OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 17, 2014, 05:32:15 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patriarch Bartholomew invites Pope Francis to Holy Land  (Read 4024 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
3inOne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 7


« on: March 21, 2013, 12:10:20 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
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 #1 on: March 21, 2013, 12:15:29 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?

More of a show that Christians have more in common, in a region where they have been marginalized over the last couple of hundred years. It is an opportunity to put on a good show for the world stage.
Logged

Joseph
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,670



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2013, 12:20:35 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?

Possibly a little of both.
Logged
Adela
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 828



« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2013, 12:54:58 PM »

Even without unity, they can work together on common goals.  It's nice that the Pope addressed the Patriarch as "Andrew", definitely a good sign!  Smiley
Quote
The Pope thanked the Patriarch – who had initiated the gathering with a public speech to greet the pontiff – calling him Andrea, although his first name is Dimitrius. This acknowledgment has been regarded by some as thoughtful and ecumenically significant.

“By calling him 'Andrea,' – Andrew – the Pope was making an important statement,” explained Joan Lewis, EWTN's Rome bureau chief. 
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-to-world-religious-truth-beauty-goodness-unites/


This link below  is a few years old, but is this really true that the next Patriarch has to be approved by the Turkish government???  Hopefully the Pope can help push back against discrimination of Christians in this area.
Quote
If Turkish laws, demographics and attitudes aren't changed, Bartholomew could ultimately be the last Patriarch of Constantinople.

"We are not all in despair for the future of our church," Bartholomew said. "It is not easy, but it is not impossible."

The Turkish government can veto any candidate put forward for the position of patriarch. And it requires the patriarch be a Turkish citizen. Bartholomew is, but most of those best qualified to succeed him are not.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/08/26/wus.patriarch/index.html
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2013, 03:13:10 PM »

This trip is to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the lifting of the anathemas of 1054 by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. The occasion could also help Constantinople take advantage of the current coolness between Rome and Moscow on account of the unresolved issues.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2013, 04:12:49 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2013, 04:50:35 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2013, 05:07:24 PM »

Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

Why not?  As long as they have the appropriate visas they can go there whenever they want.  I doubt they'd be celebrating Liturgy or anything, so the Jerusalem Patriarch need not approve of it.  Besides, the Pope also has his own Patriarch there.
Logged
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: 8,454


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2013, 05:41:46 PM »

Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

Why not?  As long as they have the appropriate visas they can go there whenever they want.  I doubt they'd be celebrating Liturgy or anything, so the Jerusalem Patriarch need not approve of it.  Besides, the Pope also has his own Patriarch there.

it doesn't quite work that way.  A hierarch (even a Patriarch) has to ask permission to enter the diocese of another bishop.  It's not a "guarantee" in some cases, but usually they all try to play nice with each other.  As Isa pointed out though...that is not always the case. 
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,045


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2013, 05:41:56 PM »



IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met on the Mount of Olives in 1964.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 05:43:59 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,516


« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2013, 05:44:14 PM »

Patriarch Bartholomew needs and approval from Patriarch Theophile III.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,045


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2013, 05:48:06 PM »

Patriarch Athenagoras didn't have it in 1964 accordng to Isa.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2013, 08:18:25 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

?
Isa, they met in the Holy Land. 
Patriarch Bartholomew already has Patriarch Theophilos' consent, and got it before he asked Pope Francis.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2013, 08:19:43 PM »

Patriarch Bartholomew needs and approval from Patriarch Theophile III.

He already has it.  He got it before he gave the invitation. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2013, 08:24:13 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said? 
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2013, 08:30:04 PM »

Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

Why not?  As long as they have the appropriate visas they can go there whenever they want.  I doubt they'd be celebrating Liturgy or anything, so the Jerusalem Patriarch need not approve of it.  Besides, the Pope also has his own Patriarch there.

it doesn't quite work that way.  A hierarch (even a Patriarch) has to ask permission to enter the diocese of another bishop.  It's not a "guarantee" in some cases, but usually they all try to play nice with each other.  As Isa pointed out though...that is not always the case. 

Even for a vacation?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2013, 08:47:20 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 08:58:41 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2013, 09:20:17 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2013, 09:42:05 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


Here is the official transcript of the Patriarch's formal address yesterday from the Patriarchal website. http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress

So yes, he did say the quoted phrase. BUT  I would urge those upset by this to read the whole speech. In the context of the speech, the phrase in question seems to me NOT to be a royal like "we" but rather an awkward phrasing where he is expressing his personal best wishes and the best wishes on behalf of the Orthodox community at large.
Logged
3inOne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 7


« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2013, 10:13:05 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

I've been called worse Smiley

No, seriously..I'm new here. Hi everyone! Basically just looking for friends to engage in some good dialog on issues like these in hopes for unity or at the least understanding. I figured this would be a good subject to get started on. I'm not particularly looking for any theological battles, or any "bible verse-beat down" debates..I'll save those for my Protestant brothers and sisters.

Thanks for all the replies. I'm anxious to engage with some of you here.

So, that's my brief introduction.

