OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 07:37:18 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox patriarch hits at “unacceptable” attacks on ecumenism  (Read 7701 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« on: April 06, 2012, 03:35:39 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2012, 03:37:03 PM »

ENInews can't get half a sentence into a story without making a mistake?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 37,960



« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2012, 04:48:32 PM »

ENInews can't get half a sentence into a story without making a mistake?
Can't really blame them.  The Phanar so says, and has been let to say so too much.
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
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2012, 01:11:33 AM »

Quote from: The Ecumenical Patriarch
Such opinions evoke anguish and sorrow by running counter to the Orthodox ethos. They risk unforeseen consequences for church unity in general, and the unity of our holy Orthodox church in particular

Emphasis mine.

Isn't ecumenism responsible for most of the disunity already present? Wouldn't ending ecumenism do wonders for "the unity of our holy Orthodox church in particular."
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 01:27:06 AM by Ioannis Climacus » Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2012, 02:55:28 AM »

Quote from: The Ecumenical Patriarch
Such opinions evoke anguish and sorrow by running counter to the Orthodox ethos. They risk unforeseen consequences for church unity in general, and the unity of our holy Orthodox church in particular

Emphasis mine.

Isn't ecumenism responsible for most of the disunity already present? Wouldn't ending ecumenism do wonders for "the unity of our holy Orthodox church in particular."

 I believe you and Isa are onto something.  Wink
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2012, 03:12:00 AM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2012, 04:25:51 AM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2012, 06:32:28 AM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2012, 06:46:50 AM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Cyprian and Fermilian were defending the faith.  EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.  Ecumenism merely muddies the waters.  The doors of the Church remain open to welcome home to the Body of Christ all heterodox and non-Christians.  This however requires that they accept the error in their beliefs, practices and history and that requires humility and discernment.  If Bartholomew was motivated by evangelism and not ecumenism, it would perhaps auger better for the EP.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2012, 07:20:35 AM »

EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.

It is? Is there an official stand on Ecumenism and on the heterodox? While I am rather strict myself I thought that there are myriad of opinions about Ecumenism and the heterodox sacraments.
Logged

arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2012, 08:03:27 AM »

The issue at hand is that no single local church or Metropolitan has the authority to officially deem someone a heretic. These issues are done on Synodal levels if, the person is from that synods territory and, Ecumenical level for those that stretch on a much larger area.

While this is being called ecumenism as a hot button topic the real issue boils down to extremism. If those who are not Orthodox wish to engage the Church in discussion and debate is it not the responsibility to bare witness to the truth? There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

Logged

Joseph
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2012, 08:13:06 AM »

If those who are not Orthodox wish to engage the Church in discussion and debate is it not the responsibility to bare witness to the truth?

Yet another equation of obscure meetings and bland agreed statements with missionary work.
Logged

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

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2012, 09:06:11 AM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

Ad hominem.

And no, I'm not against Ecumenism.
Logged

Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2012, 09:24:50 AM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.
Logged
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2012, 09:34:26 AM »

It is so easy to blame zealous convertskii for being so anti ecumenical.  It usually goes hand in hand with attacking women who cover their hair and attacking the majority of Orthodox Christians who continue to follow the Julian calendar.    Perhaps it is worth looking at the Council of Florence, at which even the Russian Metropolitan sold his soul in seeking union and approving union with Rome and seeing that ecumenism is a slippery slope.  One bishop resisted those who wanted rapproachment and union with the Latin Church, at any cost. 
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2012, 09:47:44 AM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.
And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.
Logged
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,211



« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2012, 12:18:35 PM »

Lord have mercy
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 12:20:35 PM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2012, 01:03:21 PM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Cyprian and Fermilian were defending the faith.  EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.  Ecumenism merely muddies the waters.  The doors of the Church remain open to welcome home to the Body of Christ all heterodox and non-Christians.  This however requires that they accept the error in their beliefs, practices and history and that requires humility and discernment.  If Bartholomew was motivated by evangelism and not ecumenism, it would perhaps auger better for the EP.

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP. 
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 01:05:45 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2012, 01:26:33 PM »

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP.

I'm personally critical of many positions of Pat. Bartholomew, but this is a great point.  Bishops write letters of disapproval to each other, including to him, frequently. 

It's when this becomes unacceptable, or like you wrote, when he separates himself from the bishops and begins dictating, that the accusations of papist tendencies carry more weight.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2012, 01:44:26 PM »

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP.

I'm personally critical of many positions of Pat. Bartholomew, but this is a great point.  Bishops write letters of disapproval to each other, including to him, frequently. 

It's when this becomes unacceptable, or like you wrote, when he separates himself from the bishops and begins dictating, that the accusations of papist tendencies carry more weight.

Exactly, my concern is that people in their zeal against Patriarch Bartholomew pull the rug out under their feet by making statements in which they basically express their desire to see him neutered, having even his prerogatives as a normal bishop taken away. I find that to be absolutely preposterous.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2012, 02:39:00 PM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Cyprian and Fermilian were defending the faith.  EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.  Ecumenism merely muddies the waters.  The doors of the Church remain open to welcome home to the Body of Christ all heterodox and non-Christians.  This however requires that they accept the error in their beliefs, practices and history and that requires humility and discernment.  If Bartholomew was motivated by evangelism and not ecumenism, it would perhaps auger better for the EP.

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP. 

^^This. This is rather absurd. Writing a letter to the Archbishop of Athens isn't "interference" in any sense.
Logged
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 #21 on: April 07, 2012, 03:39:29 PM »

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP.

I'm personally critical of many positions of Pat. Bartholomew, but this is a great point.  Bishops write letters of disapproval to each other, including to him, frequently. 

It's when this becomes unacceptable, or like you wrote, when he separates himself from the bishops and begins dictating, that the accusations of papist tendencies carry more weight.

Exactly, my concern is that people in their zeal against Patriarch Bartholomew pull the rug out under their feet by making statements in which they basically express their desire to see him neutered, having even his prerogatives as a normal bishop taken away. I find that to be absolutely preposterous.



Not to disagree, but I think it's worth noting that a lot of the current passion--and phrasing--is probably coming in reaction to the EP's own response when other Churches expressed an opinion about what was happening with Fr. Ephraim. If the EP hadn't been so explicit about questioning others' motives for 'interfering in it's business', they might not be getting such a strong reaction to their 'interfering in Greece's business'.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2012, 03:44:25 PM »

It is so easy to blame zealous convertskii for being so anti ecumenical.  It usually goes hand in hand with attacking women who cover their hair and attacking the majority of Orthodox Christians who continue to follow the Julian calendar.    Perhaps it is worth looking at the Council of Florence, at which even the Russian Metropolitan sold his soul in seeking union and approving union with Rome and seeing that ecumenism is a slippery slope.  One bishop resisted those who wanted rapproachment and union with the Latin Church, at any cost. 

And Blessed Metropolitan Philaret of New York was neither a convert with zeal for brains or a bishop with no knowledge of Orthodox tradition and faith. He's more incorrupt then I'll ever be. We have there the evidence of his good confession.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2012, 03:45:44 PM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.
And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.

This is very true as well. Let's at least get a definition precise enough where the addition of one letter matters.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2012, 03:46:41 PM »

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP.

I'm personally critical of many positions of Pat. Bartholomew, but this is a great point.  Bishops write letters of disapproval to each other, including to him, frequently. 

It's when this becomes unacceptable, or like you wrote, when he separates himself from the bishops and begins dictating, that the accusations of papist tendencies carry more weight.

+1
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2012, 04:28:48 PM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.
And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.

