OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 03:04:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patriarch Bartholomew's Sunday of Orthodoxy Encyclical 2010  (Read 8660 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2010, 09:26:06 PM »

This is what Patriarch Bartholomew needs to hear, if he is thinking to group up with the leader of a political and religious power.

Matt. 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 23, 2010, 12:09:02 AM »

Stop bashing the mods, you guys. 
Yeah! Leave them alone and get back to your bashing of the Oecumenical Patriarch!

Just for the record, I love His All Holiness.   Smiley

I "love" him as well, I just don't think that he's the center of the Church, nor its "mother."  We have a Mother, and her name is the Virgin Mary.

Well, it may have a potentially appropriate interpretation. Constantinople is the mother church of most of the other EO churches in the same way that the Coptic Patriarchate is the mother church of African Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Patriarchate is the mother church of Asian Oriental Orthodox. Whether Patriarch Bartholomew means something as simple as that, I do not know.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #47 on: February 23, 2010, 01:42:01 AM »

Quote
the Syriac Patriarchate is the mother church of Asian Oriental Orthodox

Nope, Constantinople is. Oriental Orthodox is even a term used for the emperors (oriental orthodox emperors of Byzantium).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2010, 04:07:09 PM »


Differences between the OC and RCC= merely political. Your patriarchs have signed papers saying this, so that's all that matters to me.

The Roman church has perverted the doctrine of the Trinity.

The COE could say the same on the OC. Thankfully it does not because it is a tolerant institution which acknowledges the history and culture behind certain things.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2010, 01:39:10 AM »

Seems Fr. Jacobse enjoys writing pieces for Catholic.org. This is the second I've noticed.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35660

Quote
Guest Opinion:  More to the Ecumenical Patriarch's Recent Encyclical Than Meets the Eye
By Fr Johannes L. Jacobse
3/3/2010

NAPLES, FL (Catholic Online) - Last week Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew released an encyclical (Patriarch of Constantinople´s New Encyclical Defends Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue)  castigating what he called Orthodox "fanatics" who object to Orthodox ecumenical involvement. The encyclical was well received in Christian circles outside of the Orthodox Church, but raised eyebrows among those in the fold, not least for the strength of the language.

Here´s the background. The Orthodox Church is emerging out of a period of active persecution that lasted centuries for the Greeks and a generation for the Russians and other Eastern Europeans. Orthodoxy still flourishes in the Middle East although under considerable Muslim pressure. It is growing in Africa, Indonesia (where an indigenous Orthodox Church was started by several Moslem converts), America, Western Europe, and elsewhere in the world.

Two patriarchies dominate Orthodox affairs worldwide: Constantinople (Istanbul) and Moscow. Of the two patriarchies, Moscow is emerging as the leader. Constantinople on the other hand, still labors under the Islamic yoke. Muslim extremists have attacked the Patriarchate and the Turkish government has confiscated property and other resources.

With that history in mind, what is the reason for last Sunday´s encyclical?

All traditional Christian Churches understand that the Gospel is universal. "Go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," Christ commanded His disciples. The Gospel transcends national, ethnic, and tribal boundaries. It is meant for all mankind.

The term "universal" comes from the Greek word katholikos (Catholic) which means "according to the whole." It is used in the Nicene Creed as "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Roman Catholics understand "according to the whole" to mean to mean the geographical dispersion of the Church united under the Pope of Rome. Orthodox understand the term to mean the unity of faith expressed through shared worship, doctrine, and manner of living that is the same in all places. Protestants understand it as the assembly of believers that transcend denominational boundaries.

In recent years, Constantinople has adopted the Roman definition but with a twist. It rightfully claims a primacy over all Orthodox patriarchies but now argues that the primacy includes a jurisdictional authority over areas of the world not directly under an established Patriarchate (America, for example).

The shifting definition creates a problem for Constantinople. Since Orthodox doctrine limits the Ecumenical Patriarch's jurisdictional authority to the geographical confines of the city of Constantinople, how can his claim of greater geographical authority be realized? It resolves the dilemma by elevating ethnic self-identity through an appeal to history.