God bless you all.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2013, 10:19:00 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

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


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2013, 10:21:10 PM »

Welcome, 3inOne!
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®).
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2013, 10:21:50 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.
Not everyone was kissing the Pope and not everyone was referring to him as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness". Does the EP hug and kiss the Dalai Lama? When has this occurred?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2013, 10:23:00 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
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 #24 on: March 21, 2013, 10:43:22 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
Are you then saying that His All Holiness, the Orthodox  EP of Constantinople is not an honest man when he refers to the Pope as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness" and then later on  kisses him?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2013, 10:47:45 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
Are you then saying that His All Holiness, the Orthodox  EP of Constantinople is not an honest man when he refers to the Pope as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness" and then later on  kisses him?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Matt. 22:21)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:48:02 PM by LBK » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2013, 10:50:59 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
Are you then saying that His All Holiness, the Orthodox  EP of Constantinople is not an honest man when he refers to the Pope as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness" and then later on  kisses him?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Matt. 22:21)
But this refers to things of God since His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love."
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,588


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2013, 11:01:42 PM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
Are you then saying that His All Holiness, the Orthodox  EP of Constantinople is not an honest man when he refers to the Pope as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness" and then later on  kisses him?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Matt. 22:21)
But this refers to things of God since His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love."
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress


The Bishop of Rome has not been commemorated on Orthodox diptychs since the eleventh century. This is the reality, which flowery words of diplomatic courtesy do not supersede.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 11:02:15 PM by LBK » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2013, 11:08:41 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.
Not everyone was kissing the Pope and not everyone was referring to him as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness". Does the EP hug and kiss the Dalai Lama? When has this occurred?

The Patriarch is friends with a lot of these men. He did get his Ph.D at the Orientale. He considered the former Pope as an esteemed academic colleague.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,142


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2013, 11:11:44 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.

I think people continually forget this level of interaction; there is most certainly a system for interaction among leaders of religious groups, especially ones who differ in doctrine, which is why the use of traditional honorifics is so important - nothing says "congratulations" like greeting the man of the hour, saying, "Hey there, schismatic guy, glad you've made it to the top of the heap of unwashed and unsaved masses."

Protocol is important in most ecclesiastical and secular leadership trees.  One example I have to deal with on a regular basis: Orthodox bishops interact with their own flocks and with one another.  But they don't interact per se with anyone else's flock.  If a parish in Los Angeles would like to invite a bishop from New York to speak at a retreat, they don't call him first, but rather call their own bishop first, and then he contacts the NY bishop to (a) invite him, (b) give a blessing to enter his canonical territory, and (c) formally hand-off the conversation to the LA parish.

So, too, in the rarefied air at the top of the ecclesiastical heap - the EP was not going to refer to the Pope simply as "Pope," but was rather going to use his honorific, just as the Pope will use the EP's honorific (or any other Orthodox bishop's, for that matter), just as they both use the proper honorifics for presidents, royalty, senators, military officers, and religious leaders.  It's just what you do.  You speak a common language if possible (the EP spoke to the Pope in Italian, since they are both fluent in it), you follow the protocol of the host (in this case, the Vatican) as long as it doesn't violate your own system, and you speak cordially to one another, using the title that the other is accustomed to hearing.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,142


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2013, 11:13:50 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.
Not everyone was kissing the Pope and not everyone was referring to him as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness". Does the EP hug and kiss the Dalai Lama? When has this occurred?

The Patriarch is friends with a lot of these men. He did get his Ph.D at the Orientale. He considered the former Pope as an esteemed academic colleague.

His All Holiness was in Rome for Vatican II (he was a Deacon at the time, and served in a parish there while studying).  He speaks fluent Italian (and Greek, Turkish, English, French, and Latin iirc).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
3inOne
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 7


« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2013, 11:18:50 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.

I think people continually forget this level of interaction; there is most certainly a system for interaction among leaders of religious groups, especially ones who differ in doctrine, which is why the use of traditional honorifics is so important - nothing says "congratulations" like greeting the man of the hour, saying, "Hey there, schismatic guy, glad you've made it to the top of the heap of unwashed and unsaved masses."

Protocol is important in most ecclesiastical and secular leadership trees.  One example I have to deal with on a regular basis: Orthodox bishops interact with their own flocks and with one another.  But they don't interact per se with anyone else's flock.  If a parish in Los Angeles would like to invite a bishop from New York to speak at a retreat, they don't call him first, but rather call their own bishop first, and then he contacts the NY bishop to (a) invite him, (b) give a blessing to enter his canonical territory, and (c) formally hand-off the conversation to the LA parish.

So, too, in the rarefied air at the top of the ecclesiastical heap - the EP was not going to refer to the Pope simply as "Pope," but was rather going to use his honorific, just as the Pope will use the EP's honorific (or any other Orthodox bishop's, for that matter), just as they both use the proper honorifics for presidents, royalty, senators, military officers, and religious leaders.  It's just what you do.  You speak a common language if possible (the EP spoke to the Pope in Italian, since they are both fluent in it), you follow the protocol of the host (in this case, the Vatican) as long as it doesn't violate your own system, and you speak cordially to one another, using the title that the other is accustomed to hearing.

For me, it's not so much the words but the actions..
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2013, 12:17:49 AM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.

I think people continually forget this level of interaction; there is most certainly a system for interaction among leaders of religious groups, especially ones who differ in doctrine, which is why the use of traditional honorifics is so important - nothing says "congratulations" like greeting the man of the hour, saying, "Hey there, schismatic guy, glad you've made it to the top of the heap of unwashed and unsaved masses."

Protocol is important in most ecclesiastical and secular leadership trees.  One example I have to deal with on a regular basis: Orthodox bishops interact with their own flocks and with one another.  But they don't interact per se with anyone else's flock.  If a parish in Los Angeles would like to invite a bishop from New York to speak at a retreat, they don't call him first, but rather call their own bishop first, and then he contacts the NY bishop to (a) invite him, (b) give a blessing to enter his canonical territory, and (c) formally hand-off the conversation to the LA parish.