Exactly right.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2012, 04:32:52 PM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Cyprian and Fermilian were defending the faith.  EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.  Ecumenism merely muddies the waters.  The doors of the Church remain open to welcome home to the Body of Christ all heterodox and non-Christians.  This however requires that they accept the error in their beliefs, practices and history and that requires humility and discernment.  If Bartholomew was motivated by evangelism and not ecumenism, it would perhaps auger better for the EP.

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP. 

I am also one who is not a fan of either Constantinople or of the current Patriarch, but I agree: this is not interference in the affairs of another Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2012, 05:22:58 PM »

Unprecedented Interference in the Internal Affairs of Two Local Churches

Also on 29 March, the Phanar sent a letter to Archbishop Jerome II of Athens in which its Patriarch Bartholomew reproached various bishops of the Church of Greece for speaking out against ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. The Phanar said in its letter that recent statements against the ecumenical movement have reached what appear to them to be ‘unacceptable levels’. Patriarch Bartholomew also demanded that the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece should condemn these tendencies, in accordance with the US-led ideology of the Phanar.

(Translation of press releases from the News Agencies Amen and Romthea).

The interference of the Phanar in the Church of Greece is unacceptable.  Let it look after the Turkish Orthodox with more enthusiasm than they show for ecumenism with heterodox.  Shades of Meletios (Metaxakis) 0 may the Lord have mercy on his soul.

Nonsense, criticism of other bishops is always acceptable. This is how it was done even in pre-Nicene times, when Firmillian and Cyprian criticized Stephan of Rome for his stance on rebaptism. Where did Patriarch Bartholomew 'interfere'? A reproach is not interference. Interference would be if he declared the entire state Church of Greece apostate and all of their ordinations null. Instead, he has sent an admonition and has asked his colleagues in Greece to do the same.
Cyprian and Fermilian were defending the faith.  EP Bartholomew was ignoring the Church;s stance regarding heterodoxy, in condemning those who condemn ecumenism.  I don't agree with treating the heterodox like lepers, or being uncharitable.  The position of the Church regarding those who are outside the Church is long-standing and clear.  Ecumenism merely muddies the waters.  The doors of the Church remain open to welcome home to the Body of Christ all heterodox and non-Christians.  This however requires that they accept the error in their beliefs, practices and history and that requires humility and discernment.  If Bartholomew was motivated by evangelism and not ecumenism, it would perhaps auger better for the EP.

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP. 

I am also one who is not a fan of either Constantinople or of the current Patriarch, but I agree: this is not interference in the affairs of another Church.

This isn't the meddling you're looking for.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2012, 05:40:27 PM »

Always beware of 'subdeacons". Roll Eyes
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2012, 06:00:27 PM »

And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.

Indeed, people have a tendency to talk past one another on issues such as these.

Always beware of 'subdeacons". Roll Eyes

We get to hold special candles and walk through special doors. Surely that makes us wiser and more perceptive?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2012, 06:03:22 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2012, 06:06:39 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh

There is that... I must have missed the part where Pope Benedict XVI became an "arch-heretic" as well. I thought that was Arius. Has Benedict decided Jesus Christ is a created being now? I feel like I wouldn't have missed something that dramatic.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2012, 06:47:10 PM »

I don't give a rat's posterior end whether Patriarch Bartholomew is right. Your claim was that he is acting outside of his authority as bishop, to write letters of disapproval. I think that you are wrong, because bishops always write such letters to each other regardless of hierarchical rank. If he deposes the bishops in concern without any sort of synod or ecclesiastical trial, and then establishes himself as bishop of bishops, then we can talk about interventionism and papism in the EP.

I'm personally critical of many positions of Pat. Bartholomew, but this is a great point.  Bishops write letters of disapproval to each other, including to him, frequently. 

It's when this becomes unacceptable, or like you wrote, when he separates himself from the bishops and begins dictating, that the accusations of papist tendencies carry more weight.

Exactly, my concern is that people in their zeal against Patriarch Bartholomew pull the rug out under their feet by making statements in which they basically express their desire to see him neutered, having even his prerogatives as a normal bishop taken away. I find that to be absolutely preposterous.



Not to disagree, but I think it's worth noting that a lot of the current passion--and phrasing--is probably coming in reaction to the EP's own response when other Churches expressed an opinion about what was happening with Fr. Ephraim. If the EP hadn't been so explicit about questioning others' motives for 'interfering in it's business', they might not be getting such a strong reaction to their 'interfering in Greece's business'.

Excellent point.
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2012, 07:35:24 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

None.  Hmmm! Now what bishop was it that said that 'fundamentalism' is spiritual immaturity? Undecided
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2012, 07:37:23 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh

That's funny! Cheesy
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2012, 07:40:18 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh

That's funny! Cheesy

It's telling when someone says an anathema of any kind is "funny".
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2012, 07:41:12 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh
He is a validly ordained bishop and he is hurling this anathema at all Roman Catholics in the world today; so that's what I don;t understand.  
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2012, 07:42:28 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh

That's funny! Cheesy

It's telling when someone says an anathema of any kind is "funny".
That's what I was thinking. I thought an anathema was quite serious.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2012, 08:01:05 AM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.
And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.

This is very true as well. Let's at least get a definition precise enough where the addition of one letter matters.

Not going to happen. Some EOs think that outreach toward anyone, even OOs, is heretical. Others think it's fine if it's outreach to OOs but heretical if it's to Catholics. Still others are fine with outreach to Catholics, just not to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. I can't see how you'd come to one precise definition of "ecumenism".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2012, 11:18:55 AM »

And yet we aren't even united on a common definition of what constitutes ecumenism. "Ecumenism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot in online debates, particularly as a pejorative for things we don't like, but I'm not sure anyone even knows what ecumenism is.

I've given it a rough-draft-shot before (such as here), but I'd probably have to go back and reread a good amount of the literature to get something more specific. I think it's certainly possible to come up with something that I'd find satisfactory. Coming up with something almost everyone would find satisfactory, though? Doubtful. Then again, almost no one has actually taken the time to read the literature we're talking about, so we'd be approaching the validity of the definition/description from two very different places.

Not going to happen. Some EOs think that outreach toward anyone, even OOs, is heretical. Others think it's fine if it's outreach to OOs but heretical if it's to Catholics. Still others are fine with outreach to Catholics, just not to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

I've read probably a couple hundred EO traditionalist articles and books, and I've rarely, if ever, come across this. They may disagree as to what proper outreach consists of, but I've not generally heard anyone say that you simply can't talk to group X or Y because it'd be heretical to do so. At most they'll say "You can tell X they're heretical and give the reasons why, then you stop talking".

Quote
I can't see how you'd come to one precise definition of "ecumenism".

Agreed.


EDIT--After thinking about it, I suppose it'd naive of me to think anyone would agree to, well, anything  Cheesy  We can't agree on definitions for words like truth, religion, etc., so why would I think anyone would agree about ecumenism, or "outreach" for that matter. Meh...
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 11:46:04 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2012, 12:00:37 PM »


We get to hold special candles and walk through special doors. Surely that makes us wiser and more perceptive?

 Cheesy...It is meet!
Logged

laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2012, 03:56:31 PM »


We get to hold special candles and walk through special doors. Surely that makes us wiser and more perceptive?

 Cheesy...It is meet!

Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,741


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2012, 09:55:01 PM »

I'm not Orthodox, so it goes without saying that there's a lot at play that goes right over my head in regards to inter-Orthodox relations- but I find it interesting that some have expressed that they're not fans of the Ecumenical Patriarch. From what I've seen of him and read of him, I find I like him quite a bit.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2012, 10:07:10 PM »

Not going to happen. Some EOs think that outreach toward anyone, even OOs, is heretical. Others think it's fine if it's outreach to OOs but heretical if it's to Catholics. Still others are fine with outreach to Catholics, just not to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

I've read probably a couple hundred EO traditionalist articles and books, and I've rarely, if ever, come across this. They may disagree as to what proper outreach consists of, but I've not generally heard anyone say that you simply can't talk to group X or Y because it'd be heretical to do so. At most they'll say "You can tell X they're heretical and give the reasons why, then you stop talking".

