We could have titled this “Why It’s Impossible any more to Divorce Politics from Religion”.
Anyway, the instability of Ukraine as a nation-state in its own right appears to be crumbling before our very eyes. This of course bodes ill for the newly-minted Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), the uncanonical body birthed by President Petro Poroshenko and His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.
It’s provenance is well known. Formed by the fusion of two schismatic bodies and chock-full of unordained charlatans, it’s not off to a good start much to Bartholomew’s chagrin. Even the Greek-speaking and/or dominated Orthodox Churches are less than enthusiastic about hopping on board Constantinople’s unilateralist/quasi-papalist bandwagon.
There’s not even any unanimity in this regard within his own patriarchate. As noted a few months ago, His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Oxford and Diocleia spoke on Russian television and expressed his concerns. Since then, he’s become even more bold and went on Ukrainian television. His defiant tone against Patriarch Bartholomew has increased significantly:
As for the geopolitical ramifications, that is to say whether Ukraine is even a sovereign nation-state, one needs only to listen to former Vice-President Joseph R Biden:
Now mind you, I realize that great powers exercise this type of authority over client states all the time. Usually it’s done in secret, behind prying eyes. That’s necessary to maintain the usual fictions that are necessary to maintain the international order.
But not our Joe. This poor guy not only can’t keep his hands off of other people, but he can’t keep his mouth shut as well.
As an American who believes in the rule of law, it doesn’t matter whether one is a committed Atlanticist or a rock-ribbed non-interventionist (like myself), such bluster has got to give one pause. If you’re a patriotic Ukrainian nationalist, it must be disheartening to realize that your own president is a puppet to a foreign power. It would be to me anyway.
Regardless, I must believe that once this tape gets more traction, Poroshenko will lose the run-off to his rival. As to those Ukrainians who are sincere Orthodox Christians, it no doubt adds further seeds of doubt as to the canonicity of the OCU.
And of course, as for the Phanariotes, it must lead to recriminations, especially if Ukraine continues to devolve into further instability.
Biden gave Poroshenko the file on Netanyahu on his way out, leading to the current “scandal”
I just saw an article where Metropolitan Hierotheos speaks boldly in favor of Constantinople. http://orthochristian.com/120390.html
To say I am disappointed is an understatement. Meanwhile, Bishop Kallistos speaks strongly against the EP’s Ukrainian tragedy.
I feel like I am living in opposite world.
One of the best books I’ve read on Orthodox Ecclesiology, “The Mind of The Orthodox Church” by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos. Joseph Lipper gives it his two thumbs up.
Mikhail: ” I just saw an article where Metropolitan
Hierotheos speaks boldly in favor of Constantinople.
http://orthochristian.com/120390.html ”
With respect, I think that Ierotheos applies the letter
of the law and ignores the spirit of the law.
Cicero has said:
“Summum ius, summa iniuria est” , i.e.
“The extreme law is the greatest injustice”
Ierotheos mentions the letter of the Canon (=Rule) that
Constantinople enjoys priorities of honor but he
completely ignores the spirit of the Canon (canon 28 of
the 4th Ecumenical council)
Now notice that the very first Church created was that of
Jerusalem, and her first Bishop was Iakovos (Jacob) the cousin of
the Lord. For this Church we sing in Church (Saturday
evening):
“Rejoice, O holy Zion, mother of the churches, the abode
of God; for thou didst first receive forgiveness of sins…”.
How come then that, 4-5 centuries later, Constantinople received the honors and priorities? This was done,
“on account of her being the imperial capital” (Rudder or ΠΗΔΑΛΙΟΝ, translated by D.Cummings 1957, page 271)
And why was that necessary? Saint Nicodemos explains that on page 273:
“the Bishop of Constantinople ought to receive privileges of authority because various Patriarchs and Prelates used to come to the Emperor to beg for his help in their exigencies and it was necessary for them first to meet the Bishop of Constantinople, …to lend them assistance, and through him they were enabled to approach the Emperor…”
Nowadays, Constantinople is not the capital of the country where the King or President resides, and indeed that country has practically no more Orthodox christians. So in the spirit of Canon 28, Constantinople or even the capital Ankara e.g. cannot assist an Orthodox Bishop from the U.S. or Russia or Greece, or even next-door Syria, etc.