So, too, in the rarefied air at the top of the ecclesiastical heap - the EP was not going to refer to the Pope simply as "Pope," but was rather going to use his honorific, just as the Pope will use the EP's honorific (or any other Orthodox bishop's, for that matter), just as they both use the proper honorifics for presidents, royalty, senators, military officers, and religious leaders.  It's just what you do.  You speak a common language if possible (the EP spoke to the Pope in Italian, since they are both fluent in it), you follow the protocol of the host (in this case, the Vatican) as long as it doesn't violate your own system, and you speak cordially to one another, using the title that the other is accustomed to hearing.

Thank you Father for your reality check. Sadly, in our world which devalues civility, many posters probably imagine themselves using your hypothetical "greeting" or greeting the Queen - "Yo, Queenie..."
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2013, 03:24:28 AM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.

I think people continually forget this level of interaction; there is most certainly a system for interaction among leaders of religious groups, especially ones who differ in doctrine, which is why the use of traditional honorifics is so important - nothing says "congratulations" like greeting the man of the hour, saying, "Hey there, schismatic guy, glad you've made it to the top of the heap of unwashed and unsaved masses."

Protocol is important in most ecclesiastical and secular leadership trees.  One example I have to deal with on a regular basis: Orthodox bishops interact with their own flocks and with one another.  But they don't interact per se with anyone else's flock.  If a parish in Los Angeles would like to invite a bishop from New York to speak at a retreat, they don't call him first, but rather call their own bishop first, and then he contacts the NY bishop to (a) invite him, (b) give a blessing to enter his canonical territory, and (c) formally hand-off the conversation to the LA parish.

So, too, in the rarefied air at the top of the ecclesiastical heap - the EP was not going to refer to the Pope simply as "Pope," but was rather going to use his honorific, just as the Pope will use the EP's honorific (or any other Orthodox bishop's, for that matter), just as they both use the proper honorifics for presidents, royalty, senators, military officers, and religious leaders.  It's just what you do.  You speak a common language if possible (the EP spoke to the Pope in Italian, since they are both fluent in it), you follow the protocol of the host (in this case, the Vatican) as long as it doesn't violate your own system, and you speak cordially to one another, using the title that the other is accustomed to hearing.

Thank you Father for your reality check. Sadly, in our world which devalues civility, many posters probably imagine themselves using your hypothetical "greeting" or greeting the Queen - "Yo, Queenie..."
His All Holiness used the expression: “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,"
What do you think this expression means that the venerable Church of Senior Rome is defined by the primacy of love?
Logged
AntonI
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Of the Bulgarian variety
Posts: 56

OC.net


« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2013, 05:26:10 AM »

Burn him!  I hear EP's make excellent firewood.

I am sure there is quite a bit of diplomacy going on especially in what words one uses but I am thinking that the whole primacy of love topic is a way to show that Rome is a special see but not necessary in the way a lot of traditional Catholics see it ("My way or the high way").
Logged

Some of us must be sacrificed if all are to be saved

- Ambassador Kosh Naranek
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

?
Isa, they met in the Holy Land.
I'm aware of that, Father.  IIRC, the whole thing was supposed to happen at the Church of the Nativity with all the fan fare, but at the last moment Pat. Benedict changed his mind.

Patriarch Bartholomew already has Patriarch Theophilos' consent, and got it before he asked Pope Francis.
That changes things.  It should be mentioned.
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Well, if you know your Byzantine history, honorifics made to barbarian rulers do not signify that the emperors thought them any more than unwashed imperial lackeys.
Are you then saying that His All Holiness, the Orthodox  EP of Constantinople is not an honest man when he refers to the Pope as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness" and then later on  kisses him?

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Matt. 22:21)
But this refers to things of God since His All Holiness, the Orthodox EP of Constantinople says that the Pope is the “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love."
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress


The Bishop of Rome has not been commemorated on Orthodox diptychs since the eleventh century. This is the reality, which flowery words of diplomatic courtesy do not supersede.
Yeah, until he communes him, nothing new here.
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: 6,174



« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2013, 08:34:17 AM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.
Not everyone was kissing the Pope and not everyone was referring to him as "Your beloved and esteemed Holiness". Does the EP hug and kiss the Dalai Lama? When has this occurred?

I think I have to agree with LBK et al: it just seems like diplomatic courtesy to me. (Although I'm probably being influenced by the incredible tiredness I feel about constantly meeting Reunification Theorists.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2013, 08:57:49 AM »

Yes, words are diplomatic niceties but there are harsh diplomatic terms ( such as " the talks were frank" meaning the parties argued harshly and almost came to blows) or the types of grand gestures accompanying the words we saw this week in Rome. Today's climate at least represents mutual respect and Christian charity as contrasted with polemical diatribes from even the recent past.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2013, 09:42:20 AM »

Yes, words are diplomatic niceties but there are harsh diplomatic terms ( such as " the talks were frank" meaning the parties argued harshly and almost came to blows) or the types of grand gestures accompanying the words we saw this week in Rome. Today's climate at least represents mutual respect and Christian charity as contrasted with polemical diatribes from even the recent past.

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, you're just the person we want telling us how not to be polemical. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2013, 09:57:51 AM »

Yes, words are diplomatic niceties but there are harsh diplomatic terms ( such as " the talks were frank" meaning the parties argued harshly and almost came to blows) or the types of grand gestures accompanying the words we saw this week in Rome. Today's climate at least represents mutual respect and Christian charity as contrasted with polemical diatribes from even the recent past.

