OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 07:17:07 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: Communion with Ecumenical Patriarch = Orthodox  (Read 3644 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« on: February 24, 2013, 09:48:18 AM »

I've seen this more than I'd like to recently on places like news sites and facebook... It seems popular belief that to be Orthodox you must be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, as if he's the Orthodox equivalent of the RC Pope or something.

Why does it seem so common? Is it just Hellenophilia or what?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,539



« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2013, 10:22:31 AM »

I don't remember hearing it a ton back in the day. I know the aggreen site had something like that (and maybe still does have that heresy) on their website, but overall it was pretty minimal in exposure. Nonetheless, orthodoxinfo.com did have an article or two on "neo-papal-patriarchalism," and there were also some forum posts about it (including by me), so it's been around. I don't think it's just a Greek thing as I've seen Serbs and others make similar statements... (St. Justin is turning over in his grave).
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,636



« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2013, 11:32:00 AM »

Is it actually argued by theologians and clerics or is it just an idea of misquided laymen?
Logged
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,293



« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2013, 02:45:22 PM »

Was Maximos the Confessor in communion with Constantinople?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,749



« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2013, 02:51:47 PM »

Was Maximos the Confessor in communion with Constantinople?

shhh... you are ruining the Ecumenical Patriarch's fun!
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2013, 02:56:14 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,749



« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2013, 03:07:23 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Logged

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

Posts: 9,048


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2013, 03:07:54 PM »

That'd be bad news for Orthodox living in the first millenium. Constantinople was constantly arian/nestorian/miaphysite/monothelite/iconoclast etc.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 03:08:02 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2013, 03:17:47 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,078


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2013, 03:44:45 PM »

That'd be bad news for Orthodox living in the first millenium. Constantinople was constantly arian/nestorian/miaphysite/monothelite/iconoclast etc.

I'm surprised and saddened that you of all people have classed us together with all of these heretics. Having a change of heart/becoming unduly influenced by orthodoxinfo.com-style polemics, are we?
Logged

orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,459



« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2013, 03:49:16 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed

And it will never be.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,048


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2013, 04:02:23 PM »

That'd be bad news for Orthodox living in the first millenium. Constantinople was constantly arian/nestorian/miaphysite/monothelite/iconoclast etc.

I'm surprised and saddened that you of all people have classed us together with all of these heretics. Having a change of heart/becoming unduly influenced by orthodoxinfo.com-style polemics, are we?

No, no, no. I still love you miaphysites and I don't think you're heretics, as my recent posts on the EO-OO private forum illustrate quite well. But I just meant to say that communion with patriarchs like Patr. Anthimus I, who did have another faith than his predecessors and successors, wasn't really the standard of Eastern Orthodoxy. Sorry if I've offended you with my post  Embarrassed
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 04:03:15 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,453



« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2013, 04:02:47 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.
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: 37,453



« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2013, 04:03:38 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Christ had not yet come?
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
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,459



« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2013, 04:07:47 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Christ had not yet come?

Is Christ fully revealed?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,453



« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2013, 04:07:59 PM »

I've seen this more than I'd like to recently on places like news sites and facebook... It seems popular belief that to be Orthodox you must be in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, as if he's the Orthodox equivalent of the RC Pope or something.

Why does it seem so common? Is it just Hellenophilia or what?
It's pushed by the Vatican because it is a convenient way to bolster its claims, and pushed by the Phanar in order to bolster its claims and the interests of "homogeneia."

It is popular only among some Greeks, and perhaps some Ukrainians (for their own reasons-i.e. counterpoint to the Patriarch of Moscow).
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: 37,453



« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2013, 04:08:24 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Christ had not yet come?

Is Christ fully revealed?
Revealed enough.
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: 37,453



« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2013, 04:14:45 PM »

Is it actually argued by theologians and clerics or is it just an idea of misquided laymen?
How about misguided clerics?  Do a search on what Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa has to say.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2013, 04:17:21 PM »

I have a feeling that when I get up in the morning (in about 8-9 hours) it will have had over 100 replies and at least 3 reported posts. <sigh>
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,459



« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2013, 04:20:49 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Christ had not yet come?

