OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 06:39:02 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 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Patriarch Bartholomew vs Esphigmenou Monastery  (Read 13533 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« on: November 25, 2005, 07:24:57 PM »

"The clashes erupted after rival monks used pick axes, crowbars and spades to break into a rebel monastery that fiercely opposes efforts to improve relations between the Orthodox church and the Vatican.

The rebels, in defiance of the Orthodox world's spiritual leader Patriarch Bartholomew and an eviction order from Greece's highest court, have stubbornly refused to leave the compound for nearly a year."

From http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516552.htm

---------------------

v Older News v

"Police were called in to blockade the monastery. The residents hunkered down and locked themselves inside, refusing to leave even though all water, food, medical and fuel supplies to it were cut off. The Esphigmenou monks said they could make the provisions they had on hand last up to two years if they had to. The fact that they grew a number of vegetables in their gardens and kept bees for honey ensured them at least some food on which to live.

  "I am truly perplexed by the Patriarch's deliberately cruel, hard-line stance on Esphigmenou Monastery," says Rigas. "Is he trying to starve monks out? Or worse, lead them to slow death? Furthermore, Greece is a country of plurality and tolerance, yet [the Patriarch] wants to force uniformity and agreement with his interpretation of the Orthodox religion."

From http://www.zreportage.com/MONKS/MONKStext.html
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2005, 10:35:14 PM »


I saw this on the news this morning.....you should see the video footage....
oh dear....

As if Orthodoxy hasn't had enough bad press lately....

There is,however, an error in the report in that no one tried to break into Esphigmenou monastery. It was actually the offices of the monastery in Karyes (the Capital of the Holy Mountain) that were being demolished, not the monastery itself.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2005, 10:41:21 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2005, 11:51:39 PM »

http://www.esphigmenou.com/

Please note that while I agree with the stance of Esphigmenou, I do not agree with some of the statements on that site. Just a disclaimer.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: November 25, 2005, 11:52:56 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,882


« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2005, 12:03:37 AM »

Quote
have stubbornly refused to leave the compound for nearly a year."

I hate that word. "Compound". Why don't they just call them a cult and be done with it. But as usual, you can rely on reporters to generalize everything to the point where fact is blended with fiction. For example, to say that Ephigmenou opposes improving relations with the Vatican is true, but it is only partly true if left at such a simple statement. What is important is why they are against the current talks. Basically, such generalizing would be like the Sports page saying that team X didn't want superstar player Y, thus team X doesn't want to win. Um, yeah, well maybe superstar Y is a nutcase, or maybe Y would put the team in financial (or salary cap) difficulties, or who knows what else. It is not fair nor journalistic (can I use that word like that?) to dumb everything down to the most simplistic explanations.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 01:06:54 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
troy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 109


« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2005, 12:40:28 AM »

Small aside: You should say, "It is neither fair nor journalisitc to dumb...."

"Not" is paired with "or" and "neither" is paired with "nor."
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2005, 12:41:40 AM »

IWhat is important is why they are against the current talks.
Yes, but that will hardly raise the ratings now will it? Wink ÂÂ  What the public want are "goodies" and "baddies".
I wonder how history will view Esphigmenou?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2005, 01:21:28 AM »

Small aside: You should say, "It is neither fair nor journalisitc to dumb...."

"Not" is paired with "or" and "neither" is paired with "nor."

Watch it, I tried correcting grammar on the site a few times, and now am affectionately known as the grammar nazi. You'll be next. Mark my words Smiley

Anastasios
"it's vs. its: People, it's not that hard to get it right!!"
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,882


« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2005, 07:24:47 AM »

I knew the neither/nor part... or leastwise I should have known better! Smiley I was just wondering about the term journalistic in that sense... does the term really denote integrity, honesty, depth, etc.? I couldn't think of a better word for the context.ÂÂ  Grin

The guy who couldn't tell you the difference between a past participle, preposition and conjunction (though it matters not a whit*),

Justin

* I have a book called the Grammar Hammer (well, had one, I gave it away) and it pointed out how there are these really formal rules to language that no one really knows about, but everyone follows. Like if you want to list someone's nationality, sex, name, etc., there is a specific method for placing each one in order, but even though probably 99.9% of people have never formally been taught that method in a class or are even aware of it, just about everyone gets the order correct anyway.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 07:27:41 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2005, 12:17:29 PM »

Quote
Please note that while I agree with the stance of Esphigmenou, I do not agree with some of the statements on that site. Just a disclaimer.

Anastasios

This is is a schism against Christ's teachings. Christ preached love among his Church and the 12 Apostles.
The See of Rome had undoubtedly a primacy. In every Oecumenical Council no less than half the Church Fathers
praised that See that would never fall in heresy (as they all claimed) and the Pope's opinion in a Council was always that
of greatest importance. I am not God therefore I do not know if that meant he [the Pope] was the head of all churches
(despite the fact that this expression had been said in some Councils) or first among equals. What I know is this:

A) It is a crime in the eyes of God, that the East and West are seperated. And all those who did nothing
all these years to achieve union are sinners. You think that God would let his Church be destroyed? Why
are you so afraid of union, then? You think that you will protect the Church more than God himself?

B) Photius was truly a man of evil. He did not stood up to protect the Orthodox faith against
"evil" West. He did his part so that Byzantium would gain influence in Bulgaria, simply because
Rome had gained the lead sometimes. All those who put their nation first and then the Church,
have no place in the Church. And when I say Church I mean West AND East.
You cannot separate what is one for God. (excuse any translating errors but you get the point. This not only
applies to marriage but also, ironically, to the Church).

I apologise for my frustration to you and God, but this crime of Schism among the Church has found
many supporters in the Eastern Church indeed. And only God knows my love for the Eastern Church
and how hurtful it is to see all those heretics and schismatics of the East (from Arius to Photius).
I choose Rome because the Pope had always been there to protect the Church against those heresies
(even iconoclasm). God have mercy on me if I am wrong.

Ο εν Χριστώ αδελφός σας.

 You may not refer to Orthodox saints as evil. Disagreement for just cause is one thing; blasphemy is another.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2005, 12:28:20 PM »

Photius was truly a man of evil.
And I suppose blaspheming our Saints is your way of seeking "unity"?

I apologise for my frustration to you and God,
The sincerity of your repentance is touching.

Ο εν Χριστώ αδελφός σας.
You are my brother in blood since we are both sons of Adam, but you are by no means my spiritual brother in Christ. I am an Orthodox Christian, you are not.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 12:28:43 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2005, 12:35:44 PM »

I notice that a few of the people that do support Esfigmenou's stance in this thread have never been to Esfigmenou.  The website that is run for them doesn't really give the full story (and there are some outright lies on there, that I witnessed myself were not true), the propoganda of the Patriarchate is probably just as off and of course the secular media is hopeless. ÂÂ

Personally I do not favor their eviction or even any sanctions against them.  But I also think their position has been romanticized here - but a lot of athonite things are. ÂÂ
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2005, 12:55:28 PM »

I'm sure my opinion on this issue is most obvious, so I won't fan the flames too much unless someone decides to directly attack his All-Holiness Wink ...however, the grammar issue did catch my eye since I've been researching the various uses of the word 'nor' recently.

Small aside: You should say, "It is neither fair nor journalisitc to dumb...."

"Not" is paired with "or" and "neither" is paired with "nor."