It works like this: The Greeks gave the world both Hellenism and Christianity (from classical antiquity, to the hearing of St. Paul's gospel in pre-Christian Greece, to Byzantium). Secondly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the only living institution that embodies that rich historical legacy in the person of the Patriarch. Constantinople's primacy, in other words, also includes an ethnic component.

In Constantinople's view, the Greek in Greek Orthodoxy is as important as the Orthodoxy. And since Greek Orthodox believers are geographically dispersed worldwide, Constantinople's authority extends worldwide as well, especially over lands with a poorly organized Orthodox presence. Moscow and most of the Orthodox dispute the claim.

Elevating ethnic self-identity first arose after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 when Christian world of Byzantium became subject to the Moslems and the Ecumenical Patriarch became the unifying symbol of beleaguered Greeks. It may have been a necessary accommodation that saved them from Islamic assimilation.

All religious communions have believers who do not believe that the grace of God can exist outside the confines of their communion. Orthodoxy is no different. They make up some of the Ecumenical Patriarch's harshest critics and are probably the "fanatics" he had in mind in his encyclical. Others are more temperate but nevertheless alarmed by the recent hobnobbing with secular and marginally Christian organizations.

Either way, Constantinople invites the criticism. If the universality of the Church is defined first by ethnic identity and only secondarily by the Gospel command to preach to all nations, then participation in the Church is first a matter of pedigree and only second a matter of obedience to the Gospel.

Moreover, ethnic primacy also changes the manner by which Constantinople engages the culture. For example, in America we often see Constantinople lauding Greek Orthodox politicians who are fiercely pro-abortion with no corrective word about their violation of the moral tradition. St. Paul defines this as the salt losing its saltiness.

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have plenty of experience with getting too entangled in the affairs of this world. It mutes the Gospel and harms the Church. Rome tries to avoid these entanglements as does Moscow.

The Ecumenical Patriarch knows that his rebuke won't silence his critics. But then the encyclical was not really intended for an Orthodox audience. Rather, the tone and message was meant to assure readers outside of Orthodoxy that Constantinople's claim to speak universally is valid and that its critics could be ignored. Inside the Orthodox Church however, many remain unpersuaded.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 01:47:16 AM by John Larocque » 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 #50 on: March 07, 2010, 12:31:24 PM »

While what Patriarch Bartholemew is saying is nothing new for him, the fact that he came out with this Encyclical on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and the fact that he bears false witness against Zealots (by saying they have not showed any evidence of the degradation of Orthodoxy via these contacts, when they have produced evidence on numerous occasions [even if one does not agree with said evidence; there is a clear difference here]) makes it especially unfortunate.
Dear Administrator of this forum. What exactly is the "degradation of Orthodoxy" you claim to see which justifies your accusation that the Ecumenical Patriarcate "bears false witness" against "Zealots"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2010, 08:55:53 PM »

http://blog.ameia-kl.com/2010/02/ecumenical-patriarch-challenges-anti.html


Friday, February 19, 2010
Ecumenical Patriarch challenges anti-dialogue 'fanatics'

Indifference in regard to Christian unity is not an option for the disciples of Jesus, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has stated in an encyclical issued on the occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

"It is not possible for the Lord to agonize over the unity of His disciples and for us to remain indifferent about the unity of all Christians," Bartholomew wrote in the encyclical. The Sunday of Orthodoxy is commemorated this year on 21 February 2010.

The encyclical refutes "fanatical" challenges brought against theological dialogues among different Orthodox churches and against ecumenical contacts with the wider community of Christians by "certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy."

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

"The truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue," the encyclical letter states. "When in our day all people strive to resolve their differences through dialogue, Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism."

"I am very grateful to the Ecumenical Patriarch for his strong commitment to dialogue and the unity of the church, despite the many pressures from fundamentalist circles among Orthodox believers" said the Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, general secretary of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in response to the encyclical on 18 February.

"This encyclical," Tveit said, "reminds me of another famous text: the 1920 encyclical letter in which the Ecumenical Patriarch proposed the foundation of a fellowship of churches, providing a major impulse for the formation of the WCC."

The Feast of Orthodoxy is celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Originally commemorating the defeat of iconoclasm in the 9th century, the Sunday of Orthodoxy has gradually come to be understood in a more general sense as a feast in honour of the true faith.