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, you're just the person we want telling us how not to be polemical. Wink

There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes.  Wink Wink  And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse.  Wink
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 09:59:32 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2013, 11:41:25 AM »

There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes.  Wink Wink  And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse.  Wink

Well, I was joking when I said that I want you telling me about polemics, but thanks anyhow.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2013, 11:55:35 PM »


it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

HAH is simply using the Pope's customary title as an honorific, nothing more, just as he has used the customary honorifics of every other dignitary he has met and dealt with. If the EP met the Dalai Lama, he would refer to him as Your Holiness, as this is the latter's official title.

It's standard diplomatic protocol, and nothing more should be read into it.

I think people continually forget this level of interaction; there is most certainly a system for interaction among leaders of religious groups, especially ones who differ in doctrine, which is why the use of traditional honorifics is so important - nothing says "congratulations" like greeting the man of the hour, saying, "Hey there, schismatic guy, glad you've made it to the top of the heap of unwashed and unsaved masses."

Protocol is important in most ecclesiastical and secular leadership trees.  One example I have to deal with on a regular basis: Orthodox bishops interact with their own flocks and with one another.  But they don't interact per se with anyone else's flock.  If a parish in Los Angeles would like to invite a bishop from New York to speak at a retreat, they don't call him first, but rather call their own bishop first, and then he contacts the NY bishop to (a) invite him, (b) give a blessing to enter his canonical territory, and (c) formally hand-off the conversation to the LA parish.

So, too, in the rarefied air at the top of the ecclesiastical heap - the EP was not going to refer to the Pope simply as "Pope," but was rather going to use his honorific, just as the Pope will use the EP's honorific (or any other Orthodox bishop's, for that matter), just as they both use the proper honorifics for presidents, royalty, senators, military officers, and religious leaders.  It's just what you do.  You speak a common language if possible (the EP spoke to the Pope in Italian, since they are both fluent in it), you follow the protocol of the host (in this case, the Vatican) as long as it doesn't violate your own system, and you speak cordially to one another, using the title that the other is accustomed to hearing.

Thank you Father for your reality check. Sadly, in our world which devalues civility, many posters probably imagine themselves using your hypothetical "greeting" or greeting the Queen - "Yo, Queenie..."
His All Holiness used the expression: “First Bishop of the venerable Church of Senior Rome, defined by the primacy of love,"
What do you think this expression means that the venerable Church of Senior Rome is defined by the primacy of love?

I think that only HAH Bartholomew can answer this entirely.  However, he did not say "First Bishop of the universal Church, defined by the primacy of love."  Regardless of the many ways it can be interpreted, it cannot be legitimately interpreted to mean that.  I think His All-Holiness' position is clear, that he (i.e. Pat. Bartholomew) is first bishop (not bishop of bishops) of the universal Church, and that he is willing to yield this to an Orthodox Bishop of Old Rome (alt. senior Rome). 
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #43 on: March 23, 2013, 02:16:28 AM »

Yes, words are diplomatic niceties but there are harsh diplomatic terms ( such as " the talks were frank" meaning the parties argued harshly and almost came to blows) or the types of grand gestures accompanying the words we saw this week in Rome. Today's climate at least represents mutual respect and Christian charity as contrasted with polemical diatribes from even the recent past.

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, you're just the person we want telling us how not to be polemical. Wink

There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes.  Wink Wink  And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse.  Wink

Have I missed something? Pondcarp doesn't strike me to be polemical nearly ever. His posts, IIRC, are nearly always very well thought out, to the point, and quite informative.

Not that you can't have the above along with polemics, but I've thought pondcarp to one the most even headed and thoughtful posters here.

And sorry for calling you pondcarp pondcarp. Due to whatever weird disabilities I have in reading I have to struggle not to see you name as such, well it is more like pondcarpsta.

I am at a loss at why someone would think you polemical. You are truly among the best of us. Again, not that polemics preclude one from being such.

I'm stopping.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 02:17:15 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #44 on: March 23, 2013, 09:13:17 AM »

Yes, words are diplomatic niceties but there are harsh diplomatic terms ( such as " the talks were frank" meaning the parties argued harshly and almost came to blows) or the types of grand gestures accompanying the words we saw this week in Rome. Today's climate at least represents mutual respect and Christian charity as contrasted with polemical diatribes from even the recent past.

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, you're just the person we want telling us how not to be polemical. Wink

There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes.  Wink Wink  And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse.  Wink

Have I missed something? Pondcarp doesn't strike me to be polemical nearly ever. His posts, IIRC, are nearly always very well thought out, to the point, and quite informative.

Not that you can't have the above along with polemics, but I've thought pondcarp to one the most even headed and thoughtful posters here.

And sorry for calling you pondcarp pondcarp. Due to whatever weird disabilities I have in reading I have to struggle not to see you name as such, well it is more like pondcarpsta.

I am at a loss at why someone would think you polemical. You are truly among the best of us. Again, not that polemics preclude one from being such.

I'm stopping.

Yes, I've heard this tune before: everything podkarpatska says is great, and who am I to dare question him on anything, etc etc. (See for example here and following.) In fact, I believe I've memorized the tune, so that's probably why I don't seem to be as impressed by it as I should be.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2013, 10:08:40 AM »

http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/2013popefrancismeet

Another baby step on the road to unity? Or just a friendly gesture from His All-Holiness?

