OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 01:58:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If A Patriarch becomes a heretic, what do I do? Theoretically?  (Read 1895 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2014, 10:54:23 AM »

But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

The problem is such an office does not exist.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #46 on: January 26, 2014, 07:11:36 PM »

But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

The problem is such an office does not exist.

Is that a joke? Even the MP recognises that there is a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church. All other canonical jurisdictions recognise the Ravenna document.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 07:12:48 PM by Gorazd » Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2014, 09:08:58 PM »

But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

The problem is such an office does not exist.

Is that a joke? Even the MP recognises that there is a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church.

Yes. Him:

Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,595


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2014, 09:15:59 PM »

I see much speculation in this thread.  Instead, we should be looking at what the canons of the Church say.  More specifically, the initial poster asks the question:

Quote
If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him?

Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod

If, however, a Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch begins to preach publicly in Church any heretical doctrine that is antithetical to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned clergy have a right and at the same time an obligation to separate themselves forthwith from that Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, and for this reason not only will they not be subject to any canonical penalty, but will, moreover, even be praised, insofar as they have not thereby reprehended or rebelled against legitimate Bishops, but against false bishops and false teachers, and have not thereby initiated any schism in the Church, but on the contrary have delivered the Church, as far as possible, from schism and division.

Archimandrite John (a well-known Russian Canonist [later Bishop of Smolensk—Trans.]), having in view the historical circumstances of the Church of Russia, observes, in his interpretation of the present Canon, completely correctly and in accordance with a rigorous conception of Canonical science, that a Presbyter who secedes from his own Bishop by reason of heretical teaching [on the part of the latter] will not be culpable, but praiseworthy, yet when and only when the said Bishop begins preaching a doctrine that openly contradicts the teaching of the Orthodox Church and has been formally condemned by the Church (6) and if he proclaims this false doctrine openly, publicly, and in Church, with resolute intent to subvert Orthodox teaching and to uphold heresy; if otherwise (if, that is, a Bishop expresses some private opinion of his on matters of faith and morals which might appear to someone as incorrect, if the Bishop in question expresses his erroneous doctrine in a narrower circle of particular persons, so that it is attainable that the doctrine in question be corrected within this narrower circle, the peace of the Church not being breached), in such a case no Presbyter has the right to secede high-handedly from his own Bishop and create a schism; otherwise, he will be subject to the injunction prescribed regarding these matters by the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon.

(Related Canons: Thirty-first Apostolic Canon; Sixth Canon of the Second OEcumenical Synod; Third Canon of the Third OEcumenical Synod; Eighteenth Canon of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod; Thirty-first and Thirty-fourth Canons of the Synod in Trullo; Sixth Canon of the Synod of Gangra; Fourteenth Canon of the Synod of Sardica; Fifth Canon of the Synod of Antioch; Tenth, Eleventh, and Sixty-second Canons of the Synod of Carthage; Thirteenth and Fourteenth Canons of the First-Second Synod).

• “Note that the present Apostolic Canon decrees that clergy may without peril secede from their Bishops if they reprehend them for wrong belief” (Theodore Balsamon, Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 97C [commentary on the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon]).
• The faithful of Constantinople, both clergy and people, walled themselves off from Patriarch Nestorios prior to any Synodal judgment, because this man was preaching a newfangled and reprehensible heresy; that is, “they reprehended a false bishop and false teacher.”
Would you please cite your source for this commentary? Thank you.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,595


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2014, 09:18:48 PM »

I don't have that information right now, though, this will be helpful as it reinforces what was previously said in the canon and interpreted:

Interpretation by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite

That which the foregoing Canons decreed concerning Bishops and Metropolitans, the same is decreed by the present Canon, and all the more so, concerning Patriarchs. This Canon says that if any Presbyter, Bishop, or Metropolitan should withdraw from communion with his Patriarch and fail to mention his name according to custom (the latter applies only to a Metropolitan; for a Presbyter mentions the name of his Bishop, and a Bishop the name of his Metropolitan) before disclosing the charges against their Patriarch to the Synod, and before the Patriarch has been condemned by the Synod: all of these, I say, are to be completely deposed: Bishops and Metropolitans from all Hierarchical officiation, and Presbyters from all sacerdotal officiation. However, these provisions are to take effect if Presbyters secede from their Bishops, Bishops from their Metropolitans, or Metropolitans from their Patriarchs on account of certain criminal charges, such as fornication, sacrilege, and other grave delinquencies.7* But if the said First Hierarchs are heretics and preach their heresy openly,8* and those subject to them separate themselves from them for this reason, even before a Synodal judgment has been pronounced concerning this heresy, those who separate themselves are not only not condemned for their act of separation, but are actually worthy of due honor, as Orthodox Christians, since they have not caused any schism in the Church by their separation, but have, rather, delivered the Church from the schism and heresy of their false bishops. See also the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon.