Quote
I can't see how you'd come to one precise definition of "ecumenism".

Agreed.


EDIT--After thinking about it, I suppose it'd naive of me to think anyone would agree to, well, anything  Cheesy  We can't agree on definitions for words like truth, religion, etc., so why would I think anyone would agree about ecumenism, or "outreach" for that matter. Meh...

Yes, I don't doubt that "outreach" could be defined in such a way that  most Orthodox would even be okay with "outreach" to, say, Methodists.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2012, 10:24:26 PM »

Not going to happen. Some EOs think that outreach toward anyone, even OOs, is heretical. Others think it's fine if it's outreach to OOs but heretical if it's to Catholics. Still others are fine with outreach to Catholics, just not to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

I've read probably a couple hundred EO traditionalist articles and books, and I've rarely, if ever, come across this. They may disagree as to what proper outreach consists of, but I've not generally heard anyone say that you simply can't talk to group X or Y because it'd be heretical to do so. At most they'll say "You can tell X they're heretical and give the reasons why, then you stop talking".

Quote
I can't see how you'd come to one precise definition of "ecumenism".

Agreed.


EDIT--After thinking about it, I suppose it'd naive of me to think anyone would agree to, well, anything  Cheesy  We can't agree on definitions for words like truth, religion, etc., so why would I think anyone would agree about ecumenism, or "outreach" for that matter. Meh...

Yes, I don't doubt that "outreach" could be defined in such a way that  most Orthodox would even be okay with "outreach" to, say, Methodists.

Yeah but those people would have even denounced a certain Mark, who was bishop of Ephesus, as being an ecumenist, so I'd take their words with a grain of salt.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2012, 10:33:50 PM »

Yeah but those people would have even denounced a certain Mark, who was bishop of Ephesus, as being an ecumenist, so I'd take their words with a grain of salt.

 laugh
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2012, 03:49:11 AM »

Engagement with non-Orthodox I believe is fine, but it needs to be on the basis of sharing the the True Faith of the Undivided Church, not on the basis of accepting that the Church is divided - the Anglican branch theory, which invariably involves major compromises with the faith.
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
SubdeaconDavid
"...the spread of the light of Orthodoxy among the peoples of all the lands where our Church exists continues as an inseparable part of our mission": Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR)
Posts: 504


Помилуй мя Боже, по велицей милости Твоей


WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2012, 06:44:48 AM »

Clearly the Phanar believe that Latin Catholics are also in the Church i.e. that the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic Churches are one and the same:

Quote
This quote, from the official publication of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, "Episkepsis," (No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19) is also worth mentioning here:

In a joint communiquée, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles. Their communiquée includes the following statement: "The Joint Commission [which met at Balamand] was able to proclaim that our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."/quote]
Logged

Visit my blog@  http://orthodoxtasmania.blogspot.com

To the Russians abroad it has been granted to shine in the whole world  the light of Orthodoxy, so that other peoples, seeing their good deeds, might glorify our Father in Heaven, and thus obtain salvation
S John of Shanghai & San Francisco
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2012, 07:46:44 AM »

Clearly the Phanar believe that Latin Catholics are also in the Church i.e. that the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic Churches are one and the same:

It is the Russian Church that has for centuries accepted Latin sacraments as gracefilled and has received Catholics by mere confession of faith. While I disagree strongly with many of the EP's positions on the issue, to pejoratively single out the Phanar as the author and propagator of such ideas is dishonestly selective.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2012, 08:22:04 AM »

Not to mention speaking of "the Anglican branch theory" as though no one else what touch such an idea.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2012, 08:35:16 AM »

Not to mention speaking of "the Anglican branch theory" as though no one else what touch such an idea.

I suppose the difference there is that while such a theory is essentially foreign to the traditional ecclesologies of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, although many from both groups essentially agree with it, the Anglican Church's understanding itself as an Apostolic Church necessitates such an idea.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2012, 11:19:09 AM »

Not to mention speaking of "the Anglican branch theory" as though no one else what touch such an idea.

I suppose the difference there is that while such a theory is essentially foreign to the traditional ecclesologies of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, although many from both groups essentially agree with it, the Anglican Church's understanding itself as an Apostolic Church necessitates such an idea.

Rather, the Anglican Communion's understanding itself as one Apostolic Church among others necessitates such an idea.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2012, 11:32:55 AM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2012, 11:40:58 AM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way. Then, once that's accomplished, will you/they say that ecumenism with Protestants should not be on the plate until the Orthodox and Catholics have reunited?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2012, 11:53:04 AM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way. Then, once that's accomplished, will you/they say that ecumenism with Protestants should not be on the plate until the Orthodox and Catholics have reunited?
I can't say that for sure. I just believe that we need to heal one wound at a time. Focus on one thing at a time.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2012, 12:17:26 PM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way. Then, once that's accomplished, will you/they say that ecumenism with Protestants should not be on the plate until the Orthodox and Catholics have reunited?
I can't say that for sure. I just believe that we need to heal one wound at a time. Focus on one thing at a time.

PP

Alright, I appreciate an honest answer, but I have to admit it's a little odd that you can say the one for sure but not the other.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2012, 12:20:03 PM »

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way.

Most EO are fairly ignorant of the OO. Of course, few EO would deem dialogue with Monophysites who deny the humanity of Christ more important than dialogue with Catholics who are dogmatically very similar. However, among the EO who are well-read on the subject, I think such an approach to ecumenism is quite popular.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2012, 12:21:51 PM »

Quote
Alright, I appreciate an honest answer, but I have to admit it's a little odd that you can say the one for sure but not the other
I thought you were going to reference my bloody battle about the WCC and my hatred for it Smiley LOL

yeah i know it can be odd. I wish I had a better answer for you concerning the other talks. I guess I just feel so sad about the OO and EO problems because so much of the injuries concerning this are self-inflicted.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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 #58 on: April 09, 2012, 07:50:01 PM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way. Then, once that's accomplished, will you/they say that ecumenism with Protestants should not be on the plate until the Orthodox and Catholics have reunited?
I can't say that for sure. I just believe that we need to heal one wound at a time. Focus on one thing at a time.

PP

Alright, I appreciate an honest answer, but I have to admit it's a little odd that you can say the one for sure but not the other.

These types of assessments are directly tied to one's assessment of how realistic reunion actually is. Many EO and OO see such reunion as realistic and can see a (fairly) clear path forward as to how that might happen, and therefore we feel a great deal of urgency with regards to it. On the other hand, while there a few Orthodox who are optimistic about talks with Rome, a great many of us can not see any realistic path forward on it. As discussed on the other thread, the Papacy itself remains the greatest point of disagreement between RC and Orthodoxy, and I have yet to see a realistic proposal which would alter the Papacy's self-understanding enough to be acceptable to Orthodoxy that does not gut the modern Papacy's very raison d'etre--and betrays those RCs who sincerely believe in the teaching of their Church (particularly as enshrined in V1).

Without any realistic path forward for coming to agreement on the Papacy there's no reason to prioritize talks with Rome over those with Protestant groups who may be further, in general terms, from Orthodoxy, but have understandings of authority/tradition/etc which would realistically allow them to move towards Orthodoxy in a way Rome simply can't.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2012, 10:22:22 PM »

As stated in other topics, ecumenism should not even be on the plate until the Easterners and Orientals have reunited.

PP

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way. Then, once that's accomplished, will you/they say that ecumenism with Protestants should not be on the plate until the Orthodox and Catholics have reunited?
I can't say that for sure. I just believe that we need to heal one wound at a time. Focus on one thing at a time.