Why is Ierotheos completely silent on this?
Ioannis, I’m kinda perplexed about Vlachos. I consider him to be a good man and a stalwart for traditional Orthodoxy. As well as a great thinker and apologist. Having said that, nothing he writes in this letter makes sense –historically, canonically or ecclesiastically.
I too am waiting for a translation. Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Yes George, nothing makes sence, not even from the formal point of view. Vlachos is supposed to be a very formal person. However he has interrupted the formal procedure (waiting for the ad hoc committee) and he sent his letter, anticipating the results. Why? Very mysterious step, and then, as you point out, his unexpected point of view.
The mystery may be solved by the words of Saint John Chrysostom:
– At the end of his life he told the people,
” (the Bishop) who is ordained contrary to his will, for he did not try to get elected, to him bow you heads as you do to John (Chrysostom)” ΕΠΕ Vol.I, pp.149-151.
-” If one tries everything to become a Bishop, then as a bishop he will do everything to keep his throne”
– and a third one from the same Saint:
He did not want to be ordained because he(!) was afraid he would sin with the beautiful “girl”, i.e. the Glory of the Bishop! He was literally kidnapped to the cathedral and swiftly ordained.
So, George, the stakes are very high. We are talking about keeping or losing a throne…
I understand you want a translation of Vlachos’ original letter?
Yes. To be honest, the letter is so sloppy –especially in its historical details–that I’m wondering if it’s a forgery. I wouldn’t surprise me given Byzantine duplicity.
Could be forgery because Hierotheos is respected as good bishop and I was surprised at the circular simplistic reasoning . He has had a run in with a well known monastery though.
Seven (7) days have passed since the letter was written.
Ierotheos has not denied the letter, and it has his signature.
In theory, he may have been induced or somehow “forced’ by “somebody”.
However the fact is that Ierotheos
-is a low profile man, not “shouting”, he is polite, academical, etc
-many people, including myself, like him for this image. Deeper thinking proves a difference from Holy Fathers, e.g. St.Nicholas, and of course John the Baptist who spoke out the truth without any diplomacy.
-in a way he is very diplomatic, keeping equal distances from Bartholomew and anti-Bartholomew views.
-In this way, whatever happens to Church he will be OK with his throne.
-The above words of St.J.Chrysosom apply to all bishops.
Does anyone besides me find it interesting that OrthoChristian.com, accused by many of being the propaganda arm of the MP, reported the existence of this letter and its substance, along with a link to the letter itself, without making any judgments whatsoever?
Metropolitan Hierotheos premis is so flawed as to be a joke I am sorry to say. It’s a circular catch 22 arguement based on the premis that the Orthodox world of the middle ages is extant and will be for ever. Of course it died, let’s be generous, in 1918 and the memorial was held in 1945 as it were . He then denies and body’ s right to disent by invoking the very powers of Constantinople given by virtue of it’s no longer position in reality. A truly circular arguement with blinkers.
None of this is related to Christ or reality but to a byzantine world no longer existing. If the Church is going to evangelise in the world we need to get rid of this byzantine mythology and its dead hawkers
The one consistency in this entire debate is the complete lack of coherent logic. We are told that the Russian’s claim to “own” Ukraine must be respected as the Russians “owned” Ukraine for 300 years. We are not allowed to overturn that precedent. Never mind that the Russians unilaterally seized control over Ukraine by force of arms, not by the decision of an Ecumenical council. Never mind that the Russian’s seizure of the Ukrainian church overturned the prevailing precedent that the EP ruled the church inUkraine for 700 years prior to that unilateral action. Never mind that the Ecumenical throne never ceded its own ultimate authority over the church in Ukraine to Moscow.
His Eminence repeats the refrain: “this must be accomplished without violence.” His Eminence is a little slow on the uptake. There has been war in Ukraine for years. It is the Russians who have invaded their neighbors, not the other way around.
What is more, the Moscow Patriarchate’s argument that it is the sole “canonical” jurisdiction is undermined by the fact that the MP has flagrantly and repeated violated the very canons it now wants to cite in defense of its claims in Ukraine.