Notes:
7 However, the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon judges the one who separates inculpable, if he knows that his superior is unrighteous.
8 According to Balsamon, from this wording in the Canon it appears that one should not separate himself from his Bishop if the latter entertains some heresy, but keeps it secret and does not preach it; for it is possible that he will subsequently correct himself of his own accord (Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 1069A [commentary on the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod]).
Would you please cite your source for this, as well? I think three days should be enough time for you to PM me the links we need to the sources of the material you quoted for both this and the previous posts, so I'm giving you until 8:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on Wednesday, January 29 to do so. Thank you.

-PtA
Moderator
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 11:52:12 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2014, 10:59:13 PM »

Michal,

The Moscow synod document, to which "Primus sine paribus" replies, states in fact:

Quote
(3)       On the level of the Universal Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with one another, primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents primacy in honour. This tradition can be traced back to the canons of Ecumenical Councils (Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) and has been reconfirmed throughout church history in the actions of Councils of individual Local Churches and in the practice of liturgical commemoration whereby the Primate of each Autocephalous Church mentions the names of those of other Local Churches in the order prescribed by the sacred diptychs.
source: https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344

You see, not only do they recognise the existance of primacy on the level of the Universal Church, but they even mention canon 28.

Whoever is bashing Constantinople recently for claiming primacy should familiarise him- or herself with both theological statements, the Moscow synod one and the one by Met. Elpidophoros. Moscow's position is in fact much closer to Constantinople than to protestantism.
Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2014, 11:31:46 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


POST OF THE MONTH NOMINEE, please! Grin

fo' sho'
Logged

Peace.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2014, 11:33:41 PM »

But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

The problem is such an office does not exist.

Is that a joke? Even the MP recognises that there is a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church.

Are you saying he's the primate/head of the Church in the same fashion he's the primate/head of his own church?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2014, 11:37:23 PM »

Michal,

The Moscow synod document, to which "Primus sine paribus" replies, states in fact:

Quote
(3)       On the level of the Universal Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with one another, primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents primacy in honour. This tradition can be traced back to the canons of Ecumenical Councils (Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council) and has been reconfirmed throughout church history in the actions of Councils of individual Local Churches and in the practice of liturgical commemoration whereby the Primate of each Autocephalous Church mentions the names of those of other Local Churches in the order prescribed by the sacred diptychs.
source: https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344

You see, not only do they recognise the existance of primacy on the level of the Universal Church, but they even mention canon 28.

Whoever is bashing Constantinople recently for claiming primacy should familiarise him- or herself with both theological statements, the Moscow synod one and the one by Met. Elpidophoros. Moscow's position is in fact much closer to Constantinople than to protestantism.

I'm not aware of anyone denying/bashing Constantinople's primacy, but rather how Constantinople is defining said primacy. Reminds me of the rhetoric I've heard at my Catholic university (e.g. "you don't believe in primacy," as if "primacy" is somehow only univocal with "universal ordinary jurisdiction, papal infallibility, etc.").
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Cackles
Warned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #54 on: January 27, 2014, 12:25:08 AM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?

Lol the lure of Gnosticism (selfish motivation aka eastern philosophy)

I think theres a rule. You attempt to give one correction. Then if that doesnt improve you give another with warning. Anf that doesnt improve you have nothing to do with them.

I forget the statement - you dont speak to them, you dont eat with them, your dont see them. Something like that.

When men are put in power they have a greater temptation to abuse it, but this is why they have a greater responsibility.

It should be noted also that many of the appostles did not have perfectly sound preachings and needed to be corrected and improve them so just keep that in mind.

Flesh will always battle with spirit. The flesh loves positions of power so things often become extra hard for this in power so see the other side also.
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
Irish45
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin
Posts: 89


« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2014, 01:42:40 AM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.



I am laughing so bad from this post.  It may be one of the best ive read on any religious board!  I am Catholic so some of the Orthodox stuff wen't over my head, but I think you bring up an important point.  How often do we rush to like minded people to validate our opinions on religion when they are challenge?  It's something for us all to think about!
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2014, 02:03:51 AM »

But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

The problem is such an office does not exist.