The full text of the Patriarch's address is here: http://tinyurl.com/y93ruo7


Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2010, 10:49:10 PM »

If the Patriarch had bothered to have serious dialogue with his own monks, he would not be caricaturing them all as "fanatics" opposed to any missionary work whatsoever.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,984



« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2010, 04:03:24 AM »

Re. Reply #51, Robb, Not be to too technical, but my recollection of the famous 1920 Encyclical  of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was issued by a Locum Tenens of the First Throne, Metropolitan Dorotheos (can't recall the see he held; "Prussa" ?), if I recall correctly.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 04:05:46 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #54 on: March 10, 2010, 06:37:03 AM »

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

How about the novelty of the "Protos" promoted at the council of Ravenna, along with the novelty of defining Orthodoxy as being in communion with New Rome. Lumen Gentium couldn't state the claims of Old Rome better.
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 #55 on: March 10, 2010, 07:29:11 AM »

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

How about the novelty of the "Protos" promoted at the council of Ravenna,

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church..  As we know, Orthodoxy does not have a greatly developed eccesiology, certainly nothing which could be compared to the Catholics.  We have not needed it.

As the Russian Church points out emphatically, this Primus-Protos level of authority within the Church is a novely in Orthodox teaching engendered by the ecumenical dialogue with Rome.  So the Patriarch of Constantinople is not accurate when he says that the dialogue is not effecting Orthodox doctrine.  It is, or it is attempting to. The Church of Russia has said, more than once, that this is a new ecclesiology, not authentically orthodox, and it will never agree.  

If what other Orthodox theologians and Churches see as Met Zizioulas' misrepresentation of our traditional ecclesiology impels us to greater clarification, well, that is in fact a positive thing.

As Saint Vincent of Lerins says... " if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, ... finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently..."

The still embargoed Russian document on this matter which Metropolitan Hilarion gave to all participants at the Cyprus meeting last year is certain to address this.  In fact, a good guess is that it will be the document's central point.   A Synodal Commission had this document in preparation for 3 years.  It is enormously galling that nobody has yet leaked it.   laugh  Why is it held in such secrecy?   Is it so boring?  Is it so potentially explosive?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 07:31:19 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2010, 11:00:28 AM »

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

How about the novelty of the "Protos" promoted at the council of Ravenna,

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church..  As we know, Orthodoxy does not have a greatly developed eccesiology, certainly nothing which could be compared to the Catholics.  We have not needed it.

I am afraid I must disagree Father.  Just because the Vatican's ecclesiology is overdeveloped does not make Orthodox ecclesiology underdeveloped. It doesn't focus on one see precisely because it is Catholic, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,934


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #57 on: March 10, 2010, 12:38:40 PM »

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

How about the novelty of the "Protos" promoted at the council of Ravenna,

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church..  As we know, Orthodoxy does not have a greatly developed eccesiology, certainly nothing which could be compared to the Catholics.  We have not needed it.

I am afraid I must disagree Father.  Just because the Vatican's ecclesiology is overdeveloped does not make Orthodox ecclesiology underdeveloped. It doesn't focus on one see precisely because it is Catholic, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Agreed - we do have quite a developed ecclesiology, just not an overdeveloped one. 

IMO: The Vatican's ecclesiology is a gross over-developed (and additive-rich) variation upon the Church's "One and the Many" Synodal structure (i.e. with regards to "big" issues - not small, or diocese-specific issues - that the members of the synod cannot do anything without the blessing of the President, and the President cannot do anything without the consent of the Synod; the same principle applied to the Council of Presbyters and the local Bishop).  Their fault lies primarily in assuming that "the One" should always be the same One, and should have more power than it did, ignoring that "the One" was at varying points Jerusalem and Antioch before Rome.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 12:39:09 PM by Fr. George » Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #58 on: March 10, 2010, 01:56:34 PM »

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church.

Interactions between Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are merely discussions, not sources of official policy or harbingers of ecclesial reality. That was one of the major points of the letter. Can't get much clearer than "union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods."
« Last Edit: March 10, 2010, 01:59:46 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #59 on: March 10, 2010, 02:11:30 PM »

"They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being 'the pan-heresy of ecumenism' without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers," Bartholomew criticizes.

