots should bemoan the presence of Russians, except the Russians aid the local, Arab Faithful, thereby endangering the tomb worshippers' colony.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 10:07:48 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2009, 02:04:47 PM »

1.  The Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem exists at the pleasure of the Patriarch of Jerusalem
Then why, in their own words was the ROCOR Mission to the Holy Land "placed under the the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops)"

2.  No Russian Church Abroad bishop has ever been appointed for Jerusalem. 
It doesn't have to appoint a Bishop to the Mission, the Mission is under the authority of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroard- well one of them is. The other one is under the Moscow Patriarchate.

3.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem entrusted the Russian Church Abroad with the care of the Russian churches and monasteries in the Holy Land after the Bolshevik Revolution
Documentation?

4.  The clergy of the Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem serve Liturgy on Antimensia supplied and signed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem
And who signs the antimension in the "Russian Cathedral"?


5.  The clergy of the Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem at Liturgy and all other Services
So then why, when "Moscow was lost and Metropolitan Anthony organized the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops), the Mission immediately submitted itself under its jurisdiction." If the Mission was under the Jurisdiction of the Synod of the Church Abroad, commemorating the Patriarchate is mere lip service.

6.  The abbesses of the monasteries of the Russian Church Abroad are installed only with the approval of the Patriarch of Jerusalem who sometimes conducts the installation himself.
Sometimes eh?




Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2009, 02:07:56 PM »

And in the case of Jerusalem, I fail to see why Phanariots should bemoan the presence of Russians, except the Russians aid the local, Arab Faithful, thereby endangering the tomb worshippers' colony.
Because the Orthodox Church has condemned Phyletism. But I suppose that's meaningless to someone who calls people "Phanariots".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,886



« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2009, 02:15:26 PM »

And in the case of Jerusalem, I fail to see why Phanariots should bemoan the presence of Russians, except the Russians aid the local, Arab Faithful, thereby endangering the tomb worshippers' colony.
Because the Orthodox Church has condemned Phyletism. But I suppose that's meaningless to someone who calls people "Phanariots".

And your point is what: that the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople of Phanar, Istanbul, Turkey is also condemned of phyletism?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2009, 02:21:29 PM »

I really do not understand this willingness (and glee) to insult the first See  of our Church, like in the post and thread above.
Logged
ThePilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2009, 02:22:20 PM »

I'm not exactly sure what the issue that you have is, ozgeorge.  The Russian ecclesial mission is under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exists with his blessing, and is administered, with his knowledge and blessing, by the Russian Church, to help serve the extremely large number of Russian faithful living in the Holy Land.

Also, are you familiar with the concept of a metochion?

In Christ,
Sbn John
Logged
observer
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

Vivre die Raznitsa!


« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2009, 02:30:30 PM »

Only Greek bishops. One arab who has no vote at the Synod.  Greek flags flying everywhere.  Why not flag of JP?  Greek govt controls JP.  Russians look after the people, Greeks don't.  Simple case of phyletism by Phanariotes.
Logged

Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2009, 02:42:55 PM »

The Russian ecclesial mission is under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exists with his blessing, and is administered, with his knowledge and blessing, by the Russian Church, to help serve the extremely large number of Russian faithful living in the Holy Land.
You mean both Russian Ecclesiastical Missions do you? Because there are two- the ROCOR Mission and the Moscow Patriarchate Mission. If its all so above board and just about accomodating Russian Pilgrims- why the need for two Russian Missions under two different jurisdictions?

Also, are you familiar with the concept of a metochion?
Um yes. I'm Greek. So you are saying that these missions are monastic dependencies are you? So why does the MP have a Cathedral in Jerusalem?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2009, 02:50:08 PM »

1.  The Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem exists at the pleasure of the Patriarch of Jerusalem
Then why, in their own words was the ROCOR Mission to the Holy Land "placed under the the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops)"

Because if you weren't busy trying to make cheap points, you would recall that in the early part of last century, the Russian Church went through a very painful time of trial and division. More painful for those who remained in Russia and became martyrs and confessors, but painful and confusing for those parishes and missions outside of Russia that found their traditional lines of authority cut or hopelessly confused. The sentence above clearly refers to how that was resolved for the *existing* metochion. The same page you are referencing says:

Quote
In 1857 the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem was officially inaugurated, this time with recognition from the Sultan of Turkey. Its purpose was to offer Russian pilgrims spiritual supervision, provide assistance, and sponsor charitable and educational work among the Orthodox Arab population of Palestine and Syria.