Is Christ fully revealed?
Revealed enough.

So the "Full Truth" hasn't been revealed. You agree.

Great.

Now the question becomes if truth can be fully revealed. I say no (sorta since the structure of truth is revelation). But some Protestants say otherwise.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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: 37,453



« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2013, 04:32:06 PM »

What's before the 381 when there had not been Ecumenical Patriarchate?

The Full Truth had not yet been revealed
Christ had not yet come?

Is Christ fully revealed?
Revealed enough.

So the "Full Truth" hasn't been revealed. You agree.

Great.

Now the question becomes if truth can be fully revealed. I say no (sorta since the structure of truth is revelation). But some Protestants say otherwise.
Protestants are wrong, including said Protestants.
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
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,514


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2013, 04:48:52 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the time of Florence and the fall of Constantinople, didn't Russia independently elect its own Patriarch in like AD 1448? Technically through doing so, they weren't in communion with the EP because they had violated the previous policy--which was for delegates from Constantinople to oversee the process of appointing new Metropolitans/Patriarchs.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
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: 37,453



« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2013, 05:44:21 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the time of Florence and the fall of Constantinople, didn't Russia independently elect its own Patriarch in like AD 1448? Technically through doing so, they weren't in communion with the EP because they had violated the previous policy--which was for delegates from Constantinople to oversee the process of appointing new Metropolitans/Patriarchs.
Right you are!  In fact, Constantinople-in the interest of submitting to the Vatican-had violated the canons on the Metropolitan of Kiev: the rules at the time gave the nomination to Vladimir (the capital city of the Grand Duchy at the time).  Met. St. Jonah had been elected, but arrived too late in Constantinople for consecration-Met. Isidore had been consecrated instead.  With the deposition of Isidore for apostacy, after waiting awhile for Constantinople to return to Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod at Moscow canonically elevated Met. St. Jonah as its autocephalous primate.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,048


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2013, 05:47:40 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

Ah, the font of sacerdotal unity. Where have I heard that before?
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
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: 37,453



« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2013, 06:08:38 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

Ah, the font of sacerdotal unity. Where have I heard that before?
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2013, 08:38:24 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

You missed the key point entirely in your usual knee-jerk anti-"Phanar" manner.

Your exceptions are just that, exceptions.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 08:46:17 PM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,199


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2013, 09:11:50 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

You missed the key point entirely in your usual knee-jerk anti-"Phanar" manner.

Your exceptions are just that, exceptions.

Except that there seem to be so many exceptions. I would say that the sure way to define canonical Orthodoxy is by the practice and belief of that particular church. After that you may look to see who they are in communion with for any red flags (such as heretical groups or schismatics), but I would never say and have never heard it seriously said that one must be in communion with the EP to be Orthodox.

And what if an "exception" happened again? What if Constantinople fell into heresy again? Would those who broke communion then not be Orthodox? Of course not! Now quit being ridiculous.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2013, 10:13:15 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

You missed the key point entirely in your usual knee-jerk anti-"Phanar" manner.

Your exceptions are just that, exceptions.

Except that there seem to be so many exceptions. I would say that the sure way to define canonical Orthodoxy is by the practice and belief of that particular church. After that you may look to see who they are in communion with for any red flags (such as heretical groups or schismatics), but I would never say and have never heard it seriously said that one must be in communion with the EP to be Orthodox.

And what if an "exception" happened again? What if Constantinople fell into heresy again? Would those who broke communion then not be Orthodox? Of course not! Now quit being ridiculous.

And YOU miss the point as well. The aspect applies to all the hierarchs, including the EP.

Plus, he lists 6 individually by name "and others". "So many" in how many years?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,199


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2013, 10:23:30 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

You missed the key point entirely in your usual knee-jerk anti-"Phanar" manner.

Your exceptions are just that, exceptions.

Except that there seem to be so many exceptions. I would say that the sure way to define canonical Orthodoxy is by the practice and belief of that particular church. After that you may look to see who they are in communion with for any red flags (such as heretical groups or schismatics), but I would never say and have never heard it seriously said that one must be in communion with the EP to be Orthodox.