How about the novelty of the "Protos" promoted at the council of Ravenna,

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church..  As we know, Orthodoxy does not have a greatly developed eccesiology, certainly nothing which could be compared to the Catholics.  We have not needed it.

I am afraid I must disagree Father.  Just because the Vatican's ecclesiology is overdeveloped does not make Orthodox ecclesiology underdeveloped. It doesn't focus on one see precisely because it is Catholic, as in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

This is what I have in mind..... in the days of my youth we were taught in Yugoslavia that the Orthodox Church has no defiinition of "Church."  Much of our teaching and canon law on the Church is simply ad hoc.

We were also taught that as the Devil has fought his way, clause by clause, through the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, so now he has reached "And in one holy catholic and apostolic church..."  This is the battleground of our own times.

This, we were told, is the doctrinal battle which lies ahead of us and succeeding generations - to clarify what "Church" is.  Looking at the challenges and what now faces us in the 21st century, I think that the predictions of our teachers were right.

It is in all of these this senses that I say that we have an undeveloped ecclesiology.

And, thanks to what we saw as an assault on the Church from two fronts - ecumenism and oldcalendarism - it may now be time to throw greater light, via a Council, on what "One holy catholic and apostolic church" actually means.   To what we saw as the dual problems of ecumenism and oldcalendarism we may now add a third intrusion into our ecclesiology - protos-ism.   (Somebody speaking Greek have a better word for it?)

Yes, there is much to be addressd by a Council, and thank the Lord that these developments in Belgrade, Ravenna and what some are calling "the Cretan Unia" will bring about a deeper theological study of our ecclesiology.  It has already started via the Russians with their position paper on ecclesiology released to the delegates on Cyprus but still under wraps for the rest of us.  I don't fear these developments, even if they bring us turbulent times for a while; I believe that the Spirit will ensure that, in the end, it is truth which will win through.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2010, 02:19:16 PM »

The primary concern with the current activity of Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper (the two chairmen of the RC-Orthodox dialogue) is their ecclesiology and the new emphasis on a "Primus" or "Protos" within the Orthodox Church.

Interactions between Metropolitan Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper are merely discussions, not sources of official policy or harbingers of ecclesial reality. That was one of the major points of the letter. Can't get much clearer than "union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods."

This was a point emphasised by the Vatican also when it put the Ravenna document up on its website
http://tinyurl.com/yb3hjmq

"...the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching."

At the time there were comments too that the document contained distortions of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and consequently was not acceptable.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #61 on: April 06, 2010, 12:31:13 PM »

As someone who is 'struggling' to enter into Orthodoxy, Patriarch Bartholomew's words are very welcoming to me. I recognize something within Orthodoxy which clearly calls to me but I am repeatedly blocked by voices of such venom and utter disdain toward the West that I can't stand idly by without offering so kind of defense. Personally, I know that is not terribly healthy for me to engage in but I can't seem to help myself. For me I must enter into Orthodoxy at peace with my past as a Roman Catholic and with all my Roman Catholic friends and family. No journey fueled by the passions can lead to Theosis and so I don't take a step while I which is motivated by my own passions... pride, envy, desire, etc.

That said I am surprised by the division within Orthodoxy itself. Passions abound. Where is the virtue of dispassion? Where is the love which St. Paul spoke would be a hallmark?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,984



« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2010, 05:04:16 AM »

ignatius,

Very unfortunately, the debates within Orthodoxy regarding the separated Old Calendar, traditionalists; the Church's understanding of the "First Among Equals" responsibilities of the Ecumenical Patriarch; under which Church should an autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church be formed; and whether the Orthodox Church in America is autocephalos, are hot topics of debates, and are all too wrought with an absence of love, from each, or all, sides of the debates. If they could be debated in love, that would go a long way toward resolving them.  Yet, this situation does not detract from the purity of Orthodox doctrine and teaching, or the holiness of its practice. (An example, there is a position about the calendar dispute within the church I've developed over the past several weeks that I'm contemplating writing about on another thread on this forum, but I'm feeling too sanctified from the experience of our services during Great Week and having received Holy Communion 4 times during that week, that I haven't written it, knowing what aggressive commentary my thoughts will spark.)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 05:18:51 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 834


Christos Anesti!


« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2010, 08:41:52 AM »

.
[/quote]

It's the rules, darlings.  It's also what's proper.  If you don't like the rules, you can complain in a pm to a global moderator or an admin.  If you don't like honorifics, you can join any one of many Protestant denominations that are out there.  We Orthodox give proper titles to our bishops and priests, and whether an honorific gets used has nothing to do with whether we personally like or agree with the bishop or priest we are discussing or addressing.   Smiley
[/quote]

Amen!
Logged

"Come ye take light from The Light that is never overtaken by night and glorify the Christ, who is risen from the dead"
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2010, 08:53:48 AM »

Differences between the OC and RCC= merely political. Your patriarchs have signed papers saying this, so that's all that matters to me.
Christ is Risen!
Ta Criost eirithe!


Dear Rafa,

The approach that our diferences are merely political has been condemned in strong terms by the Russian Orthodox Church.
 
Here is the Millennial Statemnt from the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic
misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a
lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realize that, in spite of all the
differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in
"what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions,
to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which
are secondary from the Church's point of view."

There is more at these links:

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: April 07, 2010, 09:13:13 AM »

Quote from: His Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew

....the Mother Church of Constantinople...
 

It is worrying to see an untruth contained in an official ecclesiastical proclamation.  This is not setting a good example for the faithful.

For starters Constantinople is not the Mother Church for any of the ancient Patriarchates:  Rome, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem.

It is not the Mother Church for Georgia.

It is not the Mother Church for Athens, Thessaloniki, Crete, Cyprus, etc. The holy Apostles created Churches in the cities of Judea, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Italy.  All these Churches and many more besides came into existence without the womb of Constantinople.

Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,984



« Reply #66 on: April 07, 2010, 09:31:16 AM »

Whoops; Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Church's of Ukraine; Russia; Bulgaria; Serbia; Albania; and Romania, I think, too; not Cyprus, though, it was a part of the Church of Antioch, was it not?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 09:34:35 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: April 07, 2010, 10:37:44 AM »

Christ is risen!
Whoops; Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Church's of Ukraine; Russia; Bulgaria; Serbia; Albania; and Romania, I think, too; not Cyprus, though, it was a part of the Church of Antioch, was it not?


LOL. Not according to Cyprus, but according to the Book of Acts (and much of Cyprus' ecclesiastical history, especially the last couple centuries), yes.

As for Romania, she was evangelized by St. Andrew himself at Tomis, and the Scythian (i.e. proto-Romanians) monks etc. were under Rome, as was Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania.  Then there is the claim of St. Andrew evangelizing Ukraine and Southern Russia himself.
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
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,018


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 07, 2010, 10:53:23 AM »

The spirited discussion on this topic really points out the difficulties facing the Church in North America and the importance of the upcoming tasks faced by ALL of OUR hierarchs at the Regional Assembly following Pentecost.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #69 on: April 07, 2010, 05:23:41 PM »

Christ is risen!
Whoops; Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Church's of Ukraine; Russia; Bulgaria; Serbia; Albania; and Romania, I think, too; not Cyprus, though, it was a part of the Church of Antioch, was it not?


LOL. Not according to Cyprus, but according to the Book of Acts (and much of Cyprus' ecclesiastical history, especially the last couple centuries), yes.

As for Romania, she was evangelized by St. Andrew himself at Tomis, and the Scythian (i.e. proto-Romanians) monks etc. were under Rome, as was Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania.  Then there is the claim of St. Andrew evangelizing Ukraine and Southern Russia himself.

I was (wrongly) under the assumption that Romania was evangelized by Sts. Cyril and Methodius?  After all, did not the Romanian Church use Slavonic for many hundred years (up until the 15Th century)?  Was the evangelizing by St Andrew merely an apostolic visit of ancient Christian lore, if so then when was the actual period of Romanian conversion accomplished in recorded history?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #70 on: April 30, 2010, 02:12:06 PM »

Quote
the Syriac Patriarchate is the mother church of Asian Oriental Orthodox

Nope, Constantinople is. Oriental Orthodox is even a term used for the emperors (oriental orthodox emperors of Byzantium).