Thoughts?
I thought that some Orthodox posters here have questioned the effectiveness (validity) of Catholic baptism and other Catholic Sacraments. Supposedly Catholic Sacraments, including baptism,  are at least doubtful, and Catholics are at least heterodox, if not outright heretics and even one poster says that Catholics are not Christians.  However, from his address and statement of March 20, 2013
http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/2013popefrancisaddress
it does not sound to me like His All Holiness, the EP of Constantinople, considers the Pope to be an unbaptised heretic. In fact he  embraces and kisses the Pope and calls him: " Your beloved and esteemed Holiness".

Stanley, your general point is correct. There is widespread theological illiteracy, particularly online; please don't look to the Internet to learn Orthodox theology or practice. The chief evidence for your point is not the honorifics used in events such as these -- although the Ecumenical Patriarch does have a real affection for the Latins...and, rightly so, as there has been a strong recovery of patristic theology in the last several generations. At any rate, don't look to honorifics but much more official sources. You will find a very different understanding of the baptism of Roman Catholics, for example, in the officially endorsed canon law manuals used in the Church of Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, et al. than what you might read here or on other sites. There are still real theological and pastoral problems that produce real Christian divisions, but it's not at all like what one would think reading the popularized polemics of netodoxy.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2013, 10:39:19 AM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,975



« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2013, 11:00:12 AM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I haven't really ever seen this, at least from the contemporary Patriarchate. Also, it's impossible for them to do so. Rome was bolstered by the fact that it ruled the entirety of Western Europe and the Pope became the secular leader of parts of Western Europe as well. The Patriarchate of Constantinople's territory is much smaller now, and he isn't really a secular leader now.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 24, 2013, 03:21:05 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

In this case however, I don't see the phrase in question as being either "archaic or anachronistic" or supportive of the point of view shared by you and Isa. In the context of his address in Rome he clearly was just extending the greetings of the Orthodox to the new Pope. The "ecumenical patriarchate" is clearly a reference to his Church and the reference to "worldwide Orthodoxy" simply refers to the rest of the canonical Orthodox Churches.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,702



« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2013, 04:02:02 PM »

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2013, 06:21:13 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

In this case however, I don't see the phrase in question as being either "archaic or anachronistic" or supportive of the point of view shared by you and Isa. In the context of his address in Rome he clearly was just extending the greetings of the Orthodox to the new Pope. The "ecumenical patriarchate" is clearly a reference to his Church and the reference to "worldwide Orthodoxy" simply refers to the rest of the canonical Orthodox Churches.

I hope that you are right. However, the viewpoint that Isa and I perhaps share may also be shared by other folks, from the Russian and Serbian Churches, for example. There was an interesting discussion on the topic "Protos and Universal Primacy" a few years back: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.0.html
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,416


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2013, 06:33:09 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2013, 08:16:42 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #53 on: March 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM »

Holy Land?  Meaning Palestine?

EP Bartholomew is patriarch of Constantinople, not Jerusalem.  Therefor he has no authority to invite anyone to Palestine.

IIRC EP Athenagoras wanted to have the "reconciliation" in Palestine with Pope Paul VI of Rome, but Patriarch Benedict of Jerusalem would have none of it, and so it had to be done in the Phanar.

The Patriarchal web site says "His All-Holiness met in private with Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 20, 2013, where he invited the Pope to commemorate and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the restoration of relations between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which occurred in Jerusalem between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI."

Nonetheless, as he is now styling himself "As the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ, we...' why can't he invite himself and all his guests to any local church? See http://www.monasterodibose.it/content/view/4927/135/1/8/lang,en/

Is this an accurate translation of what was said?  

Good question! I have always found the Patriarch's formal statements to be full of archaic and anachronistic phrasings which probably makes translation difficult and often leading to absurd paraphrasing in the west or by those with their own agenda. He could use a new ghostwriter!


The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I haven't really ever seen this, at least from the contemporary Patriarchate.
You missed that speech at Holy Cross a few years back.  We have a thread on it somewhere.
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #54 on: March 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM »

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.
Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #55 on: March 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Yes.  And as for the invitation, have we seen the actual wording? There should be a "on behalf of HB Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem" if permission indeed has been already granted (and no invitation should go out without it).
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #56 on: March 25, 2013, 03:21:08 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,416


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 25, 2013, 04:14:26 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."
I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/
Thank you for the link. I have put it in my favorites and will take a look at it shortly.

My own views on ecclesiology have been influenced by two different Orthodox books: (1) The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by Fr. John Meyendorff, and (2) His Broken Body, written by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. Both are helpful texts, although I like the latter text a bit more than the former, but that is because Fr. Cleenewerck's book is a unified doctrinal study rather than a series of essays by different authors.

Here is a link to a portion of Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's text:  Ecclesiology - from His Broken Body
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 04:18:40 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 25, 2013, 05:55:21 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/



Mattingly is an acquired taste at best. Frankly you and Isa make "worldwide leader" of Orthodox Christians sound like a good gig. I am sure that the MP views the title that way.

Frankly, to me it is akin to be "chief cat herder."
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #59 on: March 25, 2013, 05:58:15 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."
I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/
Thank you for the link. I have put it in my favorites and will take a look at it shortly.

My own views on ecclesiology have been influenced by two different Orthodox books: (1) The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by Fr. John Meyendorff, and (2) His Broken Body, written by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck. Both are helpful texts, although I like the latter text a bit more than the former, but that is because Fr. Cleenewerck's book is a unified doctrinal study rather than a series of essays by different authors.

