Here is another disastrous picture of ecumenism:If HAH said "our sacred book," I'd worry.
Patriarch Theophilos gifting a norwegian female bishop a cross made of pearls
Patriarch Bartholomew blessing along with Pope Benedict. Later he also prays (not the creed, after that). obviously breaking the canons, praying with heretics in their own church
And, how can we forget? Patriarch Bartholomew gifting a Koran at the coca cola event. Who said the silver chalice given to the lutheran was just a cup? Was the koran here just some paper? Nothing more?
Patriarch Bartholomew certainly does not think it is just a book. He says, and I quote:
"I have a small souvenir. Small and great. Souvenir to [i miss the name] and Muhtar. This is the Holy Koran the sacred book of our Muslim brothers and sisters, to you."
Is it more than just some paper to you?
he calls it the "HOLY" Koran, as if it has some kind of truth in it he must give it legitimacy. Did all of this just fly past you? he gifted A KORAN! a ORTHODOX BISHOP gifting a KORAN!
Anyway, here are some more great pictures of bishops breaking canons:
and some good ol heretical statements by Patriarch Athenagoras :
“We are deceived and we sin, if we think that the Orthodox faith came down from Heaven and that all [other] creeds are unworthy. Three hundred million people have chosen Islam in order to reach their god, and other hundreds of millions are Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. The goal of every religion is to improve mankind” (from statements made by the Patriarch; see ορθόδοξος τύπος , No. 94 [December 1968]).
“We have been seperated for 911 years and now the time has come for us to be found together again. The Catholics and the Orthodox do not belong to two different Churches, but to two branches of the same Church” (Milan, Nov. 2, 1965, Corriere de la Sera ; cited Orthodox Word, January-February-March 1966 issue, Vol. 2, No.1, p. 36).
“Recent [1970--Trans.] statements by Athenagoras. “The rason (cassock) no longer has any appeal today, neither in appearance nor in purpose. If I’d seen you beforehand, I would have told you to give some other title to your article: ‘The rason does not make the Priest, the Priest must make the Priest, without the rason’ There you have it. Of course, we must be realistic and, above all, we mustn’t be afraid of the truth. We say oftentimes that this or that item is historical and must endure. A mistake. A big mistake. How many preconceptions in the Church are not historical--I mean ancient--and we struggle to free ourselves from them? Ask village Priests what Christians want from Priests, who have nothing to do with our Church and are remnants of paganism. I’ve made my views quite clear regarding the marriage of clergymen, even after they have been ordained. Ordination is not an impediment to marriage. We would have many graduates of theological schools who would be Priests, if they knew that they could get married when they found their partner for life, and not in haste, as it’s demanded by convention. We would have decided on this at a clergy-laity congress of the Church in America, and I would have settled this matter, but I wasn’t able to. I was summoned here [to Constantinople--Trans.]. I’m glad you published the entire address by Metropolitan [Meliton] of Chalcedon [concerning Mardi Gras--editorial note in the Greek original]. He spoke the truth plain and simple, like people want it. People don’t want you to confuse things, because they think you’re laughing at them and making fun of them. Meliton is quite a personality. We don’t have many of them. He’s the voice of the Phanar, the voice of the centuries. The centuries have given us courage and strength. What else have we got here? Some people, naturally, accuse us of not holding to a good line, but they’re being negative. I’d be very happy if they proposed their own solution to the endeavor of the union of the Churches. They tell us, ’ We want union and we pray for the union of all, but we’re against your endeavor.’ You get the point? They’re in favor of union, but against our endeavor. Was not Meliton right, after all, when he talked about hypocrisy? We propose the Holy Cup as the means of union. We had the common Cup even when we separated from the West, up until 1050. The Schism took place, and we stopped. The Schism took place because of the anathema. The anathema between the two Churches, of the West and Constantinople, has been lifted. What obstacle is there? Let’s find it, let’s talk about it with a good attitude, not with insults. Can there be a dialogue of love when there are insults? ‘But we have many differences,’ they tell us. What differences? The Filioque? It existed since the seventh century, and the Churches didn’t separate. Primacy and Infallibility? What do we care about them? Let every Church maintain its own customs. If the Catholic Church wants it, let it keep it.
But I ask you: What does Infallibility mean today, when the Pope has a permanent fifteen-member council in Rome which makes the decisions? Besides, we all think we’re infallible--in our work, in our thoughts, in everything. Does your wife ask you how much salt to put in the food? Certainly not. She has her infallibility. Let the Pope have his, if he wants it. We don’t want it. Theological dialogue won’t grant it. We’re not ready, and centuries will be needed. Only one dialogue is feasible: the dialogue of love. This will facilitate the dialogue regarding differences. Differences and love can’t coexist. It does not matter what others do to you, but what you do to them” (from an interview given by the Patriarch to the journalist Spyridon Alexiou, from the newspaper EqnoV, and published on March 20, 1970.) [bolded that part myself]
“Where is Christ the Savior? In our divisions, we have chased Him away.... Thus, today, does history, valiantly restoring the truth of things, summon the responsible leaders and hierarchies of the Churches to enlist theology, now as a handmaid, and make ‘man,’ for whose sake God became man, the sole purpose of their existence and mission, and portray him in a positive light, at this tragic hour of his..., with the watchword of unconditional and unbounded love.... There is no other way of achieving this. The major ecclesiastical events of the last six years, especially our three successive meetings with His Holiness, Pope Paul VI and his recent declaration that ’no voice should be silent in the endless symphony of the Churches and the whole world,’ have abolished the distances separating us and bridged the gap.... His fellow-travelers are the Peoples of Christ. Unaware of dogmatic differences and not caring about them, they now see one another as brothers in Christ. And they live in impatient anticipation of the hour of union, and indeed, not as a distant legend, but as a profound reality deriving from within themselves. This is proof that Christ is born.... So it is that union, ceasing any longer to be ‘negotiable’ or an effort on the part of unrealistic and fruitless theological dialogues concerning union, has turned out to be practical and a fait accompli [French - ‘accomplished fact or work’] wrought by ‘peace-loving stragglers...” (from the Patriarch’s 1968 Nativity message; see Kaqolikh, No. 1611 [31 December 1968]).
“Why do we not automatically return to Mysteriological (Sacramental) communion? Because it is necessary for us to prepare our peoples for it, both theologically and psychologically. During the nine hundred years that have elapsed since 1054, we, the two worlds of East and West, have come to think that we belong to different Churches and different religions. And, as a result, the purpose of dialogues becomes quite evident. It is to prepare our peoples psychologically to understand that there is one Church and one religion, that we all believe in the same God-the Savior Christ. You and we respect all religions and we esteem the place and the time in which we live” (from a homily given by “Patriarch” Athenagoras in the chapel of Lambeth Palace, London, November 13, 1967; see Apo thn poreian thV agaphV, p. 53; see also Archimandrite Athanasios J. Vasilopoulos, From the Journey of Love... [in Greek] (Athens: 1968), p. 53a. -- These views were reiterated on January 10, 1968 (ibid., p. 87b: “Patriarchal visits and their happy results”).
And a heretical action again:
“During his meeting with Pope Paul VI in Rome, on October 26, 1967, the Patriarch sat on the Papal throne for twenty minutes, receiving primarily the Greek Orthodox in Rome, but also Russian Orthodox refugees. They applauded loudly when the Patriarch commemorated the Pope’s name in Greek” (see Kaqolikh, No. 1557 [1 November 1967]).