So, by all means convene an Ecumenical Council. But EVERY territorial dispute between the autocephalous churches should be put on trial. If we were to apply the Sacred Canons strictly, Patrriarch Kirill and the entire episcopate of the MP would be summarily deposed and excommunicated.
Wow!!!!! I was setting down for day’ s read and I find a short paragraph!!!!! I agree with u on one thing, they all short circuit the canons and u correct BUT CYNICALLY for wordly out comes of power, yes BUT NOT DOGMATICALLY CLAIMING PAPAL POWER. Just being CYNICALLY corrupt.
Now what is worse I leave to you.
Francis Frost: “Russians unilaterally seized control over Ukraine by force of arms”
1. At that time there was no such nation as Ukraine. “Ukraine” means Borderland, same as in Serbian “Krajina” (pr. Krayina).
2. Indeed it was “by force of arms”, but by the local population itself that rose against Polish-Lithuanian Uniate regime.
3. The reason why EP lost jurisdiction over Russian lands was the apostasy of Constantinople that became Uniate.
Yes you know and it was the Ukraine to use a modern Term thst ASKED FOR UNION WITH MOSCOVY TSARDOM OF TSAR ALEXEI in 17c..
Bishop Kalkistos were has condemed EP, his boss. I have comments elsewhere on the blinkered self serving circular arguement of dead history of bishop Hierotheos.
You are very good at summarizing the EP propaganda. I am thankful that none of the other Churches agree with your mutated explanation.
Indeed.
Francis, as usual your bigotry blinds you to reason. No one is denying that changes can’t be made over time. Everybody however is shocked at the brazeness of Bartholomew’s arrogance.
Francis, your historical illiteracy continues to astound everyone here. Do yourself a favor and pray for your hatred to go away. Then, while in a more sober mood, study history.
Otherwise, you are acting as a foil for the rest of us and only embarrassing yourself.
Notice that Metropolitan Kallistos was wanting to await a Church council. That could take months or years to happen.
Actually, I am okay with that. In the meantime, we all need to exercise patience and need to avoid inflammatory statements.
Indeed.
I would be truly grateful if someone could post a translation of the Metropolitan Hierotheos letter. Thank you!
Martin, one correction. The EP, while under the Turkish yoke, was not Uniate at that time. You are perhaps thinking of the era of St. Mark of Ephesus, more than 200 years earlier.
If the Poles had been more tolerant of Orthodoxy, Ukraine might have never had to joint Russia in the first place.
Solitary Priest: “Martin, one correction. The EP, while under the Turkish yoke, was not Uniate at that time. You are perhaps thinking of the era of St. Mark of Ephesus, more than 200 years earlier.”
I did not say that EP lost jurisdiction over Russian lands during Khmelnitsky Uprising in XVII century. EP lost it earlier during XV century apostasy together with the trust of the Russian/Ukrainian people.
Very a current. When Isidore came back from the Council of Florence and tried to proclaim submission, which it was rather than unity, in Moscow. He was met by total opposition and imprisoned
Most secularist Greeks believe the Council of Florence was derailed so the Russians could have access to the straits through their fellow mongols
Mitch Batounas: “Most secularist Greeks believe the Council of Florence was derailed so the Russians could have access to the straits through their fellow mongols”
It shows how ignorant and brainwashed they are. At that time Vasily II the Blind of Moscow (blinded by his cousin) was fighting civil war for his throne, his principality was barely surviving constant wars with Tartars/Mongols, Lithuanians and struggle with competing other Russian principalities. Access to any sea was a dream.
Black Sea was far away, not speaking about some legendary straits.
Here is the map of Moscow Duchy (craddle of future Russian state) in 1462 at the death of Vasili II:
https://www.wikireading.ru/img/428063_6_i_009.png
Borders marked in Green, to the north Novgorod principality, to the west Lithuanian Duchy, to the south Ryazan principality, to the east Khanate of Kazan.
Mich batounas shows a uninformed prejudice that lowers the level of debate and why although we on opposed sides Sadly, i respect Joseph even when totally not agreeing.