Is that a joke? Even the MP recognises that there is a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church.

Are you saying he's the primate/head of the Church in the same fashion he's the primate/head of his own church?

No, because local, autocephalous and universal primacy are different.
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2014, 02:04:37 AM »

I'm not aware of anyone denying/bashing Constantinople's primacy

Please read what Michal wrote.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2014, 02:14:32 AM »

I'm not aware of anyone denying/bashing Constantinople's primacy

Please read what Michal wrote.

Pretty sure he just doesn't like the language of "primate of the universal church" and its connotations, and not Constantinople's primacy in itself.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,472


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2014, 02:27:13 AM »

All,

Since the OP deals with a more general question, let's avoid turning this into another EP vs MP discussion.  There are already threads for that. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,743



« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2014, 03:16:33 AM »

Go to the Emperor and demand that Patriarch be deposed! (actually that is the opposite of what you were supposed to do...)

...

Anyway, I think rather than asking about IF it happens, simple ask yourself, what did the ORthodox do when the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople were both heretics, along with many other bishops? and learn from that.

Now, canons do say what to do when you have a legitimate ecclesiastical accusation against a bishop, and what to do to bring this accusation up.

Here is part of Canon 6 of the second ecumenical council, stating the process if there is a legitimate ecclesiastical accusation from a legitimate accuser (not a heretic or excommunicated):

"...should declare that they have any ecclesiastical charge against the bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first lay their charges before all the Bishops of the Province, and before them prove the accusations, whatsoever they may be, which they have brought against the bishop. And if the comprovincials should be unable rightly to settle the charges brought against the bishop, then the parties must betake themselves to a greater synod of the bishops of that diocese called together for this purpose; and they shall not produce their allegations before they have promised in writing to undergo an equal penalty to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course of the examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused bishop."

http://www.orthodoxa.org/GB/orthodoxy/canonlaw/canons2econcileGB.htm

I am certain there are more canons in later councils, expanding this. Because I am certain that it requires 3 witnesses in later canons. But I am too lazy to get them. hope this helps your curiosity a little. goodnight
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2014, 01:49:37 PM »

You, an Antiochean, start attending the next parish nearer to you, that is under the jurisdiction of a Patriarch who is still Orthodox, for example Greek, or Russian Orthodox or OCA.

Excuse me but what heresy has His Beatitude Patriarch John X embraced. What heresy has Metropolitan Philip or any of our Antiochian Bishops embraced?

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2014, 02:01:49 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


World canonical Orthodoxy is not heretical. The ROCOR reunion with Moscow was ending a schism and really had nothing to do with doctrine or embracing heresy.
I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,595


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2014, 02:12:06 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


World canonical Orthodoxy is not heretical. The ROCOR reunion with Moscow was ending a schism and really had nothing to do with doctrine or embracing heresy.
I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris
Fr. John, you took the bait. Wink Augustin loves to post satire of most of the positions he sees on OCnet. He generally does not want to be taken seriously.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2014, 03:50:14 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


World canonical Orthodoxy is not heretical. The ROCOR reunion with Moscow was ending a schism and really had nothing to do with doctrine or embracing heresy.
I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris
Fr. John, you took the bait. Wink Augustin loves to post satire of most of the positions he sees on OCnet. He generally does not want to be taken seriously.

Thanks for your advice. Unfortunately, there are some people who agree with him who pose as Orthodox, but have no real understanding of the Orthodox Faith. They are parasites, who prey on since but not well informed people to lead them to join their schismatic groups. I have seen them turn dedicated Orthodox Christians into fanatics concerned only with externals.

Fr. John  W. Morris
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #65 on: February 08, 2014, 11:16:35 AM »


I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,
Is this your personal opinion, or is there any statement from the Patriarchate of Antioch supporting your criticism?

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #66 on: February 08, 2014, 12:06:33 PM »


I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,
Is this your personal opinion, or is there any statement from the Patriarchate of Antioch supporting your criticism?

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.
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
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #67 on: February 08, 2014, 01:53:19 PM »

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.

Ok, so you are trying to interfere a current theological position from historical events 90 years ago. But are there any official statements by the AP on the issue of primacy, especially recently?
Btw, Antioch has signed Ravenna and Met. Elpidophoros' mother is Antiochian, he has also lived in Balamand.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #68 on: February 08, 2014, 01:59:17 PM »

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.