PP

Alright, I appreciate an honest answer, but I have to admit it's a little odd that you can say the one for sure but not the other.

These types of assessments are directly tied to one's assessment of how realistic reunion actually is. Many EO and OO see such reunion as realistic and can see a (fairly) clear path forward as to how that might happen, and therefore we feel a great deal of urgency with regards to it. On the other hand, while there a few Orthodox who are optimistic about talks with Rome, a great many of us can not see any realistic path forward on it.

What you're saying is certainly understandable, especially since a lot of Catholics say something similar but with different names filled in: namely, that Catholics and Orthodox are ultra- extremely close to reunion, but reunion with Protestants is light years away. (I don't recall which website said that reunion with Orthodoxy would be a "slam dunk", but the phrase "slam dunk" has stayed with me for years.) But whether your assessment is accurate is another question.

As discussed on the other thread, the Papacy itself remains the greatest point of disagreement between RC and Orthodoxy, and I have yet to see a realistic proposal which would alter the Papacy's self-understanding enough to be acceptable to Orthodoxy that does not gut the modern Papacy's very raison d'etre--and betrays those RCs who sincerely believe in the teaching of their Church (particularly as enshrined in V1).

Without any realistic path forward for coming to agreement on the Papacy there's no reason to prioritize talks with Rome over those with Protestant groups who may be further, in general terms, from Orthodoxy, but have understandings of authority/tradition/etc which would realistically allow them to move towards Orthodoxy in a way Rome simply can't.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. On the other hand, I can think of many Orthodox who think that reunion with Rome is much closer than reunion with Protestants.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2012, 10:27:56 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

How does an anethema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh
He is a validly ordained bishop and he is hurling this anathema at all Roman Catholics in the world today; so that's what I don;t understand.  

I don't really understand it either. There is a difference between heterodoxy and heresy. Some heterodox are heretics, but not all of them. I don't know if he was anathematizing all Roman Catholics or just the current pope and, likely, any who agree with his alleged heresies. To my mind, however, he would have had to invented new heresies (not impossible), because the old ones were anathematized a long time ago (still in force), and all he and those who allegedly agree with the old heresies are potentially not actually fomenting heresy any longer, but just being faithful to what they have (unfortunately) come to believe.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2012, 10:31:51 PM »

Clearly the Phanar believe that Latin Catholics are also in the Church i.e. that the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic Churches are one and the same:

Quote
This quote, from the official publication of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, "Episkepsis," (No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19) is also worth mentioning here:

In a joint communiquée, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles. Their communiquée includes the following statement: "The Joint Commission [which met at Balamand] was able to proclaim that our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."/quote]

But the Phanar is composed of Greeks, who never say what they mean, like you might think. The Sublime Porte has had to be diplomatic for many centuries even before the Turks came. Never take a statement at face value.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,637


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #62 on: April 11, 2012, 08:15:50 PM »

The Patriarch is not some universal bishop who can throw his orders around where he likes. He is first in honor, and that is as far as it goes. Greece shall do as Greece shall do, and his hands need to be out of it. Where are our St. Basil the Greats to stand up to over-reaching bishops?
His Holiness has stepped too far in too many places, from America to Estonia. He is no Latin pope.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 08:16:11 PM by Antonis » Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, tattoo it."
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 11, 2012, 08:38:52 PM »

The Patriarch is not some universal bishop who can throw his orders around where he likes. He is first in honor, and that is as far as it goes. Greece shall do as Greece shall do, and his hands need to be out of it. Where are our St. Basil the Greats to stand up to over-reaching bishops?
His Holiness has stepped too far in too many places, from America to Estonia. He is no Latin pope.

His "diocese" and patriarchate, do however have a global scope, from australia to japan to america to south america, etc.  So the effects of one bishop upon HAH may be in a vein that none of us are even aware of.  They DO have such a global reach though & affect.  Just something to think about in this conversation. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,618



« Reply #64 on: April 11, 2012, 09:57:28 PM »

The Patriarch is not some universal bishop who can throw his orders around where he likes. He is first in honor, and that is as far as it goes. Greece shall do as Greece shall do, and his hands need to be out of it. Where are our St. Basil the Greats to stand up to over-reaching bishops?
His Holiness has stepped too far in too many places, from America to Estonia. He is no Latin pope.

I guess he should just be quiet and not address what he sees as problems. Again, when he starts deposing people without a trial, then you can talk.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,637


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #65 on: April 12, 2012, 07:17:46 PM »

The Patriarch is not some universal bishop who can throw his orders around where he likes. He is first in honor, and that is as far as it goes. Greece shall do as Greece shall do, and his hands need to be out of it. Where are our St. Basil the Greats to stand up to over-reaching bishops?
His Holiness has stepped too far in too many places, from America to Estonia. He is no Latin pope.

His "diocese" and patriarchate, do however have a global scope, from australia to japan to america to south america, etc.  So the effects of one bishop upon HAH may be in a vein that none of us are even aware of.  They DO have such a global reach though & affect.  Just something to think about in this conversation.  
But the Church of Greece is not under him, and thus it is not his place to order them to do things.

I am under His Holiness as a member of the Greek Archdiocese in America, and I love and respect him, I think he has good intentions, but I do not believe his actions are within what is acceptable for the bishop of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Serbia wouldn't order around the Bulgarian Church on what it should do. This situation is no different. Our bishops are equals.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 07:18:17 PM by Antonis » Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, tattoo it."
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #66 on: April 12, 2012, 09:02:37 PM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.

But the fruit hasn't evolved yet so how can we judge?  Isn't ecumenism a process?  Huh
Logged
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 #67 on: April 12, 2012, 09:36:59 PM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.

But the fruit hasn't evolved yet so how can we judge?  Isn't ecumenism a process?  Huh

The ecumenical movement's been going on for over a century now. Even on an Orthodox timeline that should be enough time to make at least some preliminary judgments about the fruit.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #68 on: April 12, 2012, 09:50:21 PM »

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way.

Most EO are fairly ignorant of the OO. Of course, few EO would deem dialogue with Monophysites who deny the humanity of Christ more important than dialogue with Catholics who are dogmatically very similar. However, among the EO who are well-read on the subject, I think such an approach to ecumenism is quite popular.

I am not aware of any OO church that is monophysite.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 15, 2012, 12:58:20 AM »

The Patriarch is not some universal bishop who can throw his orders around where he likes. He is first in honor, and that is as far as it goes. Greece shall do as Greece shall do, and his hands need to be out of it. Where are our St. Basil the Greats to stand up to over-reaching bishops?
His Holiness has stepped too far in too many places, from America to Estonia. He is no Latin pope.

His "diocese" and patriarchate, do however have a global scope, from australia to japan to america to south america, etc.  So the effects of one bishop upon HAH may be in a vein that none of us are even aware of.  They DO have such a global reach though & affect.  Just something to think about in this conversation.  
But the Church of Greece is not under him, and thus it is not his place to order them to do things.

I am under His Holiness as a member of the Greek Archdiocese in America, and I love and respect him, I think he has good intentions, but I do not believe his actions are within what is acceptable for the bishop of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Serbia wouldn't order around the Bulgarian Church on what it should do. This situation is no different. Our bishops are equals.

I totally agree with you in principle.  I'm just saying that when your whole job is to have a global scope, it's kind of hard to just sit back & watch things happen & not comment. 

Part of my perspective is from living at the Phanar for 1 week last May.  Believe me...they are VERY global.  we had reps from Korea, Australia, Crete, the US, South America, Europe, even a bishop who was the deligate to Russia came.  I'm just saying..their whole attitude there is about the world.  It's very "in character" for him to do what he did. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,149


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2012, 01:30:17 AM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...

Wow.

