Topic: Orthodox patriarch hits at “unacceptable” attacks on ecumenism

[mike]

(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...

[Justin Kissel]

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

[ialmisry]

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.

[Ioannis Climacus]

“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."

[GabrieltheCelt]

“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. 

[stanley123]

(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?

[SubdeaconDavid]

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.

[Cavaradossi]

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.

[SubdeaconDavid]

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.

[Alpo]

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.

[arimethea]

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.

[Iconodule]

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.

[Alpo]

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.

[Orthodox11]

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.

[SubdeaconDavid]

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. 

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[Stavro]

Lord have mercy

[Cavaradossi]

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. 

[Cognomen]

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.

[Cavaradossi]

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.

[laconicstudent]

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.

[witega]

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'.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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.

[Shanghaiski]

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.

[augustin717]

Always beware of 'subdeacons".

[Orthodox11]

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".

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

[Melodist]

(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? 

[laconicstudent]

(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? 

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.

[ICXCNIKA]

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.

[Zenovia]

(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?

[Zenovia]

(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? 

That's funny!

[laconicstudent]

(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? 

That's funny!

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

[stanley123]

(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? 

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.  

[stanley123]

(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? 

That's funny!

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.

[Peter J]

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".

[Justin Kissel]

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".

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    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...

[elijahmaria]

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

 ...It is meet!

[laconicstudent]

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

 ...It is meet!

[ZealousZeal]

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.

[Peter J]

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".

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    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.

[Cavaradossi]

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".

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    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.