Ok, so you are trying to interfere a current theological position from historical events 90 years ago. But are there any official statements by the AP on the issue of primacy, especially recently?
Btw, Antioch has signed Ravenna and Met. Elpidophoros' mother is Antiochian, he has also lived in Balamand.
yes, I know: he studies Arabic there, and his maternal relatives were at his consecration.

You seem to be unaware of Ravenna subsequent history.  Not even the Vatican holds to 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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #69 on: February 08, 2014, 03:03:48 PM »


I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Constantinople only has a primacy of honor as "first among equals."

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,
Is this your personal opinion, or is there any statement from the Patriarchate of Antioch supporting your criticism?

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.

Of course, I only can speak for myself. However, except for Jerusalem, I know of no Orthodox who agree with the views of Constantinople that it has world wide jurisdiction.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 03:05:56 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #70 on: February 08, 2014, 03:10:12 PM »

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.

Ok, so you are trying to interfere a current theological position from historical events 90 years ago. But are there any official statements by the AP on the issue of primacy, especially recently?
That was currently consecrated:when St. Raphael Hawaweeny was glorified in 2000 85 years after his repose, Antioch deferred to the Orthodox Church in America to do the honors.

It is also interesting that you turn you nose up at a "current theological position from historical events 90 years ago," but swallow whole current theological positions from historical events at least four and a half centuries earlier.  Unless one accepts the Ottomans consecration of the EP as ethnarch as an Orthodox position, something Antioch hasn't accepted since 1899 at the latest.

Indeed, in 1899 the Phanar's canon 28 mythology was unknown: can you point to any evidence of 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #71 on: February 08, 2014, 03:12:47 PM »


I know of no Orthodox Patriarch who has embraced heresy. Sometimes they have opinions that are questionable such as the excessive claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to jurisdiction over "barbarians," giving Constantinople papal like authority all over the world,  but that is not heresy. It is a disagreement on the exact meaning of Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The barbarians mentioned in the canon was merely a reference to the barbarians living north of the Eastern Roman Empire and was never meant by the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon to give the Ecumenical Patriarch world wide jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Constantinople only has a primacy of honor as "first among equals."

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John,
Is this your personal opinion, or is there any statement from the Patriarchate of Antioch supporting your criticism?

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.

Of course, I only can speak for myself. However, except for Jerusalem, I know of no Orthodox who agree with the views of Constantinople that it has world wide jurisdiction.
At least one that hasn't belied such an agreement (except perhaps Cyprus). Jerusalem do so again in North America just recently.

The Phanar acted quickly enough in that. Why so slow in Qatar?
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
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #72 on: February 08, 2014, 04:26:30 PM »

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.

Ok, so you are trying to interfere a current theological position from historical events 90 years ago. But are there any official statements by the AP on the issue of primacy, especially recently?
That was currently consecrated:when St. Raphael Hawaweeny was glorified in 2000 85 years after his repose, Antioch deferred to the Orthodox Church in America to do the honors.

It is also interesting that you turn you nose up at a "current theological position from historical events 90 years ago," but swallow whole current theological positions from historical events at least four and a half centuries earlier.  Unless one accepts the Ottomans consecration of the EP as ethnarch as an Orthodox position, something Antioch hasn't accepted since 1899 at the latest.

Indeed, in 1899 the Phanar's canon 28 mythology was unknown: can you point to any evidence of it?