Nor can be used with neither, not, or any other negative...or even without the use of a negative at all. For example, 'It is fair nor journalistic,' 'It is not fair nor journalistic,' and 'It is neither fair nor journalistic.' Are all equivalent and proper within the modern english language, of course 'nor' or 'neither' can be placed elsewhere in the sentence but that changes the emphasis or nuances. Of course there are numerous other uses of the word 'nor' including being used as a synonym for 'than,' but I assume we are simply focusing on the negative aspect of the word here. Furthermore, from my reading of the OED entry on 'nor' it seems that its use with 'not' is the most ancient use of the word; I do not know what grammar you are using, but I would recommend a good book on english linguistic history, or at the very least the OED, to accompany it.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2005, 01:24:41 PM »

I notice that a few of the people that do support Esfigmenou's stance in this thread have never been to Esfigmenou.  The website that is run for them doesn't really give the full story (and there are some outright lies on there, that I witnessed myself were not true), the propoganda of the Patriarchate is probably just as off and of course the secular media is hopeless. ÂÂ

Personally I do not favor their eviction or even any sanctions against them.  But I also think their position has been romanticized here - but a lot of athonite things are. ÂÂ

You're right, I have never been there, but I know three people who have gone in the last year besides you. These three were actually guests and stayed there though. That's why I was careful to put a disclaimer on my post that that I don't agree with everything on that site.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2005, 01:37:03 PM »

Armando,

First of all, this topic does not belong in this thread and you could be warned for violating a forum rule, namely calling an Orthodox saint evil.  If you want to debate St Photios's actions, fine, but you can't call him evil. Mistaken? Make your case. Evil? Sorry; won't fly here.  But since you seem to want to discuss the issue, here's my response:

This is is a schism against Christ's teachings. Christ preached love among his Church and the 12 Apostles.
The See of Rome had undoubtedly a primacy. In every Oecumenical Council no less than half the Church Fathers
praised that See that would never fall in heresy (as they all claimed) and the Pope's opinion in a Council was always that
of greatest importance. I am not God therefore I do not know if that meant he [the Pope] was the head of all churches
(despite the fact that this expression had been said in some Councils) or first among equals. What I know is this:

I actually went back and read a lot of those quotes in context and found them to be misrepresented in modern RC apologetics (such as the two most unfortunate books Jesus, Peter, and the Keys and Steve Ray's Upon this Rock.  There are some more historical accounts of the papacy--even written by RC's--that I could recommend you read for a better grasp of the See of Rome's position.

Quote
A) It is a crime in the eyes of God, that the East and West are seperated. And all those who did nothing
all these years to achieve union are sinners. You think that God would let his Church be destroyed? Why
are you so afraid of union, then? You think that you will protect the Church more than God himself?

The only people besides a few modern Orthodox writers who talk about East vs. West are Catholics. For the rest of us, it's Orthodox vs. heretics.  It's unfortunate in my eyes that the West is in heresy as I rather like the Tridentine Rite or a nicely-done Novus Ordo Mass.  I enjoy listening to some Roman chants as well at home.  But the West confesses several heresies that were synodically condemned by the Orthodox Church (i.e. the Church) and as such, there is no way that there can be "union" with them; they can reject their heresy and return to Orthodoxy and we will receive them even in their ranks but until then, they are heretics and must be baptized normatively or received by economy if the bishop so warrents.

Quote
B) Photius was truly a man of evil. He did not stood up to protect the Orthodox faith against
"evil" West. He did his part so that Byzantium would gain influence in Bulgaria, simply because
Rome had gained the lead sometimes. All those who put their nation first and then the Church,
have no place in the Church. And when I say Church I mean West AND East.
You cannot separate what is one for God. (excuse any translating errors but you get the point. This not only
applies to marriage but also, ironically, to the Church).

I'm sorry, but the Church is the Orthodox Church.  The West is Roman Catholic and hence, not the Church.  I wish it weren't so, but that is reality.  Interestingly enough, St Photios is also a Catholic saint.  Look on the calendar of the Eastern Rite Ruthenian Catholic Church in America on February 6 and whose name do you see? St Photios.  Have you read Dvornik's (a Roman Catholic) The Photian Schism by the way? If not, I suggest you check it out from your local library or if they don't have it, ask them to get it for you via interlibrary loan.

Quote
I apologise for my frustration to you and God, but this crime of Schism among the Church has found
many supporters in the Eastern Church indeed. And only God knows my love for the Eastern Church
and how hurtful it is to see all those heretics and schismatics of the East (from Arius to Photius).
I choose Rome because the Pope had always been there to protect the Church against those heresies
(even iconoclasm). God have mercy on me if I am wrong.

So there is no one in the west with a schismatic personality? I will step outside of my Orthodoxy-is-the-only-true-Church position for a second to meet you on your own turf:

[speaking as my old ecumenist self]
Warren Carroll (author), Dave Armstrong (internet apologist hack), and James Likoudis (schismatic and heretic ex-Orthodox turned Roman [not Eastern] Catholic) do as much to battle off union with Orthodox as any of the hardcore Orthodox do to Catholics.
[/speaking as my old ecumenist self off]

But you know what? I actually respect them for standing up for their Church, because they believe in something, unlike the ecumenists such as yourself who would have us believe that truth and error are irrelevant to God. But notice how even in your ecumenistic standpoint you still can't shake your jabs at Orthodoxy. You love the East you say, but refuse to understand our positions.

I realize that I am reacting quite strongly, but you should not have called a man revered as a saint by Orthodox and Catholics alike, an evil man.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2005, 01:37:21 PM »

I must say, I do not agree with the beloved elder monks on the single matter of ecumenism.  Patriarch Bartholomew, as are many other patriarchs in the Orthodox world, are working hard to reunify the universal church in terms that do not breach or compromise that which our forefathers fought to preserve.  Of course, I am speaking as an Egyptian, of those who followed Dioscorus and rejected Chalcedon and who are viewed as schismatics by these same holy monks.  Honestly, and forgive me for saything this, but I believe there is a lot of pride involved that is a stumbling block hindering the many efforts of our bishops.  I see it analogous to the notion of 'infallibilty.'  Is it a matter of faith, or is it a matter of tradition?  Both?  Of course, one cannot ignore the role of either, but do we recognize the principle behind the practice?  I find myself often guilty, neglecting the underlying significance in spiritual matters and focusing too much on tradition. ÂÂ
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2005, 02:04:14 PM »

Quote
You're right, I have never been there, but I know three people who have gone in the last year besides you. These three were actually guests and stayed there though. That's why I was careful to put a disclaimer on my post that that I don't agree with everything on that site.

And something that I implied but didn't state outright was that some of the issues (essentially putting being super-Orthodox over treating people in a Christian manner) are found all over the place on the Holy Mountain - not simply among the zealots.  It is a problem all traditional minded Orthodox people (I do remember you saying we are fighting the same battle, just in a different manner) face.  Thankfully people like Fr. Seraphim Rose saw that danger very clearly and worked to correct it.  What I am trying to get at though with this is that the eviction at Esfigmenou has more behind it than simply the strong anti-ecumenical stance of the Esfigmenou Father. 
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2005, 05:18:30 PM »

I wonder how history will view Esphigmenou?

I think it all depends on whether people speak out. Right now, things are "relatively" quiet, and few are challenging the decisions of Patriarch Bartholomew. But I have a feeling that there are a lot of people who, if they voice their opinions, would be on the side of Esphigmenou.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2005, 08:01:32 PM »

I think it all depends on whether people speak out.

Everyone I know who has written to His All-Holiness (including myself) with anything which slightly smacked of support for Esphigmenou simply received a booklet outlining the Patriarchate's and Community of the Holy Mountain's arguments for the eviction of the Esphigmenou monks. In my letter, I wasn't actually saying that the Community and the Patriarchate do not have the right to evict the monks, but what I was saying was that we need to look at what the monks of Esphigmenou are saying regarding false ecumenism. I even quoted from "Hymn of Entry" written by the Hegumen of Stavronikita which supports the argument against false ecumenism....and still I was given a stock-standard response about the position of Esphigmenou.....No one in the hierarchy seems to be listening. So I don't think it matters how many people speak up in this day and age, just as it didn't matter how many people spoke up against the false union of Florence, but history has now judged those who resisted as champions of Orthodoxy. And I wonder that His All-Holiness does not fear going down in history as another Patriarch Joseph.
...{now bracing for the onslought of GiC's wrath! Wink}...
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 08:11:15 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2005, 08:14:26 PM »

No one in the hierarchy seems to be listening. So I don't think it matters how many people speak up in this day and age, just as it didn't matter how many people spoke up against the false union of Florence, but history has now judged those who resisted as champions of Orthodoxy. And I wonder that His All-Holiness does not fear going down in history as another Patriarch Joseph.