But they were not and are not now either
Here’s an English translation of Metropolitan Hierotheos’ essay on “The Institution of Autocephaly in the Orthodox Church”. It’s an excellent read, from last December 2018:
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/the-institution-of-autocephaly-in.html
Here’s an important excerpt, clarifying the distinction between autocephaly and autocephalarchy:
“autocephaly is understood as self-administration in a system of interdependence of the churches through their unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and autocephalarchy is understood as a tendency not only towards self-administration, but also as the act of establishing independence from the First-throne Church and indeed their Mother Church. And from what we know, such a tendency was cultivated by pan-Slavism with a clear intention of reducing the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but the same also was pursued by various other expressions of nationalism. It is clear from this that I accept the term, autocephaly, within ecclesiological practice as an interdependence and not as completely independence.”
Joseph, that verbiage is so confusing that I can’t make heads or tails of what is meant by the author.
What I do know is that Byzantium has had a long history of duplicity and has always found a way to insert a vowel here and there in self-serving manner.
George you guys in barbarian lands should know your place as the Bulgars were told to mind theirs. New Rome, Old Rome, Third Rome ; For sake of the Church as much as love Rome as city, can we have no more Romes Please.??? ?
He relates the story of the 2009 preparatory commission for the Great Council. Specifically on the topic of autocephaly, the Moscow representative continually undermined the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch and even said “Our Patriarch would never authorize the Ecumenical Patriarch to speak as his representative!” One observer noted that the commission concluded “in a spirit of not just coolness, but literally in frost and ice.”
Metropolitan Hierotheos points out:
“the Ecumenical Patriarch does not act as ‘Pope of the East.’ Beside this, he himself has proclaimed many times that in the Orthodox Church we do not have a Pope. But the synodical and hierarchical constitution of the Church functions on the basis of sacred canons, which means that there is a First-throne Church, which has a coordinating and determining role.”
So the Orthodox Church is both synodal and hierarchal. To undermine either aspect of the Church would undermine the fullness of Orthodoxy in the Church.
Furthermore, he says “When the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is cast in doubt, a role sanctioned by the Ecumenical Synods and the tradition of all centuries has made venerable, then no problem in the Church can be solved.” Essentially, if the hierarchy of the Church is undermined, then we end up with protestant chaos, and synodal relations, such as councils, break down also.
Finally, Metropolitan Hierotheos concludes that the attempts in the 2009 preparatory commission to “undermine the canonical priviledge of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as determined the Ecumenical Synods” was the result of the theory of a “Third Rome”.
Whoops! I meant to post the above comment in relation to Metropolitan Hierotheos’ second essay, as below.
Joseph,
here is my initial comment at 2:14 that got lost
Ioannis says
April 18, 2019 at 2:14 am
Joseph Lipper says
April 17, 2019 at 12:34 pm
quote
My feeling is one of sadness and disgust that Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory
and his Power.” I see no evidence of this.
quote
A very easy piece of evidence is his donating “the holy Koran” when he knows the book rejects the very foundations of the Church.
I asked you what is your feeling about him, not about may words,
but very cleverly you deflected my question.
Joseph Lipper says
April 17, 2019 at 12:34 pm
QUOTE
My feeling is one of sadness and disgust that Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.”
UNQUOTE
That’s interesting Joseph,
how come you don’t feel sadness and disgust when you see Bartholomew
flying all the way from Turkey to the U.S. to visit the Orthodox parishes,
but he then devotes a whole day for a visit to a multinational drink company in Texas where he also donates “the holy koran”?
“Joseph Lipper says
April 17, 2019 at 12:34 pm
Ioannis,
My feeling is one of sadness and disgust that Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.” I see no evidence of this…”
Ok Joseph here is one more piece of evidence:
In the so-called synod in Crete in 2016, Bartholomew was the only Patriarch to have a BODYGUARD inside the Church during ceremonies, although the Church was locked, and all the people inside had strictly personal invitations.
Now please watch the movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLN13PzNSI8&feature=youtu.be&t=368 from 6:08.
Immediately behind Bartholomew there comes a muscular bodyguard to protect him and him alone. The other Patriarchs were not important enough.