And what if an "exception" happened again? What if Constantinople fell into heresy again? Would those who broke communion then not be Orthodox? Of course not! Now quit being ridiculous.

And YOU miss the point as well. The aspect applies to all the hierarchs, including the EP.

Plus, he lists 6 individually by name "and others". "So many" in how many years?

One is too many, and enough to prove you wrong.

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant earlier. Take a look at my jurisdiction, Antioch. If for whatever reason they broke communion with the EP (such as the EP falling into heresy), but the Patriarchate of Antioch still retained the beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy and resisted heresy, and still communed with Jerusalem and Moscow, then would Antioch cease to be Orthodox? No, the EP would have ceased to be Orthodox since he is the one in heresy.

On the converse; if my jurisdiction was headed by a bishop out of Colorado and he communed no one else and anathematized everybody else except those that accepted his authority would he and his church still be Orthodox? Probably not.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
WPM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,234



« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2013, 10:24:03 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

Ah, the font of sacerdotal unity. Where have I heard that before?


What follows after that? ...
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 10:24:33 PM by WPM » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2013, 10:27:00 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

If I understood your point, then I agree that anyone in communion with the EP is Orthodox - as it's an Orthodox church. No different than if a church were to be in communion with Moscow, Jerusalem, etc.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
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: 37,453



« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2013, 10:37:32 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

You missed the key point entirely in your usual knee-jerk anti-"Phanar" manner.

Your exceptions are just that, exceptions.
These aren't exceptions that make a rule.

If, for instance, if the Phanar decides to insist on its canon 28 mythology-something distinctly possible if Met. Elpidophoros becomes EP Elpidophoros-and walks down the same path that Old Rome beat down, it won't be taking Orthodox communion with it.

There is no canon, much less any dogma, that defines Orthodox communion as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate."  The circumstances surrounding the autocephaly of Russia shows that.
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: 37,453



« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2013, 10:49:16 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

If I understood your point, then I agree that anyone in communion with the EP is Orthodox - as it's an Orthodox church. No different than if a church were to be in communion with Moscow, Jerusalem, etc.
It is Orthodox now.  There is no guarantee of that at all times-its history proves otherwise.  Commune with it at those times, and you commune with heretics.

Btw, the apologists for the Vatican often challenge us with examples of the first millenium of the Pope of Old Rome making Ultramontanist claims, and pointing out that we were still in communion.  And so we were-until the Vatican reorganized its dogma to orbit around such claims.  So too communion with New Rome today.  The Phanar makes a lot of outlandish claims as of late, and has engaged in un-Orthodox, if not heterodox, activities.  But not yet past the breaking point.  If it ever does, as Old Rome did, we will look at New Rome like Old Rome.  And we don't worry about their supreme pontiff not being in our diptychs any more.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2013, 10:49:51 PM »

They were first called Christians in Antioch. If you're not in communion with Antioch, you aren't Christian.  angel
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.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,241



« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2013, 11:05:46 PM »

It is Orthodox now.  There is no guarantee of that at all times-its history proves otherwise.  Commune with it at those times, and you commune with heretics.
That's what I had in mind.

Quote
Btw, the apologists for the Vatican often challenge us with examples of the first millenium of the Pope of Old Rome making Ultramontanist claims, and pointing out that we were still in communion.  And so we were-until the Vatican reorganized its dogma to orbit around such claims.  So too communion with New Rome today.  The Phanar makes a lot of outlandish claims as of late, and has engaged in un-Orthodox, if not heterodox, activities.  But not yet past the breaking point.  If it ever does, as Old Rome did, we will look at New Rome like Old Rome.  And we don't worry about their supreme pontiff not being in our diptychs any more.
Then we can just have a Newer Rome.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2013, 11:16:26 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

If I understood your point, then I agree that anyone in communion with the EP is Orthodox - as it's an Orthodox church. No different than if a church were to be in communion with Moscow, Jerusalem, etc.

You understand me correctly. The rest here can play the usual confusion games.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
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: 37,453



« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2013, 11:31:01 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

If I understood your point, then I agree that anyone in communion with the EP is Orthodox - as it's an Orthodox church. No different than if a church were to be in communion with Moscow, Jerusalem, etc.