Are you kidding me? You're telling me that you don't know the difference between "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox" in English?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #71 on: April 30, 2010, 02:13:37 PM »


Differences between the OC and RCC= merely political. Your patriarchs have signed papers saying this, so that's all that matters to me.

The Roman church has perverted the doctrine of the Trinity.

The COE could say the same on the OC. Thankfully it does not because it is a tolerant institution which acknowledges the history and culture behind certain things.

I tend to view the three major Eastern Christian traditions as having essentially the same teaching on the doctrine of the Trinity, while varying only in Christology. How would you think that the Byzantine/Oriental churches have changed the doctrine of the Trinity?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #72 on: April 30, 2010, 02:17:38 PM »

Christ is risen!
Whoops; Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Church's of Ukraine; Russia; Bulgaria; Serbia; Albania; and Romania, I think, too; not Cyprus, though, it was a part of the Church of Antioch, was it not?


LOL. Not according to Cyprus, but according to the Book of Acts (and much of Cyprus' ecclesiastical history, especially the last couple centuries), yes.

As for Romania, she was evangelized by St. Andrew himself at Tomis, and the Scythian (i.e. proto-Romanians) monks etc. were under Rome, as was Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania.  Then there is the claim of St. Andrew evangelizing Ukraine and Southern Russia himself.

I was (wrongly) under the assumption that Romania was evangelized by Sts. Cyril and Methodius?  After all, did not the Romanian Church use Slavonic for many hundred years (up until the 15Th century)? 

That dates from the rise of the Second Bulgarian Empire (13th century), which actually was started by Romanians.


Quote
Was the evangelizing by St Andrew merely an apostolic visit of ancient Christian lore, if so then when was the actual period of Romanian conversion accomplished in recorded history?
It was converted from St. Andrew on.  St. John Cassian, for instance, as well as Dionysius the midget (who invented the BC/AD dating), were Romanians.
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2010, 02:40:56 PM »

That dates from the rise of the Second Bulgarian Empire (13th century), which actually was started by Romanians...

It was converted from St. Andrew on.  St. John Cassian, for instance, as well as Dionysius the midget (who invented the BC/AD dating), were Romanians.

What's your definition of Romanian? I haven't seen even the most purist scholars claiming some of that, although the Danube region can get a bit confusing to me, with the Daco-Romans being overrun by and occasionally integrated into settlements of Goths, Scythians, Avars, Bulgars, Cumans, etc.

Do you know of a good historical ethnography, preferably with some treatment of matters Orthodox?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 02:52:56 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2010, 03:28:15 PM »

Christ is risen!
Whoops; Constantinople is the "Mother Church" of the Church's of Ukraine; Russia; Bulgaria; Serbia; Albania; and Romania, I think, too; not Cyprus, though, it was a part of the Church of Antioch, was it not?


LOL. Not according to Cyprus, but according to the Book of Acts (and much of Cyprus' ecclesiastical history, especially the last couple centuries), yes.

As for Romania, she was evangelized by St. Andrew himself at Tomis, and the Scythian (i.e. proto-Romanians) monks etc. were under Rome, as was Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania.  Then there is the claim of St. Andrew evangelizing Ukraine and Southern Russia himself.

I was (wrongly) under the assumption that Romania was evangelized by Sts. Cyril and Methodius?  After all, did not the Romanian Church use Slavonic for many hundred years (up until the 15Th century)?  Was the evangelizing by St Andrew merely an apostolic visit of ancient Christian lore, if so then when was the actual period of Romanian conversion accomplished in recorded history?
The linguistic evidence points out that proto-Romanians were evangelized in the latin language, that meaning that they received the faith way before Cyril and Methodius started evangelizing the slavic tribes.
Proto-Romanians were under three archiepiscopal/metropolitan sees, mainly:
Tomis
Justiniana Prima
Sirmium
And yes, until the seventh/eighth (?) century these populations must have been under Roman jurisdiction.
Logged
Fr Spyridon
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 99


FrSpyridon
« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2010, 09:15:29 AM »

My difficulty over this issue is that when our clergy meet with the Pope they are meeting with one who believes and proclaims that he has authority as God's ultimate human representitve on earth concerning matters of doctrine. he is not meeting with our bishops as an equal, when he presents himself in a service as Pope he is declaring something which is contrary to the Orthodox faith and I cannot understand how this can be accepted. Dialogue yes, but liturgical acts no. If I have misunderstood something please do correct me.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2010, 09:40:45 AM »

What do you think prompted this message of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's encyclical for this Sunday of Orthodoxy?  Did separated Old Calendarists do something significant recently that the Patriarchate is reacting to?