Joseph, does that remind you of our Lord?
I wonder whether the pope does such things. I know the Pope only may use the special armored car, no other bishops! Isn’t that a papal similarity or analogy of Glory and Power?
Somebody told me that Bartholomew was afraid for his safety.
But if he is Pan-agio-tatos (Pan-most-holy, two degrees more superlative than just “Holy God”) then he is not afraid of the bodily death, he would go straight to Christ’s arms, or wouldn’t he?
You will see the subtle psychological ceremonial effect of who is the “First between equals”
Joseph are you now convinced or do you want me to give you more evidence?
Ioannnis, Patriarch Kirill has bodyguards in the altar with him when he serves. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Pope in Rome has those fancy Swiss bodyguards in colorful uniform brandishing swords when he serves at the Vatican. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that either. My parish has a couple of men “carrying” at Divine Liturgy. I’m thankful they do.
Joseph,
After my message at 2:14am was sent
I remembered your own words 5 days ago: https://www.monomakhos.com/biden-and-ware-on-ukraine/#comment-135070
This is what you wrote then:
QUOTE
Joseph Lipper says
April 13, 2019 at 7:40 pm
Patriarch Bartholomew is shown ridding himself of a Koran.
Vladimir Putin also got rid of a Koran to Ali Khamenei. It was a nice gesture:
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2015/11/23/putin-presents-russias-oldest-quran-manuscript-as-gift-to-irans-khamanei
UNQUOTE
WOW! WOW! WOW!
Considering the fact that the Koran is an anti-Christian book,
your text above tacitly implies and/or accepts that both Bartholomew and Putin have achieved the same level of Christian Spirituality or Theology!
You may choose whether:
There just as good, or
just as bad!
WOW!
In each of these cases, that is not good for your Hero.
P.S. You may have guessed, in actual fact it can be shown that Putin has a higher level of Christian Spirituality or Theology than Bartholomew but this is another subject. It isn’t too difficult to figure out.
Ioannis,
My point is that Patriarch Bartholomew’s gesture was like Vladimir Putin’s. It was diplomatic and probably meant to convey in both instances a respect for people of different religious belief. Diplomacy is served to people we disagree with. Neither Patriarch Bartholomew nor Vladimir Putin espouse the “Holy Koran” as truth.
Joseph Lipper: “Patriarch Bartholomew’s gesture was like Vladimir Putin’s. It was diplomatic and probably meant to convey in both instances a respect for people of different religious belief. ”
The difference is that President Putin is a political leader that needs and has to take into account several religions including atheists that live in Russia.
Patriarch Bartholomew is supposed to be an Orthodox bishop and not the ruler of some global Papal State. It appears that he is not interested to do his job properly.
You nailed it, Martin! Even the Tsar visited synagogues. Doesn’t mean he confessed Judaism.
I don’t really care for the MP’S diplomacy with Rome. However, if they were to go full bore St. Mark of Ephesus, I could just imagine the hatred and Russophobia that would ensue.
Joseph, you wrote,
” My point is that Patriarch Bartholomew’s gesture was like Vladimir Putin’s. It was diplomatic and probably meant to convey in both instances a respect for people of different religious belief. Diplomacy is served to people we disagree with. Neither Patriarch Bartholomew nor Vladimir Putin espouse the “Holy Koran” as truth.
So you admit your point is:
Bartholomew donated the “holy koran” for diplomatic or respect reasons.
You are forgetting he could have given the welcome icon of St.George, or madonna and child? Why did he not do it?
Joseph, you know, Bartholomew during his bishop Ordination had to read and state his faith by the well known Creed, “I believe ….etc” This Creed clearly mentions the belief in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
Now Bartholomew was born in Turkey, speaks fluent Turkish, has served in the Turkish Army as an officer, has many turkish friends including Mohamedan clergy. He knows from his whole life there that the Koran rejects the Church Foundations, i.e. the holy Trinity, Crucifiction and Resurrection. EVERY Orthodox clergy is expected to preach thesee truths to all, like Christ preached his Gospel to all.