Clearly the Phanar believe that Latin Catholics are also in the Church i.e. that the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic Churches are one and the same:

Quote
This quote, from the official publication of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, "Episkepsis," (No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19) is also worth mentioning here:

In a joint communiquée, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles. Their communiquée includes the following statement: "The Joint Commission [which met at Balamand] was able to proclaim that our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."
I have heard that thousands of Greeks have converted recently to the GOC (Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece) since the GOC has been standing firm against ecumenism promoted by the EP especially his gestures toward Rome.  
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 01:33:01 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #71 on: April 15, 2012, 12:24:08 PM »

There are two types who are against ecumenism: those who are converts who wish to cut themselves off completely from their past of western though and, praxis and; those who are immature in their in their faith and, are not capable of engaging in theological debate because they do not know Orthodox theology themselves.

There are also those who judge things based on the fruit they produce.

But the fruit hasn't evolved yet so how can we judge?  Isn't ecumenism a process?  Huh

The ecumenical movement's been going on for over a century now. Even on an Orthodox timeline that should be enough time to make at least some preliminary judgments about the fruit.

But Catholics have only been involved in it for about half that long.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #72 on: April 15, 2012, 01:39:15 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...

Wow.

Clearly the Phanar believe that Latin Catholics are also in the Church i.e. that the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Catholic Churches are one and the same:

Quote
This quote, from the official publication of the Œcumenical Patriarchate, "Episkepsis," (No. 520, July 31, 1995, p. 19) is also worth mentioning here:

In a joint communiquée, signed on June 29, 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew expressed their acceptance of the Balamand principles. Their communiquée includes the following statement: "The Joint Commission [which met at Balamand] was able to proclaim that our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches, responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God."
I have heard that thousands of Greeks have converted recently to the GOC (Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece) since the GOC has been standing firm against ecumenism promoted by the EP especially his gestures toward Rome.  
And where have you heard this?
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2012, 12:42:00 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who deny and rebuke the Panagia, the consubstantial, indivisible and Life-giving Trinity, the Rabbi's of Judaism, the Islamists, the anonymous tracts of the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who deny the Holy 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, the Monophysites, Monothelites, and Monoenergists, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who preach and teach the pan-heresy of Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious Syncretistic Ecumenism, anathema, anathema, anathema.

You can watch it here:

http://vimeo.com/38152418
at 16:06 he begins reading of anathema against heretics like arius and others
After the anathema of the heresy of Barlaam (17:36)
17:46 begins the anathema against the Latin pope and continues listing anathema as listed earlier above as he said

Yes, this is the same Seraphim who said many "anti-semetic" things during a interview.

Personally, watching the entire video I could not help but feel sick, I am not sure why, but something there just makes me feel wrong inside. When His Most Reverend talks, I cannot help but feel uneasy. And all through last night those chantings of "anathema anathema anathema" were running through my head, causing me much trouble.
At first I admired his stand against ecumenism, but I am not very sure anymore about this Metropolitan.
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2012, 01:59:18 PM »

What on earth is 'ecumenism' really? The devil is, after all, in the details as they say.

The way in which BOTH the MP and EP have defined it over the past century (although they continue to have their differences as to the scope of discussion and who takes the 'lead' in any such discussions) is FAR, FAR different than the simplistic way many of you who fall for the rhetoric of the likes of this particular Bishop and his followers (and for that matter many, but surely not all, within the self-proclaimed 'true' or 'genuine' Orthodox movement.)

I know it is Bright Week and I should not allow myself to be disturbed by this stuff, but I just can not abide the hardness of heart, soul and mind of many of those who are rabid 'anti-ecumenists' as it often appears to those who don't share those opinions that it seems even being kind to those who are not your brand of Orthodox is enough for the 'anathemas' to be trotted out and the fires to be stoked. We can't help but suspect that those fires are being stoked to us as well.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,865



« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2012, 02:34:20 PM »

What on earth is 'ecumenism' really? The devil is, after all, in the details as they say.

The way in which BOTH the MP and EP have defined it over the past century (although they continue to have their differences as to the scope of discussion and who takes the 'lead' in any such discussions) is FAR, FAR different than the simplistic way many of you who fall for the rhetoric of the likes of this particular Bishop and his followers (and for that matter many, but surely not all, within the self-proclaimed 'true' or 'genuine' Orthodox movement.)

I know it is Bright Week and I should not allow myself to be disturbed by this stuff, but I just can not abide the hardness of heart, soul and mind of many of those who are rabid 'anti-ecumenists' as it often appears to those who don't share those opinions that it seems even being kind to those who are not your brand of Orthodox is enough for the 'anathemas' to be trotted out and the fires to be stoked. We can't help but suspect that those fires are being stoked to us as well.


Christ is risen!

I think we should pray for those who feel the urge to rain anathemas on this and that. It is not that I do not have strong views myself, but ir seems to me that a basic principle of being a member of the Orthodox Church is to eschew being a latter-day Saint Mark of Ephesus. I cannot think for a moment what possesses our folks (clergy or laity) to go to such extremes.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,646


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2012, 03:16:03 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who deny and rebuke the Panagia, the consubstantial, indivisible and Life-giving Trinity, the Rabbi's of Judaism, the Islamists, the anonymous tracts of the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who deny the Holy 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils, the Monophysites, Monothelites, and Monoenergists, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Those who preach and teach the pan-heresy of Inter-Christian and Inter-Religious Syncretistic Ecumenism, anathema, anathema, anathema.

You can watch it here:

http://vimeo.com/38152418
at 16:06 he begins reading of anathema against heretics like arius and others
After the anathema of the heresy of Barlaam (17:36)
17:46 begins the anathema against the Latin pope and continues listing anathema as listed earlier above as he said

Yes, this is the same Seraphim who said many "anti-semetic" things during a interview.

Personally, watching the entire video I could not help but feel sick, I am not sure why, but something there just makes me feel wrong inside. When His Most Reverend talks, I cannot help but feel uneasy. And all through last night those chantings of "anathema anathema anathema" were running through my head, causing me much trouble.
At first I admired his stand against ecumenism, but I am not very sure anymore about this Metropolitan.
A bishop, acting alone, thinks he has the authority to add his own words to a Synodikon drafted only with conciliar approval? That demonstrates to me a very dangerous level of arrogance.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 16, 2012, 03:20:05 PM »

Those liturgical revisionists...
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #78 on: April 16, 2012, 04:11:25 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 16, 2012, 04:22:23 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Don't worry about it too much - after all you have had your share of good Catholic Bishops who pushed good Catholics out of the Church let alone worrying about non-Catholics - heck, St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre comes to mind right off the top of my head!
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 16, 2012, 04:38:36 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Just come into the Church.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #81 on: April 16, 2012, 07:20:31 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Just come into the Church.
Thank you kindly for that invitation. It is something that I have thought about. One thing that worries me is that Orthodox do not see a difference between venial and mortal sin; am I right about that? To me certain venial sins would not bar you from receiving Holy Communion, whereas a mortal sin would. Take for example, the sin of lying. Suppose that a telemarketeer calls you, interrupting your dinner and you answer the call. She says that she is selling a subscription to some ladies magazine and asks if your wife is there. Of course, your wife is right there, but you say no, she is not here and she won't be back anytime soon. You then hang up. You have lied about it, but it is a white lie, is it not? In the mind of a Roman, a venial (or lesser) sin would not disbar you from receiving Holy Communion.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,009


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2012, 07:32:58 PM »

Other means of absolution from venial sins in the RCC: the use of holy water to make the sign of the Cross (that's why the stoups are by the church doors), and recitation of the general confession ("I confess to Almighty God...") early in the Mass. Just thought I'd mention that.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #83 on: April 17, 2012, 09:05:50 AM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.