The Mission also served as the representative of the Russian Church to the Mother of all Churches - the Church of Jerusalem


Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2009, 02:53:37 PM »

The Russian ecclesial mission is under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exists with his blessing, and is administered, with his knowledge and blessing, by the Russian Church, to help serve the extremely large number of Russian faithful living in the Holy Land.
You mean both Russian Ecclesiastical Missions do you? Because there are two- the ROCOR Mission and the Moscow Patriarchate Mission. If its all so above board and just about accomodating Russian Pilgrims- why the need for two Russian Missions under two different jurisdictions?

Because the Jerusalem Patriarchate was always quite clear that it was not going to take sides in the ongoing split between ROCOR and the MP and so allowed each group to maintain a descendent of the existing metochion.

Now that ROCOR and the MP are feeling their way back into reconciliation, the separate metochions will presumably eventually be merged. But as I've said before, expecting everybody to just forget a century's worth of ill-feelings and act like nothing happened is uncharitable--and thankfully not the pastoral approach of our bishops (in Russia, in ROCOR, or in the surrounding jurisdictions). This stuff takes time to heal.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2009, 02:54:23 PM »

Because if you weren't busy trying to make cheap points, you would recall that in the early part of last century, the Russian Church went through a very painful time of trial and division. More painful for those who remained in Russia and became martyrs and confessors, but painful and confusing for those parishes and missions outside of Russia that found their traditional lines of authority cut or hopelessly confused. The sentence above clearly refers to how that was resolved for the *existing* metochion.
What has this got to do with the Russian Church "going through a very painful time"? What I am asking is why there is a Cathedral Church in Jerusalem under the Moscow Patriarchate and another Church in Jerusalem under the ROCOR Synod? That is- why have two jurisdictions placed Churches in another Bishop's territory?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 02:55:12 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,730


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2009, 03:07:39 PM »

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2009, 03:10:14 PM »

1.  The Russian Church Abroad in Jerusalem exists at the pleasure of the Patriarch of Jerusalem
Then why, in their own words was the ROCOR Mission to the Holy Land "placed under the the Highest Church Authority abroad (predecessor of the Synod of Bishops)"

It was not the "ROCOR mission in the Holy Land."   The Russian Church Abroad was seen by the Jerusalem Patriarchate as the only responsible body in the free world which was able to continue the work of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Ecclesiatical Mission in the Holy Land and take care of the Russian churches and monasteries and the Russian monks and nuns.   Formerly they were cared for from Russia, by both the Church and the Tsar.   But after the Communists came to power in Russia not a soul from Soviet Russia gave a tinker's cuss about the Holy Land.  The work of maintaining the Russian churches, monasteries and monastics fell to the refugees and emigres, i.e., the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.  This became a heavy financial burden to an emigre group with virtually no finances.  People in the West became accustomed to annual appeals from Jerusalem to fix leaking church roofs, etc.   The money from Imperial Russia had disappeared.  Pilgrims no longer came from Imperial Russia and left their donations for the churches and monasteries.

The Russian Church Abroad struggled for 70 years to maintain the Russian institutions in the Holy Land.  Now, by God's mercy, the pilgrims are returning.
Logged
ThePilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2009, 03:11:19 PM »

The Russian ecclesial mission is under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exists with his blessing, and is administered, with his knowledge and blessing, by the Russian Church, to help serve the extremely large number of Russian faithful living in the Holy Land.
You mean both Russian Ecclesiastical Missions do you? Because there are two- the ROCOR Mission and the Moscow Patriarchate Mission. If its all so above board and just about accomodating Russian Pilgrims- why the need for two Russian Missions under two different jurisdictions?

