|
|
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
 Offline
Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,955
Does anyone really care what you think?
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2013, 12:15:29 PM » |
|
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
Merarches
 Online
Faith: Orthodox Christian (chrismated 09/29/13)
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 10,943
Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2013, 12:20:35 PM » |
|
Possibly a little of both. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adela
|
|
« 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!  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. 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)
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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)
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
Taxiarches
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 7,747
Michał Kalina's biggest fan
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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.
|
|
|
Michał Kalina
OC.net's trickster
Moderator
Stratopedarches
Offline
Faith: Christian (as of 11/21/90 - what's with that new trend?)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk / Diocese of Warsaw and Bielsk Podlaski
Posts: 20,162
despite living in Poland I am not a Pole
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2013, 05:44:14 PM » |
|
Patriarch Bartholomew needs and approval from Patriarch Theophile III.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
formerly known as mike
anti: -Russian, -Polish, -Ukrainian, -Serbian, -Slavic, -American, -Greek, -craddle, -convert, -traditional, -ecumenical, -hierarchical, -clerical, -OCA, -EP, -MP, -OO, -RC, -Protestant, -monarchist racist Communist philocatolic liberal chauvinistic Anglican cafeteria Pole
|
|
|
|
Deacon Lance
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2013, 09:20:17 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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
|
|
« 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/2013popefrancisaddressSo 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
Faith: Latin Rite Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 7
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2013, 10:13:05 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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 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
|
|
« 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
Online
Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,848
Ungrateful Biped
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2013, 10:21:10 PM » |
|
Welcome, 3inOne!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Paint a bunch of icons of our Lord and the saints and then kiss them. Also, pray to Mary after she dies in the future."
~ The Epistle of St. Paul to the Antiochians, 46 AD.
|
|
|
|
stanley123
|
|
« 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
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 21, 2013, 10:23:00 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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
|
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
|
|
|
|
stanley123
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 21, 2013, 10:43:22 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2013, 10:47:45 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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? (Matt. 22:21) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 10:48:02 PM by LBK »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stanley123
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2013, 10:50:59 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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? (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
|
|
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2013, 11:01:42 PM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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? (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/2013popefrancisaddressThe 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
|
|
« 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
Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,683
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
Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,683
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
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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Of the Bulgarian variety
Posts: 40
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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2013, 08:19:54 AM » |
|
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/2013popefrancisaddressit 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? (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/2013popefrancisaddressThe 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
|
|
« 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) And, thanks, too, to Peter - now I know that it's pretentious to think that only God can see the truth - here I was thinking that He might be better placed to do that than we mortals - now, I know better.
|
|
|
|
podkarpatska
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster) And, thanks, too, to Peter - now I know that it's pretentious to think that only God can see the truth - here I was thinking that He might be better placed to do that than we mortals - now, I know better.
|
|
|
|
podkarpatska
|
|
« 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. There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes. And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 09:59:32 AM by podkarpatska »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2013, 11:41:25 AM » |
|
There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes. And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse. Well, I was joking when I said that I want you telling me about polemics, but thanks anyhow. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster) And, thanks, too, to Peter - now I know that it's pretentious to think that only God can see the truth - here I was thinking that He might be better placed to do that than we mortals - now, I know better.
|
|
|
|
Father H
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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. There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes. And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse. 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
|
Not likely to respond to any posts or PMs. If you really must contact me, see my email. Happy Holidays!
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« 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. There are polemics and there are polemical diatribes. And, in the eye of the beholder, or presenter at least, a distinction between a polemic and a pedagogical discourse. 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) And, thanks, too, to Peter - now I know that it's pretentious to think that only God can see the truth - here I was thinking that He might be better placed to do that than we mortals - now, I know better.
|
|
|
|