Huh ... I guess he likes John Wesley. Who would have thought?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #84 on: April 17, 2012, 09:11:13 AM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Just come into the Church.
Thank you kindly for that invitation. It is something that I have thought about. One thing that worries me is that Orthodox do not see a difference between venial and mortal sin; am I right about that? To me certain venial sins would not bar you from receiving Holy Communion, whereas a mortal sin would. Take for example, the sin of lying. Suppose that a telemarketeer calls you, interrupting your dinner and you answer the call. She says that she is selling a subscription to some ladies magazine and asks if your wife is there. Of course, your wife is right there, but you say no, she is not here and she won't be back anytime soon. You then hang up. You have lied about it, but it is a white lie, is it not? In the mind of a Roman, a venial (or lesser) sin would not disbar you from receiving Holy Communion.

Not meaning to be a back-seat poster, but I think you should tell the good people that there's an ongoing discussion here about mortal and venial sins. Otherwise, the discussion might get scattered between two different threads.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #85 on: April 17, 2012, 10:22:41 AM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.
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: 37,960



« Reply #86 on: April 17, 2012, 11:26:16 AM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.

Huh ... I guess he likes John Wesley. Who would have thought?
For one thing, Wesley claimed to be ordained by a Greek bishop.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2012, 11:31:54 AM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.

Huh ... I guess he likes John Wesley. Who would have thought?
For one thing, Wesley claimed to be ordained by a Greek bishop.

Really? I was kidding, of course, when I said that Metropolitan Seraphim likes John Wesley, but this ^^ is odd and interesting.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2012, 11:35:00 AM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.
Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2012, 11:39:09 AM »

Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

At some point (though it's awfully difficult to say what point exactly) that becomes propaganda.

One example is this comes from our own (Catholic) history: in the Union of Brest, the common folk naturally wondered why they were newly in communion with Rome; the answer often given to them was "The Pope has become Orthodox".
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 11:42:54 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2012, 02:09:15 PM »

Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Then that must be discussed in detail, point by point, instead of general condemnations.

Which heterodox group are you referring to?
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2012, 09:08:19 PM »

I don't doubt many EOs feels that way.

Most EO are fairly ignorant of the OO. Of course, few EO would deem dialogue with Monophysites who deny the humanity of Christ more important than dialogue with Catholics who are dogmatically very similar. However, among the EO who are well-read on the subject, I think such an approach to ecumenism is quite popular.

I am not aware of any OO church that is monophysite.

This.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #92 on: April 18, 2012, 02:38:08 AM »

The OO churches are miaphysite. They anathemize Eutyches.
Woud any anti-OOs recognize that fact please? After that, if they still think OOs are heretics, they should prove how miaphysitism, not monophysitism, is heretical.

The problem about the controversy within the EO church how to see the OOs is this: We who have a favourable view of the OOs know them personally and have had a serious theological dialogue with them. Whereas those who oppose the OO just shout "Heretics! Heretics!" and often have never met one in person, let alone studied their theology.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #93 on: April 18, 2012, 02:45:22 AM »

Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Then that must be discussed in detail, point by point, instead of general condemnations.

Which heterodox group are you referring to?
Those mentioned in reply or post #85.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #94 on: April 18, 2012, 03:01:22 AM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #95 on: April 18, 2012, 03:32:59 AM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox. Anyway, the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.
Logged
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,139


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #96 on: April 18, 2012, 03:42:28 AM »

Quote
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox.

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #97 on: April 18, 2012, 09:21:03 AM »

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
By conclusion, that would mean that anyone who has no problem with Old Catholic women priests, is not Orthodox. Is that what you are trying to say?
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2012, 09:30:43 AM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #99 on: April 18, 2012, 02:25:45 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #100 on: April 18, 2012, 02:43:37 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

I don't think it will affect your salvation, but it might the salvation of those giving out the anathemas.  Spiritual immaturity my dear man, spiritual immaturity.  Roll Eyes
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: 37,960



« Reply #101 on: April 18, 2012, 02:47:51 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.
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
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 #102 on: April 18, 2012, 03:04:22 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church". However that is not the official position of any EO synod or of the EO participants in the EO-OO dialogue (can't and won't speak for the OO in this case). The general position is that
a) we recognize that the other side is doctrinally orthodox, and therefore there is no doctrinal bar to reunion
b) reunion is possible without any explicit admission by the other side that it was their ancestors who went into schism
c) until b) occurs then one church (I would say the EO, OOs would say the OO) is "The One Church" and the other side is in schism, a situation that needs to be healed.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2012, 04:57:07 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Repent, and become Orthodox!
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2012, 04:58:46 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
So all Roman Catholics are officially anathematised three times by a standing Metropolitan of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is there some way that we can wash away this anathema from our souls?

Just come into the Church.
Thank you kindly for that invitation. It is something that I have thought about. One thing that worries me is that Orthodox do not see a difference between venial and mortal sin; am I right about that? To me certain venial sins would not bar you from receiving Holy Communion, whereas a mortal sin would. Take for example, the sin of lying. Suppose that a telemarketeer calls you, interrupting your dinner and you answer the call. She says that she is selling a subscription to some ladies magazine and asks if your wife is there. Of course, your wife is right there, but you say no, she is not here and she won't be back anytime soon. You then hang up. You have lied about it, but it is a white lie, is it not? In the mind of a Roman, a venial (or lesser) sin would not disbar you from receiving Holy Communion.

It's none of the telemarketer's business. You lied to protect your wife from being victimized.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2012, 04:59:40 PM »

Other means of absolution from venial sins in the RCC: the use of holy water to make the sign of the Cross (that's why the stoups are by the church doors), and recitation of the general confession ("I confess to Almighty God...") early in the Mass. Just thought I'd mention that.

And there are plenty of Orthodox prayers for forgiveness of sins.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #107 on: April 18, 2012, 05:01:15 PM »

The Most Reverend Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus called extra anathema during the reading of the Synodikon on the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. He added these to the list of anathema saying:

- The truly non-existent and fallen arch-heretic Pope and Patriarch of Old Rome Benedict XVI and those in communion with him, anathema, anathema, anathema.
- Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry Zwingli, Henry the VIII the impious king, and those with them, and all the heretical offshoots of the Reformation, anathema, anathema, anathema.

Huh ... I guess he likes John Wesley. Who would have thought?

First, it's not the personal opinion of His Beatitude whom to anathematize, but an action of the Church--and these anathemas are read by all chief hierarchs and sometimes all hierarchs and clergy ever Sunday of Orthodoxy--it's part of the service.

Second, Wesley would be covered in the anathemas against all heretics in "To all heretics, anathema, anathema, anathema."
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #108 on: April 18, 2012, 05:02:08 PM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.

The anathemas against heretics are hardly "hatemongery."
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #109 on: April 18, 2012, 05:03:48 PM »

Any hatemongery is not useful at all. Patriarch Bartholomew is correct in pointing that out.

As for "ecumenism", I do not think it is wrong per se to have a theological discussion with the heterodox (although I agree we should focus on the OO instead). The whole thing becomes a problem ONLY if someone denies Orthodox dogma.
Is it a problem if the heterodox say that their teachings, if interpreted either correctly or leniently, do not in any way conflict with Orthodox teachings?

Just how does one interpret, for example, that the Holy Gifts are "just symbols," and can therefore even be pizza and beer, in a way not in conflict with Orthodox teachings?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: April 18, 2012, 05:06:42 PM »

The OO churches are miaphysite. They anathemize Eutyches.
Woud any anti-OOs recognize that fact please? After that, if they still think OOs are heretics, they should prove how miaphysitism, not monophysitism, is heretical.