Here is a link to a portion of Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's text:  Ecclesiology - from His Broken Body

I have the first book but based on your endorsement I will have the second book on my to-read-list  Smiley
Logged
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2013, 06:21:09 PM »

Fr. Laurent promoted two books by the future +John of Pergamon: Bishop Eucharist Church, and Being as Communion. The former is a groundbreaking ecumenical document, and I ordered a copy after having read Fr. Laurent's endorsement. (You can hunt around for it online though)
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 06:21:35 PM by John Larocque » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2013, 06:41:31 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/



Mattingly is an acquired taste at best. Frankly you and Isa make "worldwide leader" of Orthodox Christians sound like a good gig. I am sure that the MP views the title that way.

Frankly, to me it is akin to be "chief cat herder."

For those who do not know Mr. Mattingly, here is a short blurb:

"Terry L. Mattingly (born January 31, 1954) is a journalist, author, and professor. As columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, Mattingly has written "On Religion," a nationally syndicated column, since the summer of 1988. He is also Director of The Washington Journalism Center, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities...(He) is a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Mattingly

Regarding the "chief cat herder" remark, I am disappointed that the seriousness of Constantinople's efforts are being minimized.  In any case, here is Point 10 of the Ravenna document that was issued by members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007:

"10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Some of us biased folks are rather not fond of expanding Canon 34 to the "universal" level. I believe that this biased view is indeed shared by folks who are nonetheless practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 06:43:04 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2013, 08:22:46 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/


need we look any further than the Phanar's acceptance at the robber council of Ravenna, of the definition of Orthodoxy as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"?
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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2013, 08:25:16 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/



Mattingly is an acquired taste at best. Frankly you and Isa make "worldwide leader" of Orthodox Christians sound like a good gig. I am sure that the MP views the title that way.

Frankly, to me it is akin to be "chief cat herder."

For those who do not know Mr. Mattingly, here is a short blurb:

"Terry L. Mattingly (born January 31, 1954) is a journalist, author, and professor. As columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, Mattingly has written "On Religion," a nationally syndicated column, since the summer of 1988. He is also Director of The Washington Journalism Center, a program run by the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities...(He) is a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian, a member of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Mattingly

Regarding the "chief cat herder" remark, I am disappointed that the seriousness of Constantinople's efforts are being minimized.  In any case, here is Point 10 of the Ravenna document that was issued by members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the tenth plenary session of the Commission held in Ravenna from 8-14 October 2007:

"10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Some of us biased folks are rather not fond of expanding Canon 34 to the "universal" level. I believe that this biased view is indeed shared by folks who are nonetheless practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians.

For the record, I am well aware of who Mr. Mattingly is, and nor am I suggesting that those who seem to take a dim view of Patriarch Bartholomew are anything other than "practicing, canonical and, dare I say it, sincere Orthodox Christians."

As to herding cats, I stand by that remark. The general inability of our faith to portray itself to the "outside" world as anything more than a gaggle of jealous, competing clans prevents us from standing together with a firm, unified voice to counter the amoral secularists of the modern world, the Islamists who would destroy our Christian presence and the appeal of the "easy" path to salvation offered by the megachurch types.

The cooperation among us "in that which concerns the totality of the Church" is often difficult to discern outside of our annual Triumph of Orthodoxy events. It seems the good feelings fade quickly indeed.

Logged
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: 8,454


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2013, 09:27:12 PM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/


need we look any further than the Phanar's acceptance at the robber council of Ravenna, of the definition of Orthodoxy as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"?

I thought that was fiction...or are you just being sarcastic?   Huh
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,702



« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2013, 11:49:51 PM »

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.
Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?

Quite frankly, I do not know if Einstein is more intelligent than you or I am. I was referring to the relativistic aspect of push-back.

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP. At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #66 on: March 26, 2013, 01:34:47 AM »

The problem with what you are saying is that Constantinople has been trying to redefine what her position is. I think that Isa can shed more light into this, but my impression is that Moscow has pushed back hard against Constantinople's attempts to make herself not just the First among Equals but the head of all Orthodox. Ergo, I think that HOH was merely repeating current policy and not using "archaic and anachronistic phrasing."

I also do not see this. Isa is an excellent debater and spinmeister that is worthy of my attention and admiration, but I would not consider him a reliable source of light. Your bias is also evident.

My bias is that I think HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has been a good representative of the Orthodox Church and I believe many more people are aware of the Orthodox Church because of him.

The MP push-back notion always makes me think about Einstein.
Yes, Einstein is the icon of intelligence, isn't he?

Quite frankly, I do not know if Einstein is more intelligent than you or I am.
oh, I think he could give you a run for your money.

I was referring to the relativistic aspect of push-back.
Not in such an uneven match as the MP and EP, you weren't.

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP.
Some have done just that.  Others, not being in his jurisdiction, are spared the need. They just need to beat back the Phanar's attempts to extend his jurisdiction over them.
At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

As for what I want: the Phanar repent of its covetousness of the Vatican's ecclesiology, and Moscow repent of trying to emulate New Rome.
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2013, 01:34:47 AM »

I think the quotation from Patriarch Bartholomew simply lacks precision, and that instead of speaking about, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Church of Christ," it would have been more accurate for him to speak of, "the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the worldwide Orthodox Churches of Christ."

I agree.
Terry Mattingley has an interesting take on this. Please note the observation: "...Bartholomew has recently been going out of his way to present himself as a kind of Orthodox pope."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/03/did-the-leader-of-the-orthodox-attend-the-roman-rites/


need we look any further than the Phanar's acceptance at the robber council of Ravenna, of the definition of Orthodoxy as "communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch"?