Read Runciman's The Great Church in Captivity  he does a lot to explain the evolution in thought that led Constantinople to adopt its current interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
Before 1899 Antioch was like Jerusalem is today, dominated by a foreign Greek hierarchy.   In 1899 the Arabic speaking faithful of Antioch demanded the election of a Patriarch of their own nationality and an end to foreign domination of their Patriarchate. The Turks removed the Greek Patriarch, Spyridon,   and called for a new election. The people of the Patriarchate of Antioch cleverly convinced the Turks to use the same regulations that were used to elect a Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantinople had no choice but to agree. One of the regulations was that only one of the  current Bishops of the Patriarchate could be elected. Thus, they were able to prevent the imposition of a foreigner over them as had been the case for 175 years and elected one of their own, an Arab speaking Christian, Meletius II. Constantinople refused to recognize the election and was out of communion with Antioch until it recognized his successor Gregory IV in 1909.
The same thing should happen to Jerusalem. That is a native of the Patriarchate, a Palestinian,  should be Patriarch of Jerusalem.  However, the Israeli government claims that it has a right, inherited from the Turks to approve or veto the choice of the Church for its Patriarch of Jerusalem. For example, in 2005 when the Holy Synod deposed Patriarch Irenaios I for corruption, the Israeli government refused to recognize his successor Theophilos III until 2007, although a Pan-Orthodox Council called by the Ecumenical Patriarch endorsed the decision to depose Patriarch Irenaios I.  It is doubtful that the Israeli government would accept the election of a native Palestinian as Patriarch of Jerusalem. The King of Jordan also claims the right to approve the election of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, also using rights claimed to have been inherited from the Turks. 
The Antiochians deferred to the OCA to glorify St. Raphael, because he was a Bishop under the Russians. The Arabic speaking parishes that were under his omophorion were part of the Diocese of Brooklyn that St. Tikhon established to minister to Arab speaking Orthodox in America. St. Raphael was their first Bishop. Following the chaos that followed the Russian Revolution the Russian Bishops of the Metropolia and of the group that eventually formed ROCOR as well as Moscow released the Arabic speaking parishes in the Diocese of Brooklyn to Antioch, which formed  the official Antiochian Archdiocese in 1924. Thus, it was only proper that the OCA as the successor to the Russian mission to America should have the authority to glorify St. Raphael. However, a delegation led by His Grace Bishop Basil represented the Antiochian Archdiocese at his glorification and his relics were transferred to the Antiochian Village.

Fr. John W. Morris

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 04:41:58 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #73 on: February 08, 2014, 04:40:09 PM »

I was under the impression that Antioch agrees with Constantinople's understanding.
Then you got the wrong impression (I know, the Metropolitan of Bursa has waged quite a campaign of disinformation on that, along with the rest of the Phanar).  You'll notice that when the Antiochians in North America were orphaned by the Bolsheviks, the Antiochians didn't approach the GOANSA.

Ok, so you are trying to interfere a current theological position from historical events 90 years ago. But are there any official statements by the AP on the issue of primacy, especially recently?
That was currently consecrated:when St. Raphael Hawaweeny was glorified in 2000 85 years after his repose, Antioch deferred to the Orthodox Church in America to do the honors.

It is also interesting that you turn you nose up at a "current theological position from historical events 90 years ago," but swallow whole current theological positions from historical events at least four and a half centuries earlier.  Unless one accepts the Ottomans consecration of the EP as ethnarch as an Orthodox position, something Antioch hasn't accepted since 1899 at the latest.

Indeed, in 1899 the Phanar's canon 28 mythology was unknown: can you point to any evidence of it?

Read Runciman's The Great Church in Captivity  he does a lot to explain the evolution in thought that led Constantinople to adopt its current interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
There is a lot of history behind it, Father, but very little history to it: I haven't found a trace of it before the conference in Constantinople in 1907.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22981.msg386694.html#msg386694

Btw, a Russian Patriarch of Jerusalem would be preferable to a Phanariot one, if a Palestinian one cannot be approved.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,595


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #74 on: February 08, 2014, 10:59:17 PM »

What does this talk of patriarchal elections have to do with the subject of what one can/should do if a patriarch becomes a heretic?
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2014, 01:06:01 AM »

Whether the Vatican holds to Ravenna or not is irrelevant for the question whether Antioch (EO) holds to it. (Though I would hope for Rome to denounce Vatican I and adopt Ravenna instead, of course.)

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2014, 01:24:32 AM »

Whether the Vatican holds to Ravenna or not is irrelevant for the question whether Antioch (EO) holds to it. (Though I would hope for Rome to denounce Vatican I and adopt Ravenna instead, of course.)

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.

On what basis do you make the comment that Antioch has no objections to the "First without Equals" document. As far as I know the Holy Synod of Antioch has not ratified the Ravenna document. The documents approved by ecumenical dialogues are simply committee reports. To have effect they must be approved by the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches. Since Moscow has made its rejection of the Revenna document clear, the document is dead as far as Eastern Orthodox are concerned. Like it or not the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest Orthodox Church without them it cannot be claimed that the Eastern Orthodox Church has agreed to anything.
I personally cannot agree with the Pope being "First without Equals" or having any more authority that he had before the Western schism, which was actually only a primacy of honor. The Pope had no jurisdiction outside of the West, was subject to an Ecumenical Council, had no authority to unilaterally make doctrinal decisions, or interfere in the internal affairs of the other 4 Patriarchs.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 01:25:29 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #77 on: February 09, 2014, 01:44:57 AM »

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.