The problem about the controversy within the EO church how to see the OOs is this: We who have a favourable view of the OOs know them personally and have had a serious theological dialogue with them. Whereas those who oppose the OO just shout "Heretics! Heretics!" and often have never met one in person, let alone studied their theology.

The issue is the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. It's a very fine line, but it's still there. If it weren't, we'd be in communion by now. And we're not, as even the good conversations on this board show quite well--not due to intransigent arguers and ignoramii, but through careful consideration and theological questions.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #111 on: April 18, 2012, 05:07:56 PM »

In post #85, I made a general statement. As for groups who claim to have the same theology as we do, I can think of the Old Catholics. But of course, we have told them that this is not true, since we cannot accept the Branch Theory. In addition to that, the Union of Utrecht now has female priests and blessings for homosexual couples.

And they have serious theological issues, too. They have removed the veneration of the saints from their liturgical texts, at least in Germany. Prof. Angela Berlis seems to say that the Holy Spirit is female, and many of their laypeople I met deny the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or even the whole virgin birth, as well as the bodily ressurection.

And then, some Greek anti-ecumenists come and say the Old Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy than the OO... have they even met an Old Catholic?

(Note: All I said here applies to the Union of Utrecht. Now there also is a Union of Scranton, which I don't know well enough. It seems to me that their theology is quite Orthodox, except for the branch theory...)
I think that some Old Catholics have women priests, which should be a problem for the anti-ecumenical Greek True Orthodox. Anyway, the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Women priests would be problematic for all Orthodox.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #112 on: April 18, 2012, 05:09:08 PM »

ALL Orthodox, canonical or otherwise, regard this as a problem.
By conclusion, that would mean that anyone who has no problem with Old Catholic women priests, is not Orthodox. Is that what you are trying to say?

No. With women priests in Orthodoxy--which won't happen, so it's still a moot point. But, if you want it, those who would support Orthodox woman priests/priestesses are seriously mistaken at best and heretical at worst.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #113 on: April 18, 2012, 05:10:06 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes
For the record, that is also an ecclesiological heresy. You're welcome.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #114 on: April 18, 2012, 05:11:14 PM »

(ENInews). The spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians has written to Greece’s Orthodox state church, deploring anti-ecumenical statements by its leaders...
"In his statement on 4 March, Orthodoxy Sunday, Seraphim said he was anathematizing the “fallen arch-heretic,” Pope Benedict XVI, “and those in communion with him,” ..."
What are the consequences of this anathema for Roman Catholics? How would an anathema cast upon all Roman Catholics in the world by an Orthodox Metropolitan affect our eternal salvation?

I don't think it will affect your salvation, but it might the salvation of those giving out the anathemas.  Spiritual immaturity my dear man, spiritual immaturity.  Roll Eyes

It is the Church who anathematizes, not the man. The anathemas are made on the Sunday of Orthodoxy against all heretics, i.e. those who try to pervert the truth that God has revealed.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #115 on: April 18, 2012, 05:13:13 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #116 on: April 18, 2012, 07:26:28 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.
I don't think that those issues are quite as difficult at the papal questions.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #117 on: April 18, 2012, 08:00:30 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,960



« Reply #118 on: April 18, 2012, 08:50:14 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
No. For one thing, two OO Churches (Coptic, Syriac) overlap with two EO Churches (Alexandria, Antioch).  Can't be branches if you are planted in the same place.
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
fleur-de-lys
Chestertonian
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 80



« Reply #119 on: April 18, 2012, 09:02:07 PM »

I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other? The fault of the schism? But it seems that both parties are willing to shoulder a portion of blame for that. Perhaps I am wrong there. But if I'm not, then it seems one must admit to something like the branch theory. There was a muddle, really we're both the One True Church and now we recognize it, etc.
Logged

Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;

Yea, there is strength in striking root, and good in growing old.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #120 on: April 18, 2012, 09:07:18 PM »

I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?

That's a good question.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #121 on: April 23, 2012, 02:39:06 PM »

You will see that some of your posts are missing.  This is because they were too polemical for Christian News, or even the Oriental Orthodox board.  They have therefore been moved to the EO-OO Private Board.  If you do not have access to that board please PM Fr. George. 

Here is the link:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,44286.0.html

Please make sure that you do not continue polemical discussion on this thread.  That stands for everyone.  Sticking to the OP doesn't hurt either.   police

-Serb1389. General Fora Moderator
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 23, 2012, 02:43:44 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #123 on: April 23, 2012, 02:47:50 PM »

Aren't there also things like having different saints. Like Dioscorus?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #124 on: April 23, 2012, 02:52:32 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


PP

Why it isn't valid anymore?
Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #125 on: April 23, 2012, 03:39:10 PM »

Quote
I'm not sure I understand this bit about branch theory. If both Churches are Orthodox in faith, then what determines one as the One True Church over the other?
Now that there is a growing agreeance that the two Christologies are essentially the same (OO and EO), Im not sure that the question is really valid anymore. Its all ego now.


PP

Why it isn't valid anymore?
Maybe valid isnt the right adjective. I said my previous comment because OO and EO both have said that the Christologies are essentially the same, but explained differently. To me, I think that reunion's only real roadblock is ego. So to me, I think that it is safe to say both have a legitimate claim to being the True Church, especially since they both, from their own admissions, believe essentially the same thing.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
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 #126 on: April 23, 2012, 04:01:50 PM »

Aren't there also things like having different saints. Like Dioscorus?

Well, *anathemas against* certain of the other side's saints are an issue, but assuming all the other ducks were in a row, lifting the anathems would be basically a formality and not a real roadblock.

The simple existence of differing saints is not an issue. It is the norm for saints to be recognized and venerated locally first--and sometime exclusively. Sometimes the recognition and commemorations spread, sometimes it doesn't. But no Autocephalous Church actually has any duty to actively recognize/commemorate the saints of another local church. So each local church would simply keep their current calendar of saints. With the anathemas lifted there would be no bar to, over time, veneration of each other's saints to spread, the same way St. Seraphim of Sarov is now popular in Greece, and St. Nektarios of Pentapolis is popular in Russia, but that would be an organic, botto-up process, nothing formal or required.
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
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #127 on: April 23, 2012, 06:41:40 PM »


Quote
How does an anathema affect a person or church when there is no communion to break?  Huh
Quote
That's funny! Cheesy

Quote
It's telling when someone says an anathema of any kind is "funny".

Quote
That's what I was thinking. I thought an anathema was quite serious.

If an anathema is severing someone from the Church, then how can a person be anathematized  if they are not within the Church? Wouldn't it be an oxymoron?  I'm surprised  you can't see the humor in that?    Grin
Logged
Zenovia
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 777


« Reply #128 on: April 23, 2012, 07:49:39 PM »

the Roman Church more or less believes that many of the issues separating them from the Orthodox do not in fact conflict with Orthodox teachings if interpreted leniently. I am not sure about the question of papal infallibility, which perhaps would have to be completely reformed or weakened in a manner which would be acceptable to the East.

Well, then let them formulate these "lenient interpretations" in writing and present them to the Orthodox Church. Then our theologians can analyze them.

But as for my personal understanding, Rome is not yet ready to repent for its theological errors, even though they have repented for their political errors uch as the crusades.

I do not believe it is possible to reinterpret in an Orthodox way papal infalibility, and worse, papal universal jurisdiction but also some other things such as ex opere operato sacramental theology, indulgencies, the Roman Catholic view on original sin etc.

I think the Pope should rather admit he is NOT infallibale and some things have simply gone wrong in their theology. But if they are not ready to do that, PLEASE, dear Pope Benedict, do something real to end all these liturgial abuses that are common nowadays in masses...
My opinion (with is not worth very much) is that papal infallibility and supremacy is a seriously problematic issue for reunion, but that the other issues can be overcome more easily.