Well, that is sort of what I was hinting at, but you're right that letters aren't getting through. Perhaps we will have to get the outside world more involved in the matter? Not all Patriarchs have been deposed and whatnot post-humously. Of course in the end, whether Orthodoxy decides now or in 100 years, it will still decide. I do hope that this doesn't provoke some type of schism, though.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
troy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 109


« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2005, 12:36:49 AM »

Nor can be used with neither, not, or any other negative...or even without the use of a negative at all. For example, 'It is fair nor journalistic,' 'It is not fair nor journalistic,' and 'It is neither fair nor journalistic.' Are all equivalent and proper within the modern english language, of course 'nor' or 'neither' can be placed elsewhere in the sentence but that changes the emphasis or nuances. Of course there are numerous other uses of the word 'nor' including being used as a synonym for 'than,' but I assume we are simply focusing on the negative aspect of the word here. Furthermore, from my reading of the OED entry on 'nor' it seems that its use with 'not' is the most ancient use of the word; I do not know what grammar you are using, but I would recommend a good book on english linguistic history, or at the very least the OED, to accompany it.

Wow, I really had no idea that was the case. That was simply the rule of thumb I had always been taught.

Thanks for the correction.   Smiley
Logged
Meekle
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316

Meekle of Rohan, Dunadan Bard of the Riddermark


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2005, 05:07:29 AM »

Sorry if this was answered before, but what exactly is the Esphigmenou monastery doing that noone agrees with?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2005, 05:33:32 AM »

Sorry if this was answered before, but what exactly is the Esphigmenou monastery doing that noone agrees with?

I'm not sure that "no one agrees" with Esphigmenou is a correct observation- many do (though perhaps not fully).

Here is a very potted history:
When the Ecumenical Patriarchate introduced the New Calendar and the Church of Greece adopted it in 1924, all the monasteries of Mount Athos (which is under the juristiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) collectively ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch in their liturgies and became known as "Non-commemorators". This was in protest against the mnovement towards a false ecumenism with the heterodox churches which was not based on common faith and doctrine. The non-commemorators continued for a long time, however in 1971, the Community of Mount Athos met and agreed that each monastery should decide for itself whether or not to commemorate the Patriarch. Gradually the monasteries began commemorating the Patriarch one by one, except for Esphigmenou. In 1972, the monks of Esphigmenou also raised black flags reading "Orthodoxy or Death!" in protest against the lifting of the anathema against the Pope of Rome by Patriarch Athenagoras. These flags remain to this day, and although Esphigmenou is hospitable to all, it will not allow New Calendar Orthodox Christians to recieve Communion.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2005, 05:34:19 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Meekle
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 316

Meekle of Rohan, Dunadan Bard of the Riddermark


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2005, 06:31:41 AM »

Oh what little I know...

Thanks for the info. Any other bad parts in history there that I should know about?
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2005, 07:08:06 AM »

It should be noted that the non-commeraters fell into several groups:

A: Matthewite ecclesiology, that the Patriarchate and State Church of Greece ceased to be the Church and have grace-filled mysteries at the moment of the calendar change

B: The Patriarchate and State Church eventually lost grace at some point, meriting the creation of a synod of Old Calendarists in Greece (the official position of the GOC of Archbishop Chrysostomos II - which seems to only be sutbly different than the Matthewite position).

C: The ecclesiology espoused presently by Metr. Cyprian of Oropos and Fili that while wrong in its position the State Church and Patriarchate retained grace in their mysteries but have lost their authority to govern the Church, hence the creation the Old Calendarist Synod. 

D: Ceasing commoration out of protest for the actions of the Patriarchate and State Church but never truly severing communion with either.  Eventually most (if not all) in this group returned to commorating the Patriarch including Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios and Elder Joseph while still believing ecumenism and the new calendar are incorrect. 

Also I don't think the other actions of this patriarch are isolated from the case of Esphigmenou.  He forcibly evicted the Russian monks from the Skete of the Prophet Elias on the Holy Mountain.  The ironic part being that had the patriarch a little patience the ROCOR monks would have been restored to communion eventually (or at least so it seems that the ROCOR - MP union will happen).  Now they are at Metr. Cyprians monastery in Oropos with little chance of restoration of communion with the Patriarchate or State Church. 

There is the situation in Estonia where the current EP has supported setting up altar against altar with the established Orthodox jurisdiction. 

There is the current EP's attempt to excomunicate Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem.

There was the recent situation in Thessaloniki - that while the Patriarch was right on the letter of the law, it seemed to smack of a personal vendetta against Archbishop Panteleimon. 

Seems to be either follow the party line or you will be removed. 

As a side note, I do not support the ecclesiology of Esphigmenou - but that doesn't mean I am blindly loyal to every action of the Patriarchate. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2005, 01:48:53 AM »

Everyone I know who has written to His All-Holiness (including myself) with anything which slightly smacked of support for Esphigmenou simply received a booklet outlining the Patriarchate's and Community of the Holy Mountain's arguments for the eviction of the Esphigmenou monks. In my letter, I wasn't actually saying that the Community and the Patriarchate do not have the right to evict the monks, but what I was saying was that we need to look at what the monks of Esphigmenou are saying regarding false ecumenism. I even quoted from "Hymn of Entry" written by the Hegumen of Stavronikita which supports the argument against false ecumenism....and still I was given a stock-standard response about the position of Esphigmenou.....No one in the hierarchy seems to be listening. So I don't think it matters how many people speak up in this day and age, just as it didn't matter how many people spoke up against the false union of Florence, but history has now judged those who resisted as champions of Orthodoxy. And I wonder that His All-Holiness does not fear going down in history as another Patriarch Joseph.
...{now bracing for the onslought of GiC's wrath! Wink}...

No wrath on account of this post, though I may write asking for a copy of this booklet, perhaps it has a few new arguments I can use against the enemies of the Great Church of Christ Wink

However, I will respond to what Silouan wrote, we just couldn't help turning this into another dedicated to the attacking and bashing of His All-Holiness.

It should be noted that the non-commeraters fell into several groups:

A: Matthewite ecclesiology, that the Patriarchate and State Church of Greece ceased to be the Church and have grace-filled mysteries at the moment of the calendar change

B: The Patriarchate and State Church eventually lost grace at some point, meriting the creation of a synod of Old Calendarists in Greece (the official position of the GOC of Archbishop Chrysostomos II - which seems to only be sutbly different than the Matthewite position).

C: The ecclesiology espoused presently by Metr. Cyprian of Oropos and Fili that while wrong in its position the State Church and Patriarchate retained grace in their mysteries but have lost their authority to govern the Church, hence the creation the Old Calendarist Synod.ÂÂ  

D: Ceasing commoration out of protest for the actions of the Patriarchate and State Church but never truly severing communion with either.ÂÂ  Eventually most (if not all) in this group returned to commorating the Patriarch including Elder Paisios, Elder Porphyrios and Elder Joseph while still believing ecumenism and the new calendar are incorrect.ÂÂ  

All of which are guilty of Schism according to the 15 Canon of the First-Second synod, unless of course they believe the Oecumenical Patrirch to be a heretic. However, if that is the case, we must logically conclude that such people maintain a theology that is inconsonant with Christian Faith as proclaimed by Great Church of Christ. And since the Great Church of Christ is perfectly Orthodox in her theology, we must conclude that these people proclaim a faith that is different from the Orthodox Faith, that is in fact heterodox and hence heretical. But, of course, this is unnecessarily splitting hairs since both Heresy and Schism are offences of equal severity, both warranting the sentence of anathema. But great is the mercy of Constantinople, for while she has deposed and excommunicated those who have defied her in hope of bringing about their repentance and return to the Christian Faith she has, thus far, withheld the akrivia of the Law and has yet to deliver the sentence of anathema.