Also, are you familiar with the concept of a metochion?
Um yes. I'm Greek. So you are saying that these missions are monastic dependencies are you? So why does the MP have a Cathedral in Jerusalem?

Both of the Russian Missions operate with the knowledge, blessing, and consent of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and indeed, they have historically been very helpful to the local Church and the local faithful.

As to why there are two of them if it's just about "accomodating" (sic) the Russian pilgrims, the answer is simple.  Because of the unfortunate circumstances of communism, ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate suspended communion with each other for several decades, and the Russian faithful were split, which included the Russian presence in the Holy Land.  Both ROCOR and the MP, however, remained in communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, who, apparently, didn't take sides but allowed both Missions to continue to exist.

Now ROCOR and the MP are back together and things are slowly being reintegrated.

And no, I wasn't saying that they were monastic dependencies.  I wasn't saying anything.  I was simply asking if you were familiar with the concept so I could proceed further.  The existence of metochia demonstrates that it is possible, with the blessing of both bishops involved and their good will, to set up institutions that are not part of the normal diocesan structure of the surrounding area.

Since the Churches commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exist with his blessing, and since neither Jerusalem nor Moscow have any problem with the situation, what exactly is it that upsets you?  I honestly don't understand.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2009, 03:13:11 PM »

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
See, its not about race Salpy, its about jurisdiction.
In 1872, the Eastern Orthodox Churches held a Pan-Orthodox Synod which anathemised "phyletism". What happened was that the Church of Bulgaria had established its own Church in Istanbul. The Synod decreed that this could not be done because all Churches in a Synod's territory have to be under that Synod. It doesn't matter if the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Russian, Greek, Arab or Eskimo; no other Bishop can establish a Cathedral Church on his territory.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2009, 03:14:43 PM »

Because if you weren't busy trying to make cheap points, you would recall that in the early part of last century, the Russian Church went through a very painful time of trial and division. More painful for those who remained in Russia and became martyrs and confessors, but painful and confusing for those parishes and missions outside of Russia that found their traditional lines of authority cut or hopelessly confused. The sentence above clearly refers to how that was resolved for the *existing* metochion.
What has this got to do with the Russian Church "going through a very painful time"? What I am asking is why there is a Cathedral Church in Jerusalem under the Moscow Patriarchate and another Church in Jerusalem under the ROCOR Synod? That is- why have two jurisdictions placed Churches in another Bishop's territory?

Because both Ecclesiastical Missions are under the Patriarch of Jerusalem, exist with his knowledge and blessing, and are administered, again with his knowledge and blessing, by ROCOR and the MP.  The Mission has been very helpful and beneficial over the years to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.  No one has "placed" anything in anyone's territory without their knowledge or consent.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2009, 03:15:12 PM »

Since the Churches commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exist with his blessing, and since neither Jerusalem nor Moscow have any problem with the situation, what exactly is it that upsets you?  I honestly don't understand.
I see, so the Russian Cathedral in Jerusalem is the Cathedral Church of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is it? Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2009, 03:16:59 PM »

I think it's not a Cathedral because there is a see of a Bishop, but it's a Cathedral because it's simply an important Church and actually it's not a Cathedral (like Cathedral of St. Sava in Belgrade, which is not a Cathedral).
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:17:20 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2009, 03:17:28 PM »

It doesn't have to appoint a Bishop to the Mission, the Mission is under the authority of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroard

Please have a look at this photos on this page.  It is a page of the Administration of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.

http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/administration.html

Whose photo is there in place Number One..?    Could it be a Greek chap they call the Patriarch of Jerusalem? 



His Beatitude,
Patriarch Theophilus,
of the Holy City of Jerusalem
Logged
ThePilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2009, 03:18:50 PM »

Since the Churches commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem and exist with his blessing, and since neither Jerusalem nor Moscow have any problem with the situation, what exactly is it that upsets you?  I honestly don't understand.
I see, so the Russian Cathedral in Jerusalem is the Cathedral Church of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is it? Roll Eyes

Would you kindly respond to the substance of the thread instead of simply pulling out sentences and making sarcastic remarks based on them?

Please tell us: What is your concern?