Patriarch John did meet with Patriarch Kirill lately to discuss, IIRC, inter-church jurisdictional issues, within a couple weeks or so after the document in question. Although I'm not sure if anything came out since about the specifics of their talk.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #78 on: February 09, 2014, 03:38:56 PM »

Whether the Vatican holds to Ravenna or not is irrelevant for the question whether Antioch (EO) holds to it. (Though I would hope for Rome to denounce Vatican I and adopt Ravenna instead, of course.)

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.

I just read the Ravennna Document and did not find the phrase "First without Equals." In fact, I found the document fairly vague. It recognizes that the Pope had what we would call "presvia," during the first 1,000 years of church history, but does not really define what authority Rome actually had. The document acknowledges that further study is needed concerning the 1st Vatican Council but stops there an does not make any proposals on what power the Pope would have after a re-unification between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
I do not see how Rome can legitimately argue that it had anything more than a primacy or honor with no real authority outside of the West. The Pope certainly did not have the right to unilaterally issue doctrinal declarations. Finally,  Rome was subject like all other Bishops to the authority of the rest of the Church gathered in Ecumenical Council. To put it bluntly, there is no way to reconcile the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and the modern papacy, especially after the 1st Vatican Council. 

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,027


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #79 on: February 09, 2014, 04:05:18 PM »

Whether the Vatican holds to Ravenna or not is irrelevant for the question whether Antioch (EO) holds to it. (Though I would hope for Rome to denounce Vatican I and adopt Ravenna instead, of course.)

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.

I just read the Ravennna Document and did not find the phrase "First without Equals." In fact, I found the document fairly vague. It recognizes that the Pope had what we would call "presvia," during the first 1,000 years of church history, but does not really define what authority Rome actually had. The document acknowledges that further study is needed concerning the 1st Vatican Council but stops there an does not make any proposals on what power the Pope would have after a re-unification between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
I do not see how Rome can legitimately argue that it had anything more than a primacy or honor with no real authority outside of the West. The Pope certainly did not have the right to unilaterally issue doctrinal declarations. Finally,  Rome was subject like all other Bishops to the authority of the rest of the Church gathered in Ecumenical Council. To put it bluntly, there is no way to reconcile the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and the modern papacy, especially after the 1st Vatican Council. 

Fr. John W. Morris

Father, that is most certainly the take that Metropolitan Maximos (chief Orthodox delegate until his retirement in 2009)  and all of the members of the Orthodox side of the North American Orthodox Catholic consultation have expressed in the documents produced since Ravenna and available online. Vague generalities regarding the papacy abound and it is clear that their Roman Catholic colleagues struggle to continue to see primacy - and supremacy as they have invented it -  through a prism forged by fifteen centuries of Latin teaching, while the Orthodox see primacy as it is in our ecclesiology. There seems no way for the Roman Church to reject Vatican I without admitting error - hence a perpetual stalemate seems to me to be the end result of talking. If we understand areas of doctrine better where our disagreements are not really as deep or grave as our respective polemicists have urged over the centuries that is, to me at least, a good thing. But in the end, it comes down to the papacy, the papacy and the papacy. We could conceivably narrow almost all of our differences down to the one of primacy and still there could be no union.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #80 on: February 09, 2014, 04:24:47 PM »

Whether the Vatican holds to Ravenna or not is irrelevant for the question whether Antioch (EO) holds to it. (Though I would hope for Rome to denounce Vatican I and adopt Ravenna instead, of course.)

Also, Antioch has not in any way objected to the "First without Equals" document. In fact, I am hoping that the EP will make it clear that Qatar belongs to Antioch.

I just read the Ravennna Document and did not find the phrase "First without Equals." In fact, I found the document fairly vague. It recognizes that the Pope had what we would call "presvia," during the first 1,000 years of church history, but does not really define what authority Rome actually had. The document acknowledges that further study is needed concerning the 1st Vatican Council but stops there an does not make any proposals on what power the Pope would have after a re-unification between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
I do not see how Rome can legitimately argue that it had anything more than a primacy or honor with no real authority outside of the West. The Pope certainly did not have the right to unilaterally issue doctrinal declarations. Finally,  Rome was subject like all other Bishops to the authority of the rest of the Church gathered in Ecumenical Council. To put it bluntly, there is no way to reconcile the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and the modern papacy, especially after the 1st Vatican Council. 