Quote
Also I don't think the other actions of this patriarch are isolated from the case of Esphigmenou.ÂÂ  He forcibly evicted the Russian monks from the Skete of the Prophet Elias on the Holy Mountain.ÂÂ  The ironic part being that had the patriarch a little patience the ROCOR monks would have been restored to communion eventually (or at least so it seems that the ROCOR - MP union will happen).ÂÂ  Now they are at Metr. Cyprians monastery in Oropos with little chance of restoration of communion with the Patriarchate or State Church.ÂÂ  

I'm sorry I missed the part of ecclesiology where we get to commit schism without consequence and mock and defy our bishops at will. The Church is not a democracy and grants neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion. If one is going to defy and schism against their lawful bishop it is only proper that they, at the very least, be cut off from the communion of the Faithful.

Quote
There is the situation in Estonia where the current EP has supported setting up altar against altar with the established Orthodox jurisdiction.ÂÂ  

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot remember the Oecumenical Synod that overrode Chalcedon and took Estonia away from Constantinople in order to it to Mowcow. As I'm certain the relevant canon must just be slipping my mind, I would greatly appreciate it if you could refer me to the appropriate text.

Quote
There is the current EP's attempt to excomunicate Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem.

As is, of course, the right and responsibility of Constantinople as has been demonstarted in her relations with the various Churches of the East since the time of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod. For it is only proper that the 'throne of Constantinople reviews, disposes, and approves the judgments of the other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem and gives them authority, as the holy canons declare plainly and deeds bear witness to' (Patriarch Kallistos of Constantinople in a letter to the Bulgarians establishing the Lordship of Constantinople over their Church, F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, I, 37-439). Furthermore, it is also in line with Constantinople's role as the head and primus of all the Orthodox Churches (Endimousa Synod of Constantinople, February 1593, approved by all the Eastern Patriarchs (W. Regle, Analecta Byzantino-Russica, St. Petersburg 1891, p. 87), please look it up before objecting too loudly).

Quote
There was the recent situation in Thessaloniki - that while the Patriarch was right on the letter of the law, it seemed to smack of a personal vendetta against Archbishop Panteleimon.ÂÂ  

Perhaps the said Archbishop should learn the virtues of Obedience to his Patriarch and Synod. Again, Constantinople not only has the right, but also the responsibility and duty, to maintain proper Canonical order in the Church.

Quote
Seems to be either follow the party line or you will be removed.

Constantinople is very tolerant, as demonstrated by the great range of practices under Her Omophorion, from the rebaptizing of Converts on Mt. Athos, to the more ecumenical practices of the Diaspora or the differences in Clerical dress or the liturgical variations. However, this tolerance does not, and should not, extend to those who would cease to commemorate His All-Holiness, thus entering into Schism against the Christian Church, nor to those who defy the Holy Patriarchal Synod; such schismatics, trouble-makers, and malcontents must be deposed or cut off for the protection of the Christian Faithful.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2005, 03:05:49 AM »

Quote
However, I will respond to what Silouan wrote, we just couldn't help turning this into another dedicated to the attacking and bashing of His All-Holiness.

You fail to differentiate between disagreeing with political view points of the Patriarchate and "bashing."  Believing that ecumenism and modernism are not the path the Church should follow is not bashing the Patriarchate. 

Quote
All of which are guilty of Schism....

None of which was my point.  But you just can't help yourself.  Nothing excites you like hurling anathemas and invectives. 

I do honestly wonder if you have some serious cognitive defect, GiC that completely prevents you from looking at another person's point of view.  While looking at the letter of the law the Patriarchate was right in many of the cases where it has asserted authority under the current EP's tenure, but a pattern of behavior of grabbing power at any cost has been established.  That is how Esphigmenou and others percieve this - right or wrong that is what must be dealt with.  Simply stating that Patriarch Bartholomew is correct because he is Patriarch Bartholomew isn't an argument - any more than arguing that God is real because He is real to an atheist.  I guess it is sad more than anything else that this is the product of your Holy Cross education - surely you must be able to see the world in less black and white terms than an elementary school child?

Of interesting note it is just past midnight here making it Novemeber 15th according to the (Orthodox) Church Calendar - not only marking the start of the Nativity fast, but also the commoration of our Father among the saints, Paisius Velichkovsky founder of the Prophet Elias skete on the Holy Mountain. 

 
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2005, 06:49:23 AM »

GiC,
I have to agree with Silouan, I can't see any "Patriarch bashing" in any of what he has written. I too, morally disagree with the eviction of the Esphigmenou monks and have told the Patriarch as much- but that isn't "Patriarch bashing". You may disagree, and that's fine, but there's no need to over-react and tell people they have no right to disagree....submission of the intellect and will to bishops even in the absence of the assent of faith and despite conscientious objection is in the Roman Catholic code of Canon LawÂÂ  (New Code of Canon Law, Canon 752), not the Pedalion.
In Orthodoxy, "rightly dividing the word of truth" is never taken as a given no matter how senior the bishop is. That's precisely why our liturgical prayers for our bishops seek this from God. Commemorating our bishops is not an acknowledgement that they are infallible divine oracles, but we offer prayers that they may "rightly divide the word of truth". The reality is, sometimes they don't.
For this reason, while I agree with those opposed to false ecumenism, I also disagree with not commemorating the bishop as a protest, since, if we think the bishop is in error, it is all the more our duty to pray for him. I remember Eler Pasisios once being asked what he thought of Patriarch Athenagoras, and he replied "May the Lord grant the Patriarch many years."ÂÂ  Which, if you think about it, is what a Patriarch in error needs- time for repentance.

And one more point:
If one is going to defy and schism against their lawful bishop it is only proper that they, at the very least, be cut off from the communion of the Faithful....<snip>.....tolerance does not, and should not, extend to those who would cease to commemorate His All-Holiness, thus entering into Schism against the Christian Church, nor to those who defy the Holy Patriarchal Synod; such schismatics, trouble-makers, and malcontents must be deposed or cut off for the protection of the Christian Faithful.
Then shouldn't the entire Holy Mountain have been excommunicated? After all, they were all non-commemorators at some point between 1924 and 1971- including Elder Joseph and Elder Paisios.

« Last Edit: November 28, 2005, 07:38:51 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2005, 09:22:44 AM »

To slightly skew this off topic and then return. GiC you need to be less legal interpretive of the cannons and more open to what they represent and what the idea is behind them. Sure if you want to go around quoting cannons based on their face value, then I guess 95% of the church would be excommunicated for one reason or another... But I don't believe hard line legal code was the idea of cannon law, but more as guidelines that the church can use as necessary. With that in mind back to the topic:

I can understand the reasons behind the Esphigmenou monks' actions, and I sympathize. It appears from the look of things that the EP just doesn't want to listen to any other points of view. He wants to promote what the EP's stance is and if you don't like it anyway with you. Where did tolerance go? If you want to disagree and debate what views of the monks, why not meet them and see what they have to say first and then present your views in an organized manner. More like a debate and less like a "I'm taking my ball and going home" discussion.