Grace and peace,
Sbn John
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2009, 03:21:11 PM »

 The abbesses of the monasteries of the Russian Church Abroad are installed only with the approval of the Patriarch of Jerusalem who sometimes conducts the installation himself.
Sometimes eh?


It lies within the choice of the Most Blessed Patriarch of Jerusalem, successor to the Holy Apostle James.   The Patriarch is sole master of what takes place in the Holy City .
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:22:06 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2009, 03:23:33 PM »

It doesn't have to appoint a Bishop to the Mission, the Mission is under the authority of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroard

Please have a look at this photos on this page.  It is a page of the Administration of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.

http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/administration.html

Whose photo is there in place Number One..?    Could it be a Greek chap they call the Patriarch of Jerusalem? 



His Beatitude,
Patriarch Theophilus,
of the Holy City of Jerusalem
Whose photo is there in place Number One..?   

Well, there must be a new Synod in Jerusalem because whose photo is number two?

Metropolitan Hilarion,
First Hierarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

And Number three?

V. Rev. Archimandrite Joasaph (McLellan)
Chief of the Mission

I've never heard of this Synod, have you?
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 106


« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2009, 03:26:46 PM »

It doesn't have to appoint a Bishop to the Mission, the Mission is under the authority of the Synod of the Russian Church Abroard

Please have a look at this photos on this page.  It is a page of the Administration of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem.

http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/administration.html

Whose photo is there in place Number One..?    Could it be a Greek chap they call the Patriarch of Jerusalem? 



His Beatitude,
Patriarch Theophilus,
of the Holy City of Jerusalem
Whose photo is there in place Number One..?   

Well, there must be a new Synod in Jerusalem because whose photo is number two?

Metropolitan Hilarion,
First Hierarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

And Number three?

V. Rev. Archimandrite Joasaph (McLellan)
Chief of the Mission

I've never heard of this Synod, have you?


This situation has already been explained to you.  The Mission is under the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and is administered on his behalf, with his blessing, by the Church Abroad.

Both Churches are okay with it, it provides for the faithful, both Russian and Arab without distinction, and no canons are being violated.

What are you upset about?

Grace and peace,
Sbn John
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2009, 03:31:42 PM »

You mean both Russian Ecclesiastical Missions do you? Because there are two- the ROCOR Mission and the Moscow Patriarchate Mission. If its all so above board and just about accomodating Russian Pilgrims- why the need for two Russian Missions under two different jurisdictions?

After Perestroika in 1991 and the new found freedom of travel for the citizens of Russia, pilgrims from the old Soviet Union began to return to the Holy Land.   The Church of Russia began to take an interest in it again.

And so, up until 2007 when the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad were united, there have been two Russian representations in the Holy Land.

This division ceased with the Russian Church union in 2007.  For example, now our (Russian Church Abroad) monastery in the Garden of Gethsemane has as many nuns from Russia as it has from the Holy Land and America and Australia.

The process is already underway to unite the two groups, just as the process is underway throughout Western Europe to unite the dioceses of the Church Abroad and those of Moscow.
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: 37,963



« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2009, 03:32:02 PM »

And in the case of Jerusalem, I fail to see why Phanariots should bemoan the presence of Russians, except the Russians aid the local, Arab Faithful, thereby endangering the tomb worshippers' colony.
Because the Orthodox Church has condemned Phyletism. But I suppose that's meaningless to someone who calls people "Phanariots".

I call carpetbaggars Phanariots, and the tomb worshippers in Jerusalem certainly fit the description.

I'm aware that the Orthodox Church has condemned Phyletism, but I think you are referring to the Phanariot Pot Synod that called the Bulgarian Kettle black. Ironically, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was excommunicated in 1873 by this "Synod" because he wouldn't take part in its hypocrisy, and left.  The Greeks of Smyrna greeted him with cheers of "Traitor!" "Muscovite!" because phyletism, of course, only meant distinction of races in the Churches when they asserted themselves in wanting to pray in their own language, not when the Phanariots wanted to Hellenize their subject peoples, Moscow having helped the subjected in the former in resisting the latter.  The hypocrites decreed "The Apostle Paul has commanded us to take heed to ourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us bishops, to govern the Church of God, which He has purchased with His Own Blood; and has at the same predicted that grievous wolves shall enter among us, not sparing the flock, and that of our own selves men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them; and he has warned us to beware of such...such men have lately appeared the Bulgarian people within the jurisdiction of the Holy Ecumenical Throne.  They have dared to introduce into the Church the idea of phyletism, or the National Church, which is of the temporal life....having examined the principles of phyletism with reference to the precepts of the Gospel and the temporal constitution of the Church of God, we have found it not only foreign, but in enmity to them...in view of the definitions of the Fathers of the Church, we ordain as follows:

ARTICLE I.  We censure, condemn and declare contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and the sacred canons of the holy Fathers, the doctrine of phyletism, or the diference of races and national diversity in the bosom of the Church of Christ. "

ARTICLE II.  We declare the adherents of phyletism, who have had the boldness to set up an lawful uprecedented Church assembly upon such a principle, to be foreign and absolutely schismatic, to the only holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church....together with all who have been ordained by them to be archbishops, priests and deacons; all persons, spiritual and worldly, who are in communion with them; all who act in cooperation with them; and all who accept as lawful and canonical their unholy blessings and ceremonies of worship."
Appleton's annual cyclopaedia and register of important events, Volume 41
http://books.google.com/books?id=BrofAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA271&dq=Appletons'+1872+phyletism&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The tomb worshipping hypocrites were not please, and issued there deposition of the Patriarch.  The excommunication of their Patriarch for breach of Omonogeia, er, phyletism, stated:
"relative to to the acceptance of the resolution of the Grand and Holy Council legally and canonically convoked at Constantinople-by which resolution phyletism (that is, the distinction of raceds and nationalities in teh Church) was rejected and condemned, and all who approved this phyletism and who, inspired thereby, have held up to this day illegal and clandestine meetings, were declared to be schismatics-have unanimously decreed and do decree as follows: In consideration that his Holiness....refused to join in the recognition of the Grand Council, that he also, in Jerusalem obstinately, and without sufficient reason, opposed to the invitations and prayers addressed by us to him...in consideration of all this, we consider him as having incurred the ecclesiastical censures which are expressly contained in the said resolution of the Grand Council, and as being, de facto, schismatic.  And we find ourselves in the sad and painful necessity to take back the oath of submissiveness and obedience taken by us toward him, and henceforth to break off all connection and communion with him, and we shall never more perform any function with him, or in any respect act with him, and we shall no longer recognize him as head, and as our lawful and canonical shepherd."
Appletons a̕nnual cyclopædia and register of important events ..., Volume 13
http://books.google.com/books?id=OXbXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA340&dq=Appletons'+1872+phyletism&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
yet jurisdiction by races.

It was annulled a few years later.
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: 37,963



« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2009, 03:33:51 PM »

I really do not understand this willingness (and glee) to insult the first See  of our Church, like in the post and thread above.


Romania was glad to get rid of its Phanariots.  Some of us are still waiting, and those who have, why shouldn't they rejoice?
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2009, 03:34:29 PM »

So why does the MP have a Cathedral in Jerusalem?

"Cathedral" in Russian does not necessarily mean the church is the seat of a bishop.  Important churches in the Russian world are called cathedrals.
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: 37,963



« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2009, 03:37:39 PM »

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious.  

The Phanariots claim that the the Church of Jerusalem is not what is really autocephalous, but the Tomb of Christ, and that the Tomb remains the responsibility of the Greek nation exclusively.  Therefore the local Church is irrelevant.

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
See, its not about race Salpy, its about jurisdiction.
In 1872, the Eastern Orthodox Churches held a Pan-Orthodox Synod which anathemised "phyletism". What happened was that the Church of Bulgaria had established its own Church in Istanbul. The Synod decreed that this could not be done because all Churches in a Synod's territory have to be under that Synod. It doesn't matter if the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Russian, Greek, Arab or Eskimo; no other Bishop can establish a Cathedral Church on his territory.

