Actually Elish doesn't live under the Patriarch's omniphoron.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š His is a member of the OCA with is under the omniphoron of Metr. Herman.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Or if you wish to consider the OCA part of the Patriarchate of Moscow then Elisha is ultimately under the omniphoron of Patriarch Alexii of Moscow.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Ecumenical Patriarch is not and has never been an episcopus episcorum for the entire Church.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
The best I can figure Elisha lives in California, which is a state in the United States, which is outside the traditional bounds of the Russian Church, thus, as the Oecumenical Throne maintains, under the 28th Canon of Chalcedon these lands are technically under the Great Church of Christ. While the Patriarchate may allow foreign entities to administer Churches for pastoral reasons within His lands, this does not change the Authority that the Oecumenical Patriarchate exersizes over His lands, thus, like it or not, everyone in the Diaspora is properly under the Oecumenical Patriarch, even those who attend the Churches of the Russian Metropolia.
Yes. Thank you, Idiot.
WOW, I just dont know how to reply to such an elegant apology, but I'll give it a try...see above.
1) Never to be recovered....hmmmmm....and yet you blast "Western Rite" Orthodox as if it is some completel innvotion or the false resurrecting of a dead tradition. I think the more appropriate new nickname, Orthodox Pharisee may be more appropriate.
While I think much was lost with the replacing of the Cathedral Rite by the Monastic Rite, one of the reasons I say 'never to be recovered' is because after 500 years it would be highly inappropriate to try and resurrect a dead liturgy, for better or worse we have the Liturgy we have today, and it is the one that we should use...the one that all of our Churches should use regardless of 'rite.'
2) distraught at the Typika deviation....now this is just flat out unOrthodox. The Orthodox Church believes in the Baptizing of a People, and a TRUE, ORGANIC development of culture. You just said above that this is distraughtful. You betray Christ in His creation. Christ and the Church is not about the Helleinic world. It amazes me that you don't even TRY in the LEAST to appreciate Christ in His creation in any other form then anything that is not Hellenic.
Liturgical evolution is one thing, such as the development in the differences between the Greek and Slavic liturgies that came about over the last 1000 years, but a significant and fundamental alteration to the Liturgy (e.g. western rite, cathedral rite, etc.) is not acceptable, for that is not an organic development of culture, but rather a revolutionary movement to alter the fundementals of Christian Praxis to be consonant with our own nationalistc biases.
There is some silly phrase out there..."Everyone is either Greek or wishes that they were Greek." Well, we know you fall under the latter...which is truly sad that you are actually falling for this ethnocentric phrase.
In the proper sense of refering to the Culture of the Empire, you are correct, if you think that I want to be Greek in terms of the Modern EU Member Nation-State of Greece, though I have respect for their Culture and People, no I dont want to be Greek.
There is GREEK man in my parish that could smack you silly with sense (as he could smack many of us). You should visit us and let him.
Is he Greek insofar as he maintains the Customs, Culture, and Traditions of the Empire or does he just have extra vowels in his last name?
But you're assuming I'm disrespecting the Oecumenical Patriarchate. I'm not. I lament the state that the See of Constantinople is in, but accept the reality as well. It is you, by your haughty attitude that fails to give ANY respect to any other Orthodox See.
I have respect for all the Orthodox Sees, but the See worthy of the Greatest Respect and Honour is Constantinople, and after her Alexandria, then Antioch, and Jerusalem...you get the picture.
How do you and GiC define "Hellenic?" I hope one is not referring to "Hellenic" as Greek and the other as "Roman/Rum" - then we would be comparing apples and oranges. Gic doesn't extol "Greek" in the ethnic sense; trust me, he sees all the failings of "Greek" here at HC. He does advocate the use of the Greek Language in Liturgy, but its Liturgical Greek - which has nothing to do with the ethnicity; he also likes Latin, which should demonstrate that he just wants the original languages used in the liturgies (we always have the debates here at school about which translations to use: some are wonderful, some take liberties; it is often enough to drive someone to the perspective of not using them much at all).
Thank you, I believe we have already had the discussion of 'what does GiC mean when he extols the greatness of Greek Culture and it's centrality to the Church.' Thus, I had assumed that I did not need to clarify again, but I guess I was wrong.
Of course, GiC could be a bit more judicious when he uses the name of the Great Church - I don't think anyone needs to get beat over the head with the name.
I could, but it wouldn't be nearly as much fun