I think that was pretty nice considering some of my past posts.  Tongue
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2005, 09:12:45 PM »

You fail to differentiate between disagreeing with political view points of the Patriarchate and "bashing."ÂÂ  Believing that ecumenism and modernism are not the path the Church should follow is not bashing the Patriarchate.ÂÂ  

I fail to see a substantial difference between attacking the Patriarch repeatedly for many lawful and canonical actions and 'bashing.' With so many here it seems that no matter how lawful, canonical, and justifiable the actions of the Patriarch are, he will be attacked whenever he tries to institute even a semblance of order and discipline in the Church at large or even within his Immediate Jurisdiction (e.g. Mt. Athos). This was exactly the nature of your attacks against His All-Holiness.

Quote
None of which was my point.ÂÂ  But you just can't help yourself.ÂÂ  Nothing excites you like hurling anathemas and invectives.ÂÂ  

Just trying to demonstrate how serious the situation is, many here seem to take the issue of schism far too lightly when it is as bad as, or more to the point worse than, heresy or apostasy.

Quote
I do honestly wonder if you have some serious cognitive defect, GiC that completely prevents you from looking at another person's point of view.

That's right, when rational arguments fail let's attack my intelligence and competence, since if I can be demonstrated to be a real ignorant person my arguments, no matter how rational, are automatically invalid...right...

Quote
While looking at the letter of the law the Patriarchate was right in many of the cases where it has asserted authority under the current EP's tenure, but a pattern of behavior of grabbing power at any cost has been established.ÂÂ  That is how Esphigmenou and others percieve this - right or wrong that is what must be dealt with.ÂÂ  Simply stating that Patriarch Bartholomew is correct because he is Patriarch Bartholomew isn't an argument - any more than arguing that God is real because He is real to an atheist.

Actually he's not 'grabbing power' per se, more accurately he's maintaining the power that he has had rights to since the Fourth Oecumenical Synod. I would strongly recommend the book The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church: A Study in the History and Canons of the Church by Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis. Concerning the perception of Esphigmenou, His All-Holiness has explained the situation and has laid out in detail the history, tradition, and the canons of the Orthodox Church that support his posistion, according to ozgeorge they even have a pamphelt they will send you if you write and ask. The lack of resoulation to the problem is certainly not a result of the lack of effort on the Patriarchate's part, rather it seems to be a result of the monks at Esphigmenou's inability to reason.

Quote
I guess it is sad more than anything else that this is the product of your Holy Cross education - surely you must be able to see the world in less black and white terms than an elementary school child?

Ah yes, blame my posistion and arguments on a poor education, this too should allow you to avoid the real issues...I don't think so.

GiC,
I have to agree with Silouan, I can't see any "Patriarch bashing" in any of what he has written. I too, morally disagree with the eviction of the Esphigmenou monks and have told the Patriarch as much- but that isn't "Patriarch bashing". You may disagree, and that's fine, but there's no need to over-react and tell people they have no right to disagree....submission of the intellect and will to bishops even in the absence of the assent of faith and despite conscientious objection is in the Roman Catholic code of Canon LawÂÂÂ  (New Code of Canon Law, Canon 752), not the Pedalion.

However competancy of the Synod alone, as opposed to lone Bishops, Priests, Deakons, and/or Laymen, to rule on the ethics of the Patriarch's action is part of the Pedalion (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod, see also Canons 13 and 14 of the same). Furthermore, the broad base of Silouan's attacks goes beyond the scope of a mere disagreement with the patriarch on procedural issues, he went so far to suggest that the Patriarch lacked the right and authority to maintain order and discipline within his Immediate Jurisdiction. Now if we want to start quoting canons on that issue, I'm sure I can come up with a fairly long list.

Quote
And one more point:Then shouldn't the entire Holy Mountain have been excommunicated? After all, they were all non-commemorators at some point between 1924 and 1971- including Elder Joseph and Elder Paisios.

While it is certainly true that many may have justly incurred the wrath of Constantinople, as I have said before Constantinople is merciful and grants forgiveness to those who repent and turn from their divisive ways. If the monks at Esphigmenou were to repent of their schism and seek forgiveness and mercy I have no doubt that such requests would be granted them, but forgiveness can only come to the repentant.

To slightly skew this off topic and then return. GiC you need to be less legal interpretive of the cannons and more open to what they represent and what the idea is behind them. Sure if you want to go around quoting cannons based on their face value, then I guess 95% of the church would be excommunicated for one reason or another... But I don't believe hard line legal code was the idea of cannon law, but more as guidelines that the church can use as necessary. With that in mind back to the topic:

This is a fine beginning to a canonical argument, but you're going to have to offer some support for your posistion, what is the purpose behind the canons against schism if not to prevent it? Why does the 15th Canon of the First-Second Synod under St. Photios declare that Heresy is the ONLY Justification for ceasing to commemorate one's bishop? I answer thus: I am most aware of what these canons against schism represent, of the ideas behind them are, to quote St. John Chrysostom,

'Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. Tell me, suppose a subject of some king, though he did not join himself to another king, nor give himself to any other, yet should take and keep hold of his king's royal purple, and should tear it all from its clasp, and rend it into many shreds; would he suffer less punishment than those who join. themselves to the service of another? And what, if withal he were to seize the king himself by the throat and slay him, and tear his body limb from limb, what punishment could he undergo, that should be equal to his deserts? Now if in doing this toward a king, his fellow-servant, he would be committing an act too great for any punishment to reach; of what hell shall not he be worthy who slays Christ, and plucks Him limb from limb? of that one which is threatened? No, I think not, but of another far more dreadful.'

As we see the theology and purpose behind these canons condemning Schism so strongly is that it is a worse crime than Heresy or Apostasy, one's soul would be in a better state if the person were to deny Christ than if they were to enter into Schsim against the Church. This is what the canons represent, these are the ideas behind them; we are not dealing with a simple issue of morality or of sin against one's fellow servant, we are looking at an offence that is worse than Blasphemy or Apostasy, something not to be taken lightly.

Quote
I can understand the reasons behind the Esphigmenou monks' actions, and I sympathize. It appears from the look of things that the EP just doesn't want to listen to any other points of view. He wants to promote what the EP's stance is and if you don't like it anyway with you. Where did tolerance go? If you want to disagree and debate what views of the monks, why not meet them and see what they have to say first and then present your views in an organized manner. More like a debate and less like a "I'm taking my ball and going home" discussion.

Tolerance only goes so far, what ever happened to Obedience? These are Monks that are in a Monastery that is within the Direct Jurisdiction of the Oecumenical Patriarch, after all. The issues have been discussed in a very organized manner, the Oecumenical Patriarchate is probably better than any other entity in the Orthodox Church at doing that, but ultimately the monks are not of equal Authority with their Bishop, they can appeal to the Synod, but the Synod has already ruled against them. At this point it has gone on long enough, they need to either submit to the Canonical Rule of their Bishop or be excommunicated and, as a result, be removed from Mt. Athos, as the law states that only Orthodox Monasteries are allowed on the Holy Mountain, a law that they would be in violation of if they are excommunicated.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2005, 10:47:01 PM »

You claim that Patriarch Bartholomew is merely restoring power that the Patriarchate always had.  Never once in the history of the Church has the EP ever had the power his interpretation of the Fourth council gives it.  The situation of diaspora is fairly new, but even then Moscow had churches under its jurisdiction from the 1800s throughout Western Europe.  The mission work into "barbarian lands" (Siberia, East Asia, Alaska etc) was always Russian and never subject to Istanbul.  Even today the EP has little actual control of the diaspora (which he claims is solely his) - the EP has no actual power to tell any Orthodox jurisdiction to leave the diaspora.  Hence why when put all together the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew do look very ambitious and suspicious.  It also doesn't help either the way Patriarch Bartholomew treated those whom he evicted from Prophet Elias Skete - he could harldy have acted in a less Christian manner.  Schismatics or not, maltreating elderly monks isn't a virtue. 