Oh, it matters a great deal, at least to the Phanariots.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:41:25 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
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2009, 03:39:59 PM »

Lord have mercy. I am completely in shock. So out of touch, apparently. Archimandrite Joasaph has reposed only a few days ago this December. What a shock. My love and condolences to his family. May Archimandrite Joasaph's memory be eternal.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2009, 03:41:07 PM »


V. Rev. Archimandrite Joasaph (McLellan)
Chief of the Mission



May the Lord grant rest to our Father Ioasaph (Francis Joseph McLellan) who was buried only a few days ago.  47 years of age.  A priest for one year and one week.  Cancer took him from this life within 4 months of its discovery.

An Irishman by descent and proud of his heritage, and ex-professor of Slavonic languages at Princeton.  Intended to become our bishop for the Diocese of Australia and New Zealand.   We mourn him greatly.

May God grant eternal rest to the soul of this young man.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2009, 03:43:19 PM »

I think it's not a Cathedral because there is a see of a Bishop, but it's a Cathedral because it's simply an important Church and actually it's not a Cathedral (like Cathedral of St. Sava in Belgrade, which is not a Cathedral).
Thanks mike.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2009, 03:43:33 PM »

I am completely shocked. I studied Church Slavonic in one of his classes. He was a brilliant and engaging teacher. So young. My deepest sympathies again to his family and all who were close to him.

I am sorry to derail this thread, but this is so hard to grasp.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 03:45:16 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2009, 03:43:50 PM »

So why does the MP have a Cathedral in Jerusalem?

"Cathedral" in Russian does not necessarily mean the church is the seat of a bishop.  Important churches in the Russian world are called cathedrals.

Is it roughly analgous to the Roman "basilica"?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2009, 03:46:51 PM »

The Phanariots claim that the the Church of Jerusalem is not what is really autocephalous, but the Tomb of Christ, and that the Tomb remains the responsibility of the Greek nation exclusively.  Therefore the local Church is irrelevant.
Do they now?....

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
See, its not about race Salpy, its about jurisdiction.
In 1872, the Eastern Orthodox Churches held a Pan-Orthodox Synod which anathemised "phyletism". What happened was that the Church of Bulgaria had established its own Church in Istanbul. The Synod decreed that this could not be done because all Churches in a Synod's territory have to be under that Synod. It doesn't matter if the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Russian, Greek, Arab or Eskimo; no other Bishop can establish a Cathedral Church on his territory.

Oh, it matters a great deal, at least to the Phanariots.
Does it now?....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2009, 04:06:46 PM »

Because if you weren't busy trying to make cheap points, you would recall that in the early part of last century, the Russian Church went through a very painful time of trial and division. More painful for those who remained in Russia and became martyrs and confessors, but painful and confusing for those parishes and missions outside of Russia that found their traditional lines of authority cut or hopelessly confused. The sentence above clearly refers to how that was resolved for the *existing* metochion.
What has this got to do with the Russian Church "going through a very painful time"? What I am asking is why there is a Cathedral Church in Jerusalem under the Moscow Patriarchate and another Church in Jerusalem under the ROCOR Synod? That is- why have two jurisdictions placed Churches in another Bishop's territory?

First, it seems we do need to go back to ThePilgrim's question. Do you even understand what a metochion is, and that it is a practice recognized by all the Orthdoox Church's and exercised by most?
Here is a link to a picture of Constantinople's metochion in Moscow: http://virtour.su/pano.php?id=85&mar=1
And here is one to Alexandria's:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_All_Saints,_Moscow

In the first, the clergy are appointed by the EP and they commemorate him. In the second, the clergy are appointed by the Pope of Alexandria and the commemorate him. Though both are in the diocese of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Second, contrary to your implication, ROCOR did not open any metochions in the territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. And I very much doubt that the MP has since the 19th century. When the Russian Church split in the wake of the Communist revolution, some of the metochion clergy went with Metropolitan Anthony's "outside of Russia" synod; others struggled to stay in contact with Moscow and remained under it once the situation lightened under Patriarch Sergius (just as happened in North America and Western Europe). Jerusalem could have asserted its authority and placed all the metochions under one or the other division, however, as Jerusalem maintained relations with both sides of the split, they seem to have generally taken the position "we granted metochion status to the Russians, decide amongst yourselves which synod of the Russian Church that means" Although, in the 1990s, in what was the last major strife between ROCOR and the MP, the JP actually did exercise it's authority, moving a couple of ROCOR's metochions to the administration of the MP. The fact that they remain under separate administrations goes directly to the fact that the Russian Church 'outside of Russia' has been under separate administrations for a century and is only now healing that breach.