Immaculate Conception, the messing up of the Dormition, and the weirdness with purgatory and communion under one species (which there's been all this flip-flopping on) is also a cause for work.

The Pope as I understood it didn't apologize for the Catholic Church, but rather for the actions of some within the Latin Church in regard to the Fourth Crusade.   And that's to Rome's credit, since horrendous actions have been taken by Orthodox leaders, such as the treachery by a Patriarch and Emperor towards the crusading army during the ill fated Third Crusade, not to mention the killings of thirty thousand Latins in Constantinople before the attack on the city.   

As for the infallibility of the Pope, it is only in matters of dogma and has been used two times.  One is the Immaculate Conception which was denied by some Catholic doctors of the Church, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and accepted by others such as Saint Katherine of Sienna, and was accepted by certain Orthodox theologians and not by others.  And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Not that we're wrong and the Catholics are right, heaven forbid.  Only that it's best to take a positive and understanding view towards the Latin Church.  After all those poor people have to contend with a structural Latin language that might be  great for law and  I guess for building empires, but not in theology since it puts boundaries around Church concepts when boundaries shouldn't exist.  For example making purgatory a place instead of a state of existence.  Semantics, it's all semantics, but look God wants it that way otherwise he wouldn't have destroyed the tower of Babel. 

I think the Pope established himself as  infallible  in order fight  Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church  in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When  an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception,   it was taken as a sign by  the Pope.  In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.   

The Orthodox Synod at the time in Istanbul was quite upset, not  because of the dogma though since it wasn't fully defined, but because the Pope had overstepped himself and that it could lead to dangerous consequences in the future.  As for the Catholics, their  position probably was: 'Hey what's the big deal, don't you see we have a problem with our liberal Cardinals?'

Anyway this is only my viewpoint, so take it as you will.  Wink
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #129 on: April 23, 2012, 07:53:04 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
No. For one thing, two OO Churches (Coptic, Syriac) overlap with two EO Churches (Alexandria, Antioch).  Can't be branches if you are planted in the same place.

Erm, I've never heard of branches planted in different places.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,139


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #130 on: April 23, 2012, 08:02:57 PM »

Quote
And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.

Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: April 23, 2012, 09:10:11 PM »

Quote
And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.   

Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.

Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.

The only reason the Catholics call it the Assumption is to distinguish it from the Ascension. 

The Theotokos was taken into heaven while Jesus Ascended under his own power.

That is the only reason for the term.  A third of the dogmatic constitution on the Assumption talks about the long tradition of the Church concerning the death of the Mother of God.  It AFFIRMS her death.

This whole discussion about that issue is silly after a while.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #132 on: April 23, 2012, 09:26:32 PM »

I think the Pope established himself as  infallible  in order fight  Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church  in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When  an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception,   it was taken as a sign by  the Pope.  In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.   

That logic makes sense, but the time table is off. The IC was dogmatically defined in 1854, which is before both the apparition (1858) and the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibly (1870).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,266


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #133 on: April 23, 2012, 09:42:44 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #134 on: April 23, 2012, 10:02:01 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?

For what it's worth, the position taken by many of us Catholics is: that some of our dogmas needn't/shouldn't have been dogmatized, but since they have, in fact, been dogmatized we must respect that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #135 on: April 24, 2012, 12:13:00 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?

For what it's worth, the position taken by many of us Catholics is: that some of our dogmas needn't/shouldn't have been dogmatized, but since they have, in fact, been dogmatized we must respect that.

 Huh Huh Huh Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Huh Huh Huh

I Respect the Resurrection of the Dead,
And the Life of the World to Come!!

 Grin
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: 37,960



« Reply #136 on: April 24, 2012, 12:42:16 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?

For what it's worth, the position taken by many of us Catholics is: that some of our dogmas needn't/shouldn't have been dogmatized, but since they have, in fact, been dogmatized we must respect that.

 Huh Huh Huh Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Huh Huh Huh

I Respect the Resurrection of the Dead,
And the Life of the World to Come!!

 Grin
And the IC?
And the infallibility of the office of supreme pontiff?
And the supremacy of the supreme pontiff?
And the treasury of merits?
And purgatory?
And indulgences?
And.....
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 01:02:18 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #137 on: April 24, 2012, 12:45:08 PM »

I think the Pope established himself as  infallible  in order fight  Protestant concepts that were creeping into the Latin Church  in regard to the position, (or non position) of the Virgin Mary. When  an ignorant and uneducated Saint Bernadette said that the lady that spoke to her identified herself as the Immaculate Conception,   it was taken as a sign by  the Pope.  In order to impose the dogma on the Church he had to declare himself infallible.   

That logic makes sense, but the time table is off. The IC was dogmatically defined in 1854, which is before both the apparition (1858) and the dogmatic definition of Papal Infallibly (1870).
The Vatican quickly used the "apparitions" at Lourdes to promote the IC even more, and nearly every defense of Pastor Aeternus cites Ineffibilis Deus (1854) as an exercise of it.  It was, after all the same "supreme pontiff," who also invented the idea of the "magisterium."
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: 37,960



« Reply #138 on: April 24, 2012, 12:46:27 PM »

Quote
And as for the Dormition,  according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.    

Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.

Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.

The only reason the Catholics call it the Assumption is to distinguish it from the Ascension.  

The Theotokos was taken into heaven while Jesus Ascended under his own power.

That is the only reason for the term.  A third of the dogmatic constitution on the Assumption talks about the long tradition of the Church concerning the death of the Mother of God.  It AFFIRMS her death.

This whole discussion about that issue is silly after a while.
And yet your "magisterium" allows your Immortalists to prattle on.  The critical part of Munficentissimus Deus, the only part that at least your Latin coreligionists are agreed is "infallible" leaves it an open question.  Now if you want to argue that the whole papal bull is infallible, that's fine.  Just apply the same criteria to Unam Sanctam and a whole host of others.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 12:49:25 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
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: 37,960



« Reply #139 on: April 24, 2012, 12:51:35 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?

For what it's worth, the position taken by many of us Catholics is: that some of our dogmas needn't/shouldn't have been dogmatized, but since they have, in fact, been dogmatized we must respect that.
We Catholics are not so bound by the Vatican.  Nort do we intend to be, and if any should try to lead us into such servitude, he will find the doors of Orthodoxy, "the doors!  the doors!", shut behind him.
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: 37,960



« Reply #140 on: April 24, 2012, 12:52:53 PM »

... since we cannot accept the Branch Theory.

Orthodox don't hesitate to attack Anglicans for their "Branch Theory" (that Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox are all the Church) and Catholics for the "Two Lung Theory" (that Catholics and Orthodox are  the Church); but no one can ever seem to tell me how the Orthodox theory that EOs and OOs are the Church is really different -- except that it obviously includes fewer groups.  Roll Eyes

That is a valid criticism of those who think the EO and OO are already "the One Church".

Thank you. I was starting to feel like I was the only one who could see what's right in front of our collective nose.

The only difference is the acceptance of the Fourth Council as Ecumenical, and yet they anathematize Eutyches and his heresy like we, and the Fourth Council, do.

Branch Theory, by definition, only applies to Churches that aren't in heresy.

If I'm reading you correctly, your problem with Branch Theory is just a matter of which Churches it applies to, right?
No. For one thing, two OO Churches (Coptic, Syriac) overlap with two EO Churches (Alexandria, Antioch).  Can't be branches if you are planted in the same place.

Erm, I've never heard of branches planted in different places.
Branch theory has.
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: 37,960



« Reply #141 on: April 24, 2012, 12:57:37 PM »

I can't help to wonder sometimes....

Did a God that created this -

intend for us to be fighting over all this complex theological stuff?
someone here just posted this

how the Paschal bunny greets the Vatican's Crusader.
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:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 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 0.46 seconds with 169 queries.