I thought that was fiction...or are you just being sarcastic?   Huh
no, somewhere here we threshed that out, Father, when the robber council of Ravenna was convened.
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: 6,174



« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2013, 09:26:42 AM »

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.  Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,702



« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2013, 10:29:01 AM »


Quite frankly, I do not know if Einstein is more intelligent than you or I am.
oh, I think he could give you a run for your money.

I included myself, only to make it clear that I was not being sarcastic.


I was referring to the relativistic aspect of push-back.
Not in such an uneven match as the MP and EP, you weren't.
I am glad you agree with me.

Personally, I think if the other Orthodox Churches Hierarchs think that HAH Bartholomew is overbearing (and I do not see the justification for this notion) they should just separate themselves from the EP.
Some have done just that.  Others, not being in his jurisdiction, are spared the need. They just need to beat back the Phanar's attempts to extend his jurisdiction over them.


At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

My understanding is that what is being portrayed here is a soap opera. I learned as a child the best way to survive a soap opera is to tune it out rather than start banging my head on a wall (although this works as well).


Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2013, 10:35:11 AM »

One thousand years worth of painful experience provides the entire Orthodox world with the immunization necessary to protect us against any Papist ambitions of either the New and/or the Third Romes.

For those interested in a scholarly article detailing the historical context of the Ecumenical Patriarchate' s contemporary understanding of its role as "primus" through the projection of "soft power" this article by Prodronos Yannas , professor of international and foreign relations at the Technical Education Institution of Western Macedonia, Greece is worth the time to read.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JyBDmYsxwLoJ:turin.sgir.eu/uploads/Yannas-religion-softpower_yannas.pdf+defense+of+the+ecumenical+patriarch's+role+as+primus&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjYmnBDZUCWhPZjz7Pa_ZmH_qjZWwr0RNtaoIEtIN5mX8gcfeqGSNctffnggdpiT1koD8dqQfwwCEJJ9xZrdYupz3Zcpr4PG_BgA_tOQ3Vw26xZ3OLpNybtlhh0XmwNWmOIBC9x&sig=AHIEtbSdDq0zbqxKQuYQIUxp75voWQFTMg

The entire paper, and I suggest all of it be read, can be downloaded as a pdf file.

Rather than the negative views used by the polemicists who cry that the sky is falling or that the EP fashions himself as an "eastern Pope" with a Vatican-like Phanar city-state, the Professor spends a good amount of time dealing with the implications of the break up of the Ottoman Empire, World War One, Lausanne and the latter 20th century role undertaken by the Patriarchate.

Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 10:49:03 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #71 on: March 26, 2013, 11:06:16 AM »


Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.

The problem is that we do not really know what the agenda is. And, while vitriol is something that none of us should use in any case, I do believe that some folks are painting with the broad brush of vitriol all those who have questions, who worry, and who are opposed this agenda or to "instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution." Here are some worrisome indicators.

Summary of an article by Archbishop Paul of Finland
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.php
"In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled 'Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora' (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora and to reject any talk of 'barbarian areas' as an anachronism." (My emphasis)

Letter of Patriarch Alexis II to Patriarch Bartholomew
http://archive.ocl.org/?id=17679
"the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon 'Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch' seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation."
...
"Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously 'hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order'. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of 'an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level'. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople 'tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of "economy".' This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity."

I am open to a more generous interpretation of the current stance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is more than "move along, there is nothing to see here" or "he must have meant something else; why are you so suspicious?"
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2013, 11:38:19 AM »

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.  Wink
That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.
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
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,942


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2013, 01:47:14 PM »


Are there instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution? Probably, but the reality of the agenda does not merit the vitriol expressed by some towards him and his institution from my point of view.

The problem is that we do not really know what the agenda is. And, while vitriol is something that none of us should use in any case, I do believe that some folks are painting with the broad brush of vitriol all those who have questions, who worry, and who are opposed this agenda or to "instances of overreaching by the current Patriarch or the modern institution." Here are some worrisome indicators.

Summary of an article by Archbishop Paul of Finland
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.php
"In our first issue of August 1980, Sourozh published a lengthy article by Archbishop Paul of Finland entitled 'Suggestions for Solutions to the Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora' (reprinted in Sourozh, No. 91, February 2003, pp. 3-19). In it the primate of the Orthodox Church of Finland reviewed the various submissions made by four regional autocephalous Churches to the Preparatory Commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church which has been in the planning stage for some forty years. In his conclusions Archbishop Paul strongly urged the Patriarchate of Constantinople to relinquish the theory of the supremacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the whole diaspora and to reject any talk of 'barbarian areas' as an anachronism." (My emphasis)

Letter of Patriarch Alexis II to Patriarch Bartholomew
http://archive.ocl.org/?id=17679
"the statement by Your Holiness that as a result of Canon 28 of Chalcedon 'Western Europe and all the lands recently discovered in America and Australia belong to the area of responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch' seems completely fictitious and is without canonical foundation."
...
"Such is the authentic pan-Orthodox tradition in this matter, and the Very Holy Church of Constantinople always respected it until the moment when Patriarch Meletios IV developed the theory of the subordination of the whole Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople. It is precisely this theory, which is clearly non-canonical, that is quite obviously 'hostile to the spirit of the Orthodox Church, to Orthodoxy unity, and to canonical order'. It is itself, in fact, the _expression of 'an expansionist tendency that is without canonical foundation and is unacceptable on an ecciesiological level'. By claiming a universal spiritual power, it does not correspond to the Orthodox canonical tradition or to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, and represents a direct challenge to Orthodox unity. In fact, there is no reason to agree with Your contention that the whole of the Orthodox diaspora does not finds itself under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople solely because Constantinople 'tolerates this situation temporarily and for reasons of "economy".' This last _expression has particularly roused our incomprehension and disquiet, since it seems to point to an intention on the part of the Church of Constantinople to continue in the future to pursue a unilateral policy of expansion that is foreign to a spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity."