As to why Jerusalem granted Russia so many metochions back in the 19th century, you'd have to ask Jerusalem--though given the timing it seems likely that it was a resource issue. By letting the Church of Russia, backed by Russia's resources, take responsibility for a number of 'minor' holy places, the JP could focus its own more limited resources elsewhere (the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Nativity, etc).

All the Russian metochions, like any other metochion, exist strictly at the sufferance of the ruling bishop. If the JP told the Russians to go home tomorrow, no one claims that the Russian church would have any choice but to hand over the keys and leave.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,730


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2009, 04:24:19 PM »

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
See, its not about race Salpy, its about jurisdiction.
In 1872, the Eastern Orthodox Churches held a Pan-Orthodox Synod which anathemised "phyletism". What happened was that the Church of Bulgaria had established its own Church in Istanbul. The Synod decreed that this could not be done because all Churches in a Synod's territory have to be under that Synod. It doesn't matter if the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Russian, Greek, Arab or Eskimo; no other Bishop can establish a Cathedral Church on his territory.

That still doesn't explain why the EO leadership and most, if not all, of the monks there are not Orthodox Palestinians.  I'm not saying the EO Patriarch and monks there have to be Palestinian.  I'm just wondering why none of them are, when they are the people native to the area.  Is there a reason why the Patriarch and his monks can't be Palestinian?  Or are there no worthy candidates for these positions among the Orthodox Palestinians?  It just seems like a weird situation that the Orthodox Church of a particular region is run exclusively by people from another part of the world.  I'm just wondering why that is.  Is there a historical reason for this?
Logged

augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2009, 04:25:30 PM »

Quote
The Greeks of Smyrna greeted him with cheers of "Traitor!" "Muscovite!" because phyletism, of course, only meant distinction of races in the Churches when they asserted themselves in wanting to pray in their own language, not when the Phanariots wanted to Hellenize their subject peoples, Moscow having helped the subjected in the former in resisting the latter.
This is not entirely true, I mean, reality was far more complex, even back then.
The Russians were advancing throughout the Balkans their panslavist ideas, so it just happened that Bulgarians were deemed assimilable enough; at exactly the same time, they were busy suppresing any trace of the "Moldovan" language in the Eparchy of Chisinau (Basarabia/Moldova).
And, we were never forced to use Greek in our churches, despite having been formally, under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a few centuries. Even during the real Phanariot period, Greek was only used in the metropolitan cathedrals of Bucuresti and Iasi and a few other churches, not exclusively though, but alongside Slavonic and Romanian. Yet the use of the vernacular was no longer possible in Basarabia shortly after its uncannonical annexation by the Russian church.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 04:26:21 PM by augustin717 » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2009, 04:25:41 PM »

In the first, the clergy are appointed by the EP and they commemorate him. In the second, the clergy are appointed by the Pope of Alexandria and the commemorate him. Though both are in the diocese of the Patriarch of Moscow.
How do you know that they commemorate their own Patriarchs?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2009, 04:35:29 PM »

I'm not saying the EO Patriarch and monks there have to be Palestinian.  I'm just wondering why none of them are, when they are the people native to the area.
Salpy, what are you talking about? There are Palestinian Archbishops in the Synod of the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Where are you getting your information? The Archbishop Theodosios of Sebastia is Palestinian, born in Galilee and was called "Nizar Hanna" in the world.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2009, 04:41:47 PM »

That still doesn't explain why the EO leadership and most, if not all, of the monks there are not Orthodox Palestinians.  I'm not saying the EO Patriarch and monks there have to be Palestinian.  I'm just wondering why none of them are, when they are the people native to the area.  Is there a reason why the Patriarch and his monks can't be Palestinian?  Or are there no worthy candidates for these positions among the Orthodox Palestinians?  It just seems like a weird situation that the Orthodox Church of a particular region is run exclusively by people from another part of the world.  I'm just wondering why that is.  Is there a historical reason for this?