Based on your comments about Elder Paisios and Elder Joseph it is safe to assume you have no actual knowledge of them from primary sources.  That is why I scorn your Holy Cross education and question your cognitive ability.  It is really quite shocking that someone with a degree from an Orthodox seminary can know so little about such important matters in Church history.  All you really seemed to have gained is an ability to keep to the party line.

As for the charge of schism - neither George nor I have said that we support the ecclesiological position of Esphigmenou monastery.  I see it partly as a human rights issue and partly from a religious perspective. On the later issue if you would just leave the monks alone, not giving them the psuedo martyric attention they crave they may well someday give.  On the former - blockades and such are hardly becoming of the Patriarchate.  So you are hardpressed to say either of us are defending schism.

As to saying that laymen are judging bishops in being opposed to ecumenism - I suppose that would be news to the many bishops in all Orthodox jurisdictions that have spoken against ecumenism.  There are many priests and bishops in the Church that are opposed to the ecumenical movement - are they schismatic?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,076


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2005, 12:26:55 AM »

Based on your comments about Elder Paisios and Elder Joseph it is safe to assume you have no actual knowledge of them from primary sources.  That is why I scorn your Holy Cross education and question your cognitive ability.  It is really quite shocking that someone with a degree from an Orthodox seminary can know so little about such important matters in Church history.  All you really seemed to have gained is an ability to keep to the party line.

I fail to see the basis for questioning his "cognitive ability" in this line of thinking.  And as for scorning the Holy Cross education, he has read about Elder Paisios (in our Pastoral Theology class)... whether or not he wants to apply what he read or didn't read, though, has no bearing on his "cognitive ability" - which would refer to his ability to engage in conscious intellectual activity (such as thinking, remembering, discussing, etc.).  But if you find any basis in this writing to question his cognitive ability, please use references to widely-accepted Psychologists and/or APA-acceptable published research.
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.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2005, 12:55:42 AM »

You claim that Patriarch Bartholomew is merely restoring power that the Patriarchate always had.ÂÂ  Never once in the history of the Church has the EP ever had the power his interpretation of the Fourth council gives it.ÂÂ  The situation of diaspora is fairly new, but even then Moscow had churches under its jurisdiction from the 1800s throughout Western Europe.ÂÂ  The mission work into "barbarian lands" (Siberia, East Asia, Alaska etc) was always Russian and never subject to Istanbul.ÂÂ  Even today the EP has little actual control of the diaspora (which he claims is solely his) - the EP has no actual power to tell any Orthodox jurisdiction to leave the diaspora.ÂÂ  Hence why when put all together the actions of Patriarch Bartholomew do look very ambitious and suspicious.

Well, I wish I could give you the entire history of the Oecumenical Patriarchate since Chalcedon here; however, baring that I will at least present an outline of that history, my primary resource for this is the aforementioned The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Maximos of Sardes.

One of the earliest examples of the authority of Constantinople comes right after the Fouth Oecumenical Synod, during the Patriarchate of Anatolius of Constantinople the patriarch and his synod, exercising their new rights as the ultimate see of appeal, sat in judgment over Patriarch Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria, deposing him for Monophysitism in 458. Anatolius’ successor Gennadius (458-471) would have the deposed Patriarch Exiled and ensure an Orthodox Patriarch, Timothy Salophaciolus, be elected to the Alexandrian throne. While the aforementioned Patriarch Timothy was elected in Alexandria, though under the political pressure of both the Patriarchal and Imperial Thrones of Constantinople, the next example demonstrates the evolution of a more direct role taken by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 518 the Emperor Justin came to the Imperial Throne and with him Patriarch John II would be enthroned as Archbishop of Constantinople. The Patriarch would anathematize Severus of Antioch, a Monophysite who had usurped the Patriarchal throne of Antioch and Severus would be exiled by Emperor Justin. The next event is of significant note, for it would often be repeated in one form or another throughout the history of the Church. The successor of Severus, Patriarch Paul of Antioch was elected in Constantinople and the then Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople would travel to Antioch to personally install Paul.

These events would continue fairly regularly until the fall of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to the Moslems for a short time after which the Patriarchates would operate somewhat independently, though this situation was not to last. But even then the authority of Constantinople was not to wane, for example after the capture of Antioch by the Persians in 611 the Patriarch of Antioch would live in Constantinople, who would be directly involved in their affairs, especially the election, or deposing, of the Patriarch of Antioch. This would continue until the Arabs allowed the Patriarch to return in 742; though later, in the late tenth century when the Empire liberated Antioch, Antiochian Patriarchs would once again be regularly elected and installed in Constantinople. Accordingly, in 1156 when Emperor Manuel Comnenus defeated the Latin Crusaders and once again recaptured Antioch, part of the agreement made with the Duke, Reynald de Châtillion, included the clause: ‘and a bishop is to be sent from Byzantium to Antioch according to the ancient custom’ (Cinnamus, ed. Bonn, p. 193 ‘And he bound himself with many oaths to many other things with the Emperor required, including the stipulation that a bishop should be sent from Byzantium to Antioch'). ÂÂ Likewise, with the fall of Jerusalem to the Cursaders, for a time the Patriarch of Jerusalem would also reside in Constantinople and be directly involved in the Local Synods of Constantinople.

In 1355 there was a conflict between Constantinople and Bulgaria, the latter of which, though being given the honourary title of Patriarch was never listed in the diptychs of the Church for he was not included amongst the five. In spite of this Bulgaria attempted to exercise authority as if it were amongst the five, or at least the equal of Cyprus, which was given rights by an Oecumenical Synod. In response to this we get a significant quote from Patriarch Kallistos of Constantinople regarding the status quo of the day:

‘and if the throne of Constantinople reviews, disposes, and approves the judgments of the    other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem and gives them authority, as the holy canons declare plainly and deeds bear witness to, how is not this throne so much more the lord of the Church of the Bulgarians which was honoured in being named by it?’ (F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani, I, 437-439)

The implications of such a statement, which is clearly supported by the previous historical examples, to Ecclesiology in general and the Diaspora in particular are most manifest.

The next era of the Church would be the turkokratia, which, as we will see, lead to neither a new ecclesiological innovations nor an alteration in the relationships between the Patriarchates, it would merely continue the Ecclesiological principles that had been practiced by the Orthodox for the last thousand years. From this time there are numerous examples of Constantinople being directly involved in the affairs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, including involvement at the parish level in the latter’s jurisdiction, the Patriarch of which would generally reside in Constantinople.

With the conversion of Grand Prince Vladimir in the tenth century the Rus came into the picture, Russia was directly under the Patriarch of Constantinople until the schism of Moscow in the fifteenth century, though the Archbishop of Kiev would still remain under the Oecumenical Patriarchate until 1654 when Little Russia was subjugated by the Tsar of Moscow. During this schism Constantinople’s authority would be challenged, but eventually reemphasized and renewed. This can be first seen in 1590 with the reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow, in January of that year Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople would personally install Job of Moscow as Patriarch; this service was accompanied with the repeating of the prayers of consecration, for the previous episcopal ordination would have been regarded as invalid. When Patriarch Jeremias II returned to Constantinople in May he convoked a synod to ratify his elevation of Job of Moscow to the office of Patriarch. In ratifying the action of the Patriarch of Constantinople this synod, consisting of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem and eighty one metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, decreed in their Tomos,

‘so that he (Moscow) may have as head and source the Apostolic throne of Constantinople, as do the other patriarchs.’ (K. Delikanes, III, 24-26)

After this Moscow objected to being listed fifth in the diptychs and desired to be third, after Alexandria and before Jerusalem, yet this was not to be. In February of 1593 another synod, this time with Patriarch Meletius of Alexandria present as well as a delegate of the Tsar, met and issued another Tomos, decreeing that Moscow ‘is to be numbered with the other patriarchs, and is to rank and be commemorated after the Patriarch of Jerusalem; he is to be obliged to commemorate the name of the Oecumenical Patriarch and the other patriarchs and to hold and regard as his head and primus the Apostolic throne of Constantinople, as do the other patriarchs.’ (W. Regle, Analecta Byzantino-Russica, St. Petersburg 1891, p. 87)

This event and the lawful and canonical decrees did not end the influence of Constantinople over Moscow, in 1654 Patriarch Nikon of Moscow sent twenty seven questions to Patriarch Païsius of Constantinople seeking guidance, in 1665 the Patriarch of Constantinople convoked a great synod to answer these questions of the synod of Moscow. Of particular interest to this subject is the synodal response to question eight:

‘Question: Whether the judgments of the other churches are always taken on appeal to the Constantinopolitan throne, and whether each ecclesiastical case is finally settled by him.