The bishop, and the Patriarch even more so, has Christ as an example, not the secular people or the Muslims etc.
Where did you read in the Bible that our Lord Jesus Christ donated pagan books to anyone? Bartholomew did this without any hesitation and expects to be addressed (in Greek) as All-most-holy ie TWO grades higher than the “Holy God” we sing in Church. And, indeed, not just equal, but first among other Bishops!
Joseph, are you serious, or is this some sort of joke?
Ioannnis, really, it’s never a good idea to give a Muslim an Orthodox icon. I’m surprised you suggested that.
An important part of Patriarch Bartholomew’s job is to relate to people not only within the Church, but also those outside of the Church.
When can also look at Christ’s example of admonishing us to pay our taxes. The money of Roman times was often embossed with the image of Caesar who was also often considered as a pagan God. Christ said take this money with pagan Caesar, and give it back to pagan Caesar:
“But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Joseph, you wrote,
“…Ioannis, really, it’s never a good idea to give a Muslim an Orthodox icon. I’m surprised you suggested that…”
I am really surprised that you are surprised!
I thought you knew that and many other things.
You don’t know that Muslims do accept Jesus as a (smaller) Prophet only (not son of God)? So they do honor Jesus and his mother Mary and do accept their icon. Also, interestingly, the icon St.George!
You may also remember the film “Jesus Christ Superstar” which was shown in many “Christian” countries. In Turkey it was forbidden because, they said, it ridiculed their “Prophet” Jesus!
In any case my point is that Bartholomew could have donated something else instead of the Koran!
Anyway it’s not YOUR fault, Bartholomew knows all this very well.
But he wanted to donate the Koran and call it “Holy” as well!
Ioannnis, I realize that muslims believe in the Virgin birth of Christ and so do Roman Catholics and Protestants. I still don’t think it’s a good idea to give Orthodox icons to anybody outside of the Church, whether they be Muslim, Roman Catholic, or Protestant. In my opinion, Orthodox icons are truly sacred images that belong in the Church and in our homes, and are not images to be handed out lightly to iconoclasts and strangers.
To take this one step further, imagine receiving the Holy Scriptures from a Muslim as a gift of diplomacy. There are some things that should just not be shared this way.
Are you a lawyer, then, Joseph? I’m glad you acknowledge that the Roman Catholics are outside the church. I’m afraid your Patriarch doesn’t agree.
Gail, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Islam has our ancient Christian churches and iconography held hostage as “museums”. It would be a welcome and wonderful act of diplomacy if they handed some of these “museums” back to the Church.
I don’t see the correlation. The book the CP gave Muhtar Kent was not held hostage by anyone, as far as I know.
Joseph, please understand.
My point is NOT the icons, I simply mean there are hundreds of other different things that Bartholomew could give his muslim “dear friend Muhtar”, they kissed each other a number of times. (I wonder if he would give gifts and kisses to you and me, but that isn’t the subject). But of course Muhtar just happened to be a billionaire and president of a multinational. Does that remind you of our Lord?
Joseph you told me that muslims do not like icons. Do you happen to know whether muslims are allowed to kiss Christians????
Bartholomew is certainly a clever man, he could think of a “clever” gift which would both please Muhtar a lot and at the same time not scandalize the Orthodox people with dangerous ouvertures!) If he could not sort out this little gift problem, how could he sort out the complex problem of Ukraine and thereby cause schism and everyday violence and looting?
Or did it (for some reason) have to be the koran, and explicitly holy?
And why in the world should Bartholomew spend a day in Texas to see Muhtar instead of visiting “his” flock?
You are satisfied with answers for these questions Joseph?
Joseph Lipper says
April 18, 2019 at 5:03 pm
“I still don’t think it’s a good idea to give Orthodox icons to anybody outside of the Church, whether they be Muslim, Roman Catholic, or Protestant. In my opinion, Orthodox icons are truly sacred images that belong in the Church and in our homes, and are not images to be handed out lightly to iconoclasts and strangers.”
The number of old Russian icons that turn up at a local auction here–mostly out of estates in predominantly upper-class Jewish neighborhoods–is astounding.