There is one Arab bishop on the Holy Synod - H.G. Theodosios Atallah Hanna - who was also the official spokesperson of the Patriarchate. When I asked one of the Greek Metropolitans in the Holy Land why there weren't more, he replied "...because we Greeks are chauvinists."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2009, 04:53:38 PM »

Comments about Jerusalem sparked a memory of this poem below.  The author is Louis Hemmings of Dublin,
a purveyor of second-hand theological books.  He had been on a Jerusalem pilgrimage.
 


Old Abraham the Eternal Pilgrim
________________________________________________

With burning bright vision you tramped, old Abraham,
warmed in your rugged heart by the visions of candle-lit, paint cracked icons,
as you wandered through snow hushed taigas
& in the broken villages where  golden cupolas glow
with ancient sunset fire & choirs chant
St. Basils guttural plaintive liturgy,
unchanged for a thousand years the prophetic hope proclaiming.

You search for your true homeland
from the steppes of the Urals to the teeming streets of Jerusalem.
Almost with the authority of a Patriarch
you were welcomed when your staff rapped
the wooden doors thee times: in the name
of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost.

En route to the Holy Land you stored up black bread
& a few copecks, collecting prayer-petitions
in exchange for wayside shelter at night.
The peasants called you a half-remembered saint,
the bell of God; your call comes to me, sure & strong.  

I see you shuffle quietly with your blessing
among the benches where Orthodox faithful gather
in hostel at Jerusalem, its gold roof cupolas mirror the suns glory,
you move as a holy gift, making the sign of the cross with a home-made tin censer:
thick frankinsense perfumed smoke cleansing your
adopted pilgrim families, far from home but near to God.
These friends whom you greet & kiss ferverently,
repeating the litany: "Slava Tebye Gospody." - Praise be to Thee, O Lord!

Banging your pilgrim staff, you stand in the happy,
ragged circle of foot-blistered women, singing with them haunting,
melancholic minor-key Russian Psalms, then you spit mouthfulls of holy water
in their rapturous faces & bless them in the name of the Holy Trinity.

"Christ is risen! Christ is risen! Christ is risen!
Your watchman call comes to me from pre-Revolutionary Russia
before the sickle dripped sacrificial blood, before the exiles & executions;
the dead in Christ shall rise first on that last Judgement Day when the trumpet call comes.
Bells are replaced in your once-dumb churches,
let that jubilant struck brass ring triumphant.

 
Louis Hemmings @ Samovar Books, Ireland

« Last Edit: December 29, 2009, 04:54:34 PM by Irish Hermit » 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: 37,963



« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2009, 04:55:47 PM »

The Phanariots claim that the the Church of Jerusalem is not what is really autocephalous, but the Tomb of Christ, and that the Tomb remains the responsibility of the Greek nation exclusively.  Therefore the local Church is irrelevant.
Do they now?....

OK, against my better judgement, I'm going to stick my head in long enough to ask a question that has always bothered me:  Why are there Greek monks in a place that is historically Palestinian?  Shouldn't the EO Jerusalem Patriarch and the monks in the patriarchate be Orthodox Christians who are Palestinian?  I'm not trying to start another argument.  I'm genuinely curious. 
See, its not about race Salpy, its about jurisdiction.
In 1872, the Eastern Orthodox Churches held a Pan-Orthodox Synod which anathemised "phyletism". What happened was that the Church of Bulgaria had established its own Church in Istanbul. The Synod decreed that this could not be done because all Churches in a Synod's territory have to be under that Synod. It doesn't matter if the Patriarch of Jerusalem is Russian, Greek, Arab or Eskimo; no other Bishop can establish a Cathedral Church on his territory.

Oh, it matters a great deal, at least to the Phanariots.
Does it now?....

Yes, or should I say "nai?"
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
Tags: Jerusalem 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.177 seconds with 72 queries.