Fr. John W. Morris

Father, that is most certainly the take that Metropolitan Maximos (chief Orthodox delegate until his retirement in 2009)  and all of the members of the Orthodox side of the North American Orthodox Catholic consultation have expressed in the documents produced since Ravenna and available online. Vague generalities regarding the papacy abound and it is clear that their Roman Catholic colleagues struggle to continue to see primacy - and supremacy as they have invented it -  through a prism forged by fifteen centuries of Latin teaching, while the Orthodox see primacy as it is in our ecclesiology. There seems no way for the Roman Church to reject Vatican I without admitting error - hence a perpetual stalemate seems to me to be the end result of talking. If we understand areas of doctrine better where our disagreements are not really as deep or grave as our respective polemicists have urged over the centuries that is, to me at least, a good thing. But in the end, it comes down to the papacy, the papacy and the papacy. We could conceivably narrow almost all of our differences down to the one of primacy and still there could be no union.

You know that there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church could accept the 1st Vatican Council. If we did it would be a complete surrender to Roman domination which we cannot do and remain faithful to our Eastern Orthodox doctrine. If the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts Vatican i, we will be nothing more than Eastern Rite Roman Catholics.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #81 on: February 09, 2014, 11:41:39 PM »

^Fwiw,  there is one way I've recently learned of at my Catholic university for pushing through the Vatican I  ecumenical mess. If you read Catholicism and Democracy by, I believe, Chardin, it demonstrates that the entire ultramontane vs Gallican squabbles that culminated in Vatican I (which actually was a compromise on the ultramontanist side, that wanted an even higher view of the Pope than was affirmed) was entirely contextualized in the long 16th century with the emergence of the modern nation state, appearance of so-called "spheres" (public, personal, religious, etc.), and the collapse of the complex ancien regime. Vatican I was the Catholic Church's attempt to adapt and respond to this new world they suddenly found themselves in, which is why they ended up in conflict with Napoleon, supported less-than-virtuous proponents of the old ways, etc.

This means that there is hope for Catholics to reinvision the papacy through a full understanding of the historical context of the two Vatican councils, and there are Catholics that do just that. My grad professor being an example, saying that it is great for Catholics who want to break away from papal centralization, universal jurisdiction, etc. There just need to be more willing to push in this direction, I think.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,927



« Reply #82 on: February 10, 2014, 12:16:28 AM »

Interesting to see that many people argue "honour" to mean "nothing real".

That is certainly not the Eastern understanding, why else would there be such a thing as "honour killings"?
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #83 on: February 10, 2014, 12:59:44 AM »

^Fwiw,  there is one way I've recently learned of at my Catholic university for pushing through the Vatican I  ecumenical mess. If you read Catholicism and Democracy by, I believe, Chardin, it demonstrates that the entire ultramontane vs Gallican squabbles that culminated in Vatican I (which actually was a compromise on the ultramontanist side, that wanted an even higher view of the Pope than was affirmed) was entirely contextualized in the long 16th century with the emergence of the modern nation state, appearance of so-called "spheres" (public, personal, religious, etc.), and the collapse of the complex ancien regime. Vatican I was the Catholic Church's attempt to adapt and respond to this new world they suddenly found themselves in, which is why they ended up in conflict with Napoleon, supported less-than-virtuous proponents of the old ways, etc.

This means that there is hope for Catholics to reinvision the papacy through a full understanding of the historical context of the two Vatican councils, and there are Catholics that do just that. My grad professor being an example, saying that it is great for Catholics who want to break away from papal centralization, universal jurisdiction, etc. There just need to be more willing to push in this direction, I think.

I agree with you. During the Middle Ages there was constant conflict between the secular rulers and the Pope who claimed universal authority including authority over the secular rulers. The Protestant Reformation gave the Protestant rulers the opportunity to place the churches in their lands under their complete control by establishing state Churches like the Church of England or the state Lutheran Churches of northern Germany and Scandinavia. With the rise of the sovereign nation state the secular powers in Catholic countries also sought to bring the Church under their control. This was manifested in France by Gallicanism a movement by Louis XIV to control the French Catholic Church. Later in the end of the 18th century, Joseph II of Austria tried to bring the Catholic Churches under his control. As a result Catholics began to look over the mountains (Ultramontanism) to the Pope as an ally in its struggle with the secular powers. This conflict only intensified with the anti-Christian attitudes expressed during the French Revolution. Although Napoleon restored some of the rights of the Catholic Church, he also made it clear that he was not subject to the Pope by the dramatic gesture of crowning himself with the Pope looking on. As the society and state became more secular, ultramontanism gained additional influence in Catholic circles. Meanwhile, the Pope lost his power as prince over Rome and central Italy. Thus Vatican I was a way to emphasize the power of the Popes after they lost their secular authority. It was also a kind of consultation prize.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 01:01:23 AM by frjohnmorris » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #84 on: February 10, 2014, 01:04:38 AM »