You understand me correctly. The rest here can play the usual confusion games.
The EP keeps on threatening us with this "Great and Holy Council" (wasn't it supposed to be this year?).  The scenario of Constantinople going one way and the Orthodox going another is quite plausible.  "Who's in communion with the EP" will not be dispositive.

Given that the robber council of Ravenna defined in error Orthodox communion as communion with the EP, we need to make quite sure that is understood, by all parties, so there is no confusion.  Met. Elpidophoros can claim all he wants that "the diptychs of the Great Church" are the Book of Life, but t'ain't so.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 11:31:34 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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2013, 11:31:24 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

Pardon, but I think the context Αριστοκλής  was referencing is the present day - not historically.

I don't support organized religion.       I'm Orthodox. ..(apologies to Will Rogers....)
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: 37,453



« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2013, 11:34:10 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

Pardon, but I think the context Αριστοκλής  was referencing is the present day - not historically.
Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.  Not all examples were ancient history.
I don't support organized religion.       I'm Orthodox. ..(apologies to Will Rogers....)
Orthodoxy is the right religion. It's just been given to the wrong people. (to quote Frs. Schmemann or Meyendorff, I forget which.  Or was it Hopko?).

MK was here
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 01:53:15 PM by Michał Kalina » 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2013, 11:39:34 PM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.
No, it is not: Bp./Abp./Patriarch/EP Macedonius I, Eudoxius, Nestorius, Sergius I, Anastasios...among others proved the contrary, something confirmed by EP Ioachim III-who claimed to cut Antioch off from Orthodox communion because it had the audacity to elect its own patriarch and tell the Phanar to mind its own business, and who excommunicated the Bulgarians for phyletism while attempting to Hellenize anyone the Turks let him and issued the absurd claims over the world in the Tomos of 1908-and Met/Abp/EP/Pope Meletius-elected EP when deposed by the Church of Greece and refused recognition by the Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of Jerusalem-and EP Gregory VII-who excommunicated Pat. St. Tikhon to commune with the "Living Church" of the Soviets.

Pardon, but I think the context Αριστοκλής  was referencing is the present day - not historically.

I don't support organized religion.       I'm Orthodox. ..(apologies to Will Rogers....)

You are correct that I read the OP's question in today's context, rather than a pretext for Isa's usual EP bashing which is as boring as it is predictable.

"Historically" is too nebulous a term.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
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: 8,325


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2013, 11:48:59 PM »

I don't remember hearing it a ton back in the day. I know the aggreen site had something like that (and maybe still does have that heresy) on their website, but overall it was pretty minimal in exposure. Nonetheless, orthodoxinfo.com did have an article or two on "neo-papal-patriarchalism," and there were also some forum posts about it (including by me), so it's been around. I don't think it's just a Greek thing as I've seen Serbs and others make similar statements... (St. Justin is turning over in his grave).

Darn right my friend. 
Logged

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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,293



« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2013, 12:00:58 AM »

Yes, communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch is the sure way to define canonical "Orthodox(y)", but it is an indication, not as much as a legal requirement, that all in communion with him are also are in communion with each other.

Ah, the font of sacerdotal unity. Where have I heard that before?


What follows after that? ...

The Antichrist and the False Prophet?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,492



« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2013, 12:04:19 AM »

There is no canon, much less any dogma, that defines Orthodox communion as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate." 

Fine, why are there 31 posts in this thread?

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: 37,453



« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2013, 12:09:36 AM »

There is no canon, much less any dogma, that defines Orthodox communion as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate." 

Fine, why are there 31 posts in this thread?


42, including yours. Because you are not the only one mistaken.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,227


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2013, 12:12:14 AM »

There are plenty of places for folks to go which self-identify themselves as Orthodox who are not in communion with the EP. I would urge those posters who seem to fume angrily and obsessively about Constantinople to seek them out. The last I knew the Serbs of New Gracanica and the Antiochians and Alexandrians  were in communion with the EP and we with them.
Logged
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 0.156 seconds with 72 queries.