Answer: This was the privilege of the Pope before the Catholic Church was split by false pretension and contumacy. Since he seceded, cases from all churches have been referred to the throne of Constantinople and have been resolved there, as the Oecumenical patriarch, according to the canons, has primacy equal to that of Old Rome. That this privilege has been transferred to the Oecumenical throne, you may learn from many things, not least from the commentaries of the great Nomicus, which say…and from Balsamon: “The privileges prescribed for the Pope are not exclusively his but are inferred also for the Patriarch of Constantinople.’ Now that the Bishop of Rome has broken away from the Catholic Church, they apply only to the Oecumenical throne. If the other patriarchs chance to agree on an important question, their decision shall be unalterable.’ (K. Delikanes, III, 93-118)


Now this is, of course, just a very brief and general outline, I would recommend aforementioned book for a more detailed outline of the History, though by no means complete. The fact of the matter is that the Rights that Constantinople now asserts are long established Rights, hardly new innovations.

Quote
It also doesn't help either the way Patriarch Bartholomew treated those whom he evicted from Prophet Elias Skete - he could harldy have acted in a less Christian manner.ÂÂ  Schismatics or not, maltreating elderly monks isn't a virtue.

All they had to do was repent and return to the fold and all would have been forgiven, it is their own stubborness and schism that brought about their hardships, not the Oecumenical Patriarch. Since they could have prevented all of this trouble with a few words, I fear I have no sympathy for them.

Quote
Based on your comments about Elder Paisios and Elder Joseph it is safe to assume you have no actual knowledge of them from primary sources.ÂÂ  That is why I scorn your Holy Cross education and question your cognitive ability.ÂÂ  It is really quite shocking that someone with a degree from an Orthodox seminary can know so little about such important matters in Church history.ÂÂ  All you really seemed to have gained is an ability to keep to the party line.

I have read what I was required to for class about them, I'm personally not very impressed, but I'm not generally given to hero worship either, so perhaps it's just my personality; the fact that I dont fall head over heels in love with everything I read does not, however, say anything about my cognitive ability, one way or another. Thus, I can hardly see what is so important about their minor schism, it's certainly not a vital issue of Church history when compared to the challenges of the past from Ariansim to Iconoclasm to the Great Schism to the Fall of the Empire. What is important and notable about these figures is that they are examples of people who fell into the sin of schism, but realized the error of their ways, they repented before God and their Bishop and were forgiven. A Mercy and Forgiveness that will be extended to all who repent and return faithfully to the flock of the Great Church of Christ.

Quote
As for the charge of schism - neither George nor I have said that we support the ecclesiological position of Esphigmenou monastery.ÂÂ  I see it partly as a human rights issue and partly from a religious perspective. On the later issue if you would just leave the monks alone, not giving them the psuedo martyric attention they crave they may well someday give.ÂÂ  On the former - blockades and such are hardly becoming of the Patriarchate.ÂÂ  So you are hardpressed to say either of us are defending schism.

From a religious perspective, they're in schism and liable to the discipline their Bishop, the Oecumenical Patriarch, finds appropriate, unless of course you believe there is some notion of religious freedom in the Church that allows schism to go unanswered. Concerning the human rights issue, as I said above I have very little sympathy since they could make all the trouble to go away with a few words said in obedience and humility. Greece has religious freedom, the Holy Mountain does not, if they wish to become Orthodox again and be loyal to their Bishop they can stay, otherwise their presence is illegal and they should be removed, by force if necessary.

Quote
As to saying that laymen are judging bishops in being opposed to ecumenism - I suppose that would be news to the many bishops in all Orthodox jurisdictions that have spoken against ecumenism.ÂÂ  There are many priests and bishops in the Church that are opposed to the ecumenical movement - are they schismatic?

Actually, my statement was that a lone Bishop, Priest, Deakon, or Layman does not have the right to judge a Bishop on issues of ethics, or Church practice, this judgement is reserved to the Synod alone. As to whether or not they are schismatic that depends, have they a) stopped commemorating their primate or b) been excommunicated/deposed by their synod?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,420


« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2005, 03:25:46 AM »

Actually, my statement was that a lone Bishop, Priest, Deakon, or Layman does not have the right to judge a Bishop on issues of ethics, or Church practice, this judgement is reserved to the Synod alone. As to whether or not they are schismatic that depends, have they a) stopped commemorating their primate or b) been excommunicated/deposed by their synod?

Forget ye Florence?  It seems many Bishops were certainly judged by laymen (and women).  Fortunately for them (the Bishops), they repented.  Whether this judgment was formal or not is irrelevant.  It was the mind of the Church working.

As lofty as a title his All-Holiness has, he still a Bishop and fallible human being.  All those statments (St. Basil?) about the path to Hell having Bishops heads as lampposts applies to every Primate of every Church as well.  No one is beyond reproach save Christ (and I suppose the Theotokos).

Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2005, 04:39:33 AM »

Forget ye Florence?ÂÂ  
Verily it seemeth so....
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2005, 05:46:57 AM »

However competancy of the Synod alone, as opposed to lone Bishops, Priests, Deakons, and/or Laymen, to rule on the ethics of the Patriarch's action is part of the Pedalion (Canon 15 of the First-Second Synod, see also Canons 13 and 14 of the same).

I fully agree, but who is judging their ethics? I thought we were talking about their Orthodoxy. One can be ethical and not Orthodox in doctrine. The same Canon (XV) also says that those who withdraw from Communion with their bishop because he teaches a heresy condemned by "the Holy Synods or the Fathers........have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions." So your insistence that the non-commemorators are condemned by the Canons is merely an opinion based on your opinon of the Patriarch. The non-commemorators opinion is that he is teaching a condemned heresy of ecclesiology. The wheel is still in spin since the situation is not clear yet, GiC. The Canon you say condemns them may turn out to be their crowning glory. Neither side can speak definitively or claim authority and victory by virtue of the Canons alone yet.
These are far from normal circumstances, as were the circumstances in Florence when the Synod held the same opinion as the Patriarch, and both were wrong. And I know you hate the example of St. Mark Evgenikos being brought up, but that is prcisely what happened, one bishop ruled on the Orthodoxy of not only the Patriarch but the Synod.....in apparent "opposition" to the Canons. A lone voice of a lone Bishop whom we now hymn as "the Atlas of Orthodoxy" spoke out against the decision of the Patriarch and the Synod- his actions were in defiance of the Synod and in defiance of the Patriarch. I repeat, it is never taken as a given in Orthodoxy that a Bishop "rightly divides the word of truth", and nor should it ever be. We are all responsible together for the Church, and we are all responsible together to preserve Orthodoxy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2005, 09:59:04 AM »

I fully agree, but who is judging their ethics? I thought we were talking about their Orthodoxy. One can be ethical and not Orthodox in doctrine. The same Canon (XV) also says that those who withdraw from Communion with their bishop because he teaches a heresy condemned by "the Holy Synods or the Fathers........have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions." So your insistence that the non-commemorators are condemned by the Canons is merely an opinion based on your opinon of the Patriarch. The non-commemorators opinion is that he is teaching a condemned heresy of ecclesiology. The wheel is still in spin since the situation is not clear yet, GiC. The Canon you say condemns them may turn out to be their crowning glory. Neither side can speak definitively or claim authority and victory by virtue of the Canons alone yet.