Interesting to see that many people argue "honour" to mean "nothing real".

That is certainly not the Eastern understanding, why else would there be such a thing as "honour killings"?
I thought we were only the ones who saw things in black and white, choosing only between two extremes.
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
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,011


WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 10, 2014, 01:12:14 AM »

Meanwhile, the Pope lost his power as prince over Rome and central Italy. Thus Vatican I was a way to emphasize the power of the Popes after they lost their secular authority. It was also a kind of consultation consolation prize.

Father (forgive me for minor correction in the above), what do you think about the Ecumenical Patriarch traveling down the same road as the Popes before Vatican I?  After all, the EP has no secular authority in Turkey (besides ethnarch with the exception for Mt. Athos) and seeks to exercise primacy (and possibly ethnarchy despite having ACROD and the Ukrainians in the USA under his omophor) over the other Orthodox churches by claiming that the EP is first without equals.  Thank you in advance for your response.   Smiley
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 01:23:42 AM by SolEX01 » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,078



« Reply #86 on: February 10, 2014, 04:01:42 AM »

Catholicism and Democracy by, I believe, Chardin

I have no idea why I put Chardin, the author is Perreau-Saussine.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: February 10, 2014, 06:45:29 AM »

Meanwhile, the Pope lost his power as prince over Rome and central Italy. Thus Vatican I was a way to emphasize the power of the Popes after they lost their secular authority. It was also a kind of consultation consolation prize.

Father (forgive me for minor correction in the above), what do you think about the Ecumenical Patriarch traveling down the same road as the Popes before Vatican I?  After all, the EP has no secular authority in Turkey (besides ethnarch with the exception for Mt. Athos) and seeks to exercise primacy (and possibly ethnarchy despite having ACROD and the Ukrainians in the USA under his omophor) over the other Orthodox churches by claiming that the EP is first without equals.  Thank you in advance for your response.   Smiley
Looking at the arguments of Old Rome against New Rome in the second half or so of the first millennium, and the arguments of New Rome against the Third Rome of Moscow these last couple of centuries, makes an interesting comparison. Déjà vu all over again.
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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,027


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #88 on: February 10, 2014, 09:46:39 AM »

Meanwhile, the Pope lost his power as prince over Rome and central Italy. Thus Vatican I was a way to emphasize the power of the Popes after they lost their secular authority. It was also a kind of consultation consolation prize.

Father (forgive me for minor correction in the above), what do you think about the Ecumenical Patriarch traveling down the same road as the Popes before Vatican I?  After all, the EP has no secular authority in Turkey (besides ethnarch with the exception for Mt. Athos) and seeks to exercise primacy (and possibly ethnarchy despite having ACROD and the Ukrainians in the USA under his omophor) over the other Orthodox churches by claiming that the EP is first without equals.  Thank you in advance for your response.   Smiley
Looking at the arguments of Old Rome against New Rome in the second half or so of the first millennium, and the arguments of New Rome against the Third Rome of Moscow these last couple of centuries, makes an interesting comTarison. Déjà vu all over again.

But the secular power of the Vatican waxed, waned, waxed, waned etc...throughout the period post Schism through the late 19th century. Vatican 1 was as much a politically motivated council as anything else, coming in the time of the end of the Papal States and the rise of the modern nation state.

It can be argued that neither Roman Catholicism nor the Orhodox Churches have fully acclimated to the modern nation state and the hyper secularized world. I would argue that the current strains in the Orthodox community stem from that reality of figuring out how to "operate" within the confines of a post imperial civilization -which was put on hold by the events of the 20th century for over ninety years.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 09:50:03 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2014, 10:42:03 AM »

Nation states are dying out. I would say that the division of American Orthodoxy along ethnic lines is an archaism, but then Orthodoxy is an archaism.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.172 seconds with 73 queries.