I'm guessing it has more to do with the "Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism" which came out of the EP's own monks on Mount Athos. This is a backhanded way of saying that the EP can't ignore them any more. Eventually the EP will have to stop pretending that the opposition to ecumenism comes only from some ultra-zealot fringe.
Christ is Risen!

If you poke around this Greek website you will find that the Church of Greece seems to have woken up with a bump because of Ravenna 2007 and Cyprus 2009.  So it is not just Athos which is now confronting the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  I suspect it was the unexpected shock of the opposition of the Greek episcopate to the Cyprus Meeting in late 2009 which has prompted this 2010 letter from the Patriarchate.

The website contains mainly official documents from the Patriarch to the Church of Greece, from the Synod of the Church of Greece and from individual Greek bishops.  It is very heartening to see the Church of Greece now expressing the desire that the bilateral dialogue with Rome must be brought under the surveillance of the bishops of the Church and not left in the hands of a small group of enthusiasts as has been the case in the past.

The two sections to investigate on the website are

1.  Papism

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/papismos.htm

2.   Ecumenism

http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/oikoumenismos.htm

By the way, be sure to see the April 2009 "A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism" signed by many Greek bishops, archimandrites, abbots, academic theologians, priests, monks and nuns, etc.  This also would have been a factor which prompted the Patriarch's letter.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/omologia_pistews.htm

I think we should stress that this opposition is not a question of fanatical elements in the Church.  It is now coming from the hierarchs and from the upper levels of the Church of Greece.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 09:52:23 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
swhunter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 1


stevenwhunter
WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 19, 2010, 02:57:10 PM »

I agree with His All Holiness that dialogue is needed, and that the truth has nothing to fear from open, honest dialogue with other Christians. Where I disagree is that there has been no deleterious affect on Orthodoxy since this dialogue was first pioneered in the early 20th Century. One Orthodox priest I once heard used the following imagery to make this point: Imagine, he said, a giant circle in which was contained all the truth of Christian revelation -- the Holy Scriptures, the liturgy, the Ecumenical Councils, the holy canons, the lives and teachings of the saints, etc. If the point of dialogue is to call other Christians to return to this fullness of truth, then it is praiseworthy. More often than not, he said, the Orthodox have failed to bring others into the circle but instead have themselves been drawn to the boundaries (and often BEYOND) of the circle.

Too often we find ourselves willing to compromise and change our standards in order to seem reasonable and "in the mainstream" according to other Christian confessions. Before dialogue with those outside the Church moves forward, I would like to see a similarly enthusiastic effort at healing the divisions within the Orthodox world that have resulted from our compromise with other Christians.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 19, 2010, 05:36:18 PM »

I agree with His All Holiness that dialogue is needed, and that the truth has nothing to fear from open, honest dialogue with other Christians. Where I disagree is that there has been no deleterious affect on Orthodoxy since this dialogue was first pioneered in the early 20th Century. One Orthodox priest I once heard used the following imagery to make this point: Imagine, he said, a giant circle in which was contained all the truth of Christian revelation -- the Holy Scriptures, the liturgy, the Ecumenical Councils, the holy canons, the lives and teachings of the saints, etc. If the point of dialogue is to call other Christians to return to this fullness of truth, then it is praiseworthy. More often than not, he said, the Orthodox have failed to bring others into the circle but instead have themselves been drawn to the boundaries (and often BEYOND) of the circle.

Too often we find ourselves willing to compromise and change our standards in order to seem reasonable and "in the mainstream" according to other Christian confessions. Before dialogue with those outside the Church moves forward, I would like to see a similarly enthusiastic effort at healing the divisions within the Orthodox world that have resulted from our compromise with other Christians.

Agreed!  Grin
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Sunday of Orthodoxy Patriarch Bartholomew 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 60 queries.