I already covered this situation in a post above, if these people truly profess a theology that is contrary to the Orthodox Teachings of the Great Church of Christ, then let them be Anathematized as Heretics, for their faith is inconsonant with the faith of the Orthodox. What are these heresies? Elevating the calendar to the level of Dogma, which is a heresy of idolatry; or opposing any commerce with our fellow man and desire for reunion with our Christian brethren, which is a heresy of pride. So, perhaps you're right, perhaps we need to end all this conversation about schism and simply anathematize them for heresy, since by their own admission they hold a faith contrary to the Orthodox Faith as Proclaimed by the Great Church of Christ, and all the Orthodox Churches, and thus we must logically conclude that they hold heretical beliefs. For those of us who truly beliefe that, without question or hesitation, the Orthodox Church is taking the correct path and that there will be no change in practice in the future, the situation is quite clear: any argument that Constantinople, and the rest of the Orthodox Churches for that matter, are wrong is beyond absurd, a posistion not even to be taken seriously, it is quite clear the path that the Orthodox Church has taken, a path into the modern world not wanting to become an irrelevant anachronism to the flock they serve, and this is confirmed by the changing politics that are pushing the Church even further in this direction. Those who oppose this move by the Orthodox Church are either ignornat of this fact, or more likely clearly see this fact yet are reacting against the inevitable hoping that some miracle will overturn 100+ years of progress, considering the political climate and future, it won't happen, these people will not be vindicated, no synod will overturn the actions of the current patriarchate like the actions of florance were overturned. That was a different time and place, the political climate was different and the situation was different, the future will not play out in the same way. the best they can hope for within the Orthodox Church is tolerance, they may be allowed to use the old calendar but will not be allowed to prevent others from using other calendars, they may bey allowed to wall themselves off in closed communities, but they will not be allowed to demand their Bishops do the same. So in the end it comes down to this, these fundamentalist groups can either compromise and return in submission to the Orthodox Church, like it seems ROCOR is doing, or they can further alienate themselves, in which case we should change our mindset concerning them, not viewing them as schismatic elements of the Orthodox Faith, but rather simply viewing them as another Religion, like the Lutherans or Anglicans, and deal with them accordingly.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2005, 12:21:25 PM »

I'm moving this over to faith, where chris can handle anyone who gets out of line Smiley

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,420


« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2005, 12:51:17 PM »

I already covered this situation in a post above...
No you didn't - you just repeated the same party line response.

What are these heresies? Elevating the calendar to the level of Dogma, which is a heresy of idolatry; or opposing any commerce with our fellow man and desire for reunion with our Christian brethren, which is a heresy of pride. So, perhaps you're right, perhaps we need to end all this conversation about schism and simply anathematize them for heresy, since by their own admission they hold a faith contrary to the Orthodox Faith as Proclaimed by the Great Church of Christ, and all the Orthodox Churches, and thus we must logically conclude that they hold heretical beliefs. For those of us who truly beliefe that, without question or hesitation, the Orthodox Church is taking the correct path and that there will be no change in practice in the future, the situation is quite clear: any argument that Constantinople, and the rest of the Orthodox Churches for that matter, are wrong is beyond absurd, a posistion not even to be taken seriously...
But this is YOUR opinion!  And we are not talking about the rest of the Orthodox Churches, but Constantinople.  What is absurd is your stubbornness in refusing to believe that the EP could err, that the Esphigmenou Monastery may actually be mistreated, that the position of the Esphigmenou Monastery could actually have some valid points.  You talk about Canon this and Canon that, but flaunt it around like some legalistic judge.  You use the Canons as an excuse to be ignorant on other, possible more important topics.  Isn't this how the Pharisees thought?

...it is quite clear the path that the Orthodox Church has taken, a path into the modern world not wanting to become an irrelevant anachronism to the flock they serve, and this is confirmed by the changing politics that are pushing the Church even further in this direction.
Why don't you read what you write to yourself several times before posting.  This sounds like a bunch of modern Roman Catholic ecumenistic drivel.  You should know better than this.

FWIW, from what I know, I think I agree with most of what Esphigmenou Monastery believes, but that they are being disobedient and should be evicted.  If they really think his All-Holiness is that bad, then why don't they just leave and go to a monastery NOT under his Omophorion (like somewhere on the Greek mainland).  Now, the physical manner of this blockade or whatever sounds like it is not being handled right either.
Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2005, 12:59:16 PM »

 What is absurd is your stubbornness in refusing to believe that the EP could errÂÂ


Sounds like Infallability of the Pope to me (in an orthodox setting of course)  Grin
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2005, 02:26:54 PM »

Quote
A Mercy and Forgiveness that will be extended to all who repent and return faithfully to the flock of the Great Church of Christ.

Hmm...I'm pretty sure that the Patriarchs of Moscow, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are not part of the EP's flock, so does that mean that they all need to repent and return as well?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,420


« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2005, 03:06:18 PM »


Sounds like Infallability of the Pope to me (in an orthodox setting of course)ÂÂ  Grin

exactly
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2005, 05:27:20 PM »

Quote
I'm moving this over to faith, where chris can handle anyone who gets out of line Smiley

gee....thanks  Roll Eyes
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,446


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2005, 05:29:26 PM »



gee....thanksÂÂ  Roll Eyes
hehe. Well, it wasn't going to get moderated in Christian News! LOL
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2005, 06:21:05 PM »

if these people truly profess a theology that is contrary to the Orthodox Teachings of the Great Church of Christ, then let them be Anathematized as Heretics, for their faith is inconsonant with the faith of the Orthodox.

Perhaps they are not "anathematized" as you ask, because Esphigmenou are the true ecumenists seeking reconciliation in the Orthodox Church. Perhaps it is those who are opposed to false ecumenism and common worship with the heterodox (as forbidden by the Canons you so often refer to) who are in fact the more forgiving and tolerant, waiting and hoping for the repentance of those in error.ÂÂ  Although the Church is not a democracy, neither does "might make right" in the Church. Nor could those opposed to heretical Synods depose them even if they wanted to. Who can anathemetize a Synod other than a Synod? But it should never even come to this.
If the Ecumenical Patriarchate is truly "ecumenist" in the good sense of the word, why does it dialogue with the Latins and Protestants and yet refuse to dialogue, or even listen to, those within it's own Church? Why can it send envoys to sign "Agreed Statements" with Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians, yet not even discuss the concerns people have within her own Church who ask the EP to explain how her stance on the issue of ecumenism is truly Orthodox in ecclesiology?
The reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP has happened though mutual repentance and forgiveness which started with dialogue. It was not unilateral as you suggest.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2005, 06:41:25 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2005, 09:02:26 PM »

GiC's reply really speaks for itself - apparently it is ok to maltreat people if they don't agree with Istanbul.  That is a Papal concept, not Orthodox.  You can twist history however you want, but NEVER once in the history of the Church have all of the barbarian lands been subject to the EP.  You really are someone with no personal convictions - you simply say whatever the group in power wants to hear. 
Logged
Tags: Traditionalism and The Church Ecumenical Patriarchate Black Bart persecution Esphigmenou starve steal Church using Secular powers GOC 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.187 seconds with 71 queries.