I am open to a more generous interpretation of the current stance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which is more than "move along, there is nothing to see here" or "he must have meant something else; why are you so suspicious?"


What we really have here are two "elephants in the room" and a whole lot of posturing from all sides. The elephants being: first in the 1970's with the creation of the OCA and the Tomos, and second in the 1990's following the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent devolution of the Ukrainian "problems." (I will beat Isa to the punch and mention Estonia but part of me suspects that play was more of an intentional slap in the face at then Metropolitan and now Patriarch Kyrill.)

This whole topic reeks of byzantine intrigue and gamesmanship as reasons of economics and nationalism compelled Constantinople to seek to protect its interests among the Hellenes in the diaspora and for Moscow to maintain her influence within the borders of the former Tsarist Empire, most particularly in Ukraine.The Churches have to resolve these lingering issues which arose with the rise of nationalism and immigration in the 19th century and the collapse of empires (Ottoman, Russian, British and finally Soviet) in the 20th century.

The uneasy status quo which prevailed over four centuries post-Florence and the end of the Eastern Empire was shattered by the events of the past century and a half and a new one has yet to fully evolve. We Orthodox loath change of any type and the radical changes unleashed in the world following in the path of the Industrial and the Information Revolutions have presented the Churches with a tsunami of change with which to contend. Missteps and over-reaching are inevitable along the way.

To my mind this debate is why the Great Council is a necessity. In the end the influence of Moscow should predominate based on sheer size and wealth but Moscow has always been its own worst enemy. God indeed works in mysterious ways!

 
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 01:56:21 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #74 on: March 26, 2013, 02:00:45 PM »

^^ I am with Isa in this: "As for what I want: the Phanar repent of its covetousness of the Vatican's ecclesiology, and Moscow repent of trying to emulate New Rome." (reply 66, this topic)
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 02:02:16 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #75 on: March 26, 2013, 02:39:02 PM »

^^ I am with Isa in this: "As for what I want: the Phanar repent of its covetousness of the Vatican's ecclesiology, and Moscow repent of trying to emulate New Rome." (reply 66, this topic)

And Old Rome to repent of starting this mess Wink
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,984



« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2013, 03:28:43 PM »

^^ I am with Isa in this: "As for what I want: the Phanar repent of its covetousness of the Vatican's ecclesiology, and Moscow repent of trying to emulate New Rome." (reply 66, this topic)

And Old Rome to repent of starting this mess Wink

For sure!!!
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #77 on: March 26, 2013, 04:02:14 PM »

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.  Wink
That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.

Well, I'd say the problem with your logic is that the existence of many complaints doesn't necessarily mean that many complaints are justified.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,404


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #78 on: March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM »

One thousand years worth of painful experience provides the entire Orthodox world with the immunization necessary to protect us against any Papist ambitions of either the New and/or the Third Romes.



And I am ambitious.  Grin Or did you mean to write that with a lower-case "p"?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Gunnarr
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,812



« Reply #79 on: March 26, 2013, 06:08:43 PM »

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW AND POPE FRANCIS WILL MEET IN JERUSALEM ON JANUARY 4-6, 2014

This info from Hurriyet

but i am having trouble finding the exact arcticle, perhaps was in the paper

correct title restored - MK
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 06:59:16 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

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

Posts: 21,516


« Reply #80 on: March 26, 2013, 06:12:42 PM »

but i am having trouble finding the exact arcticle, perhaps was in the paper

here: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/orthodox-patriarch-thinks-the-new-pope-can-reform-vatican.aspx?pageID=238&nID=43549&NewsCatID=409
Logged
Gunnarr
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,812



« Reply #81 on: March 26, 2013, 06:20:21 PM »


Thank you!

why did no one say this yet!? aiaiai! (or did i miss it?) I wonder if new thread should be made as to his comments about him believing reunion is very possible in the future (though this is not really news from him... er, or should I say His ALL HOLINESS?) sorry i do not know how to adress these things

also,

PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW INVITES POPE FRANCIS TO PHANAR

Quote
“The pope said that he would like to come to Turkey. Our president has to invite him and I am sure that he would do this,” Bartholomew said.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pope-francis-to-visit-turkey-in-the-near-future.aspx?pageID=238&nID=43374&NewsCatID=393
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #82 on: March 26, 2013, 07:32:07 PM »

One thousand years worth of painful experience provides the entire Orthodox world with the immunization necessary to protect us against any Papist ambitions of either the New and/or the Third Romes.

And I am ambitious.  Grin Or did you mean to write that with a lower-case "p"?

Are you now or have you ever been Russian?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #83 on: March 26, 2013, 08:06:24 PM »

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.  Wink
That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.

Well, I'd say the problem with your logic is that the existence of many complaints doesn't necessarily mean that many complaints are justified.
where I see smoke, I put out the fire.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #84 on: March 26, 2013, 08:18:32 PM »

At that point they should then be judged by their flock. I just do not understand what you want and why you complain so much.
Well, if one isn't willing to understand, then what can one do?

(emphasis added)

It takes a little getting used to.  Wink
That's the point: not to get used to it, but remove the source of complaint.

Well, I'd say the problem with your logic is that the existence of many complaints doesn't necessarily mean that many complaints are justified.
where I see smoke, I put out the fire.

Like Michael Bloomburg    laugh
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.341 seconds with 111 queries.