Joseph Lipper says
April 18, 2019 at 9:04 am
“Ioannis,
My point is that Patriarch Bartholomew’s gesture was like Vladimir Putin’s. It was diplomatic and probably meant to convey in both instances a respect for people of different religious belief. Diplomacy is served to people we disagree with….”
Joseph,
at this point I may go back to your previous important question if I have any evidence that Bartholomew is mainly interested in his Glory and Power.
I submit to your the above reply of yours as one more piece of evidence:
Bartholomew was mainly interested in going to the special event (watch the whole movie) especially organized by the multinational drink company. Why?
He then as you say, wanted to be diplomatic and respectful. Why?
He donated the “Holy Koran” and couldn’t care less whether the book was against tje foundations of Christianity. Why?
He is a clever man; Did he do these things to reduce his Glory and Power or to increase it?
Joseph Lipper says
April 17, 2019 at 12:34 pm
quote
My feeling is one of sadness and disgust that Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.” I see no evidence of this.
quote
A very easy piece of evidence is his donating “the holy Koran” when he knows the book rejects the very foundations of the Church.
I asked you what is your feeling about him, not about may words,
but very “cleverly” you deflected the question.
Come on Joseph, speak up!
My feelings are that just as i do not wait for a Muslim friend to give me a copy of the Gospels, so they do not wait for me to give them a Koran. Yes Muslims today know more of the things of Christianity than many Christians.
I have Muslim colleagues and some friends and we respect each other but do not engage in theatricals.
They used to visit me on Easter bearing gifts and I would make social call end of ramidan with sweet for the kids. Full stop. We both knew what we believed. Yes I respected their right to their belief as they to mine
You cannot respect false belief. Period. You can respect the Moslem, the Hindu, the Jew, as a human being, as a man in the image and likeness of God. I would say, yes, be friendly, talk, shake hands. But be very careful. Of course, they know a lot about Christians. I have heard Imams speak on radio about how important it is to greet “Christian Friends” on Christmas. But they are also told privately not to befriend Christians and Jews. They believed in the noble lie long before the Nazis and Communists came along.
Sure, I go out in public with a riassa and kamilavka, and I have Moslem men say, “Hi, Abouna.” I think they do give a grudging respect for traditional appearance. Respect non Christians as humans. Pray for them. But never respect false belief.
Joseph Lipper: “clarifying the distinction between autocephaly and autocephalarchy”
Fascinating, the parapapal heresy of Arhondonism is forming before our eyes.
The follow up article by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos on “The Debate Over the Declaration of Autocephaly”, also in English translation. This one gets even better:
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/12/the-debate-over-declaration-of.html?m=1
Joseph, leaving aside for a moment that the ecclesiological protocols described by Vlachos are rather novel, I must direct you to Article 3, bullet points b & c as to how autocephaly is promulgated.
Long story short: it is done by consensus of all local churches. The EP is merely a facilitator of said consensus.
Mind you, this protocol which Vlachos describes is unremarkable in and of itself, i.e. it promotes no new heresy or scandalous novelty per se and I would not be averse to a future, legitimate Ecumenical Council ratifying it but it is not the nature of things as they are presently.
Regardless, given Vlachos’ own interpretation (3.b, 3.c) it flies directly in the face of Bartholomew’s own self-understanding and actions as have taken place in Ukraine.
Interestingly, Metropolitan Hierotheos makes the comment that “unanimity” is a rather novel concept in Ecumenical Councils, and although it might sound nice, it actually prevents decisions from being made, and there is no precedent for it.
Joseph Lipper: “unanimity” is a rather novel concept in Ecumenical Councils, and although it might sound nice, it actually prevents decisions from being made, and there is no precedent for it
Indeed, at the Council of Ephesus, there was no unanimity at the start, but EP Patriarch was found guilty of heresy, removed from his see and the unanimity was restored. Some years later at Chalcedon Council, Nestorius was anathematized for a good measure. Glory be to God!
Interestingly, Joseph, Metropolitan Hierotheos has this to say in “The Mind of the Orthodox Church.” In Chapter Two, under “Definition” and characteristics of the Churc2, we read,” Of course, we cannot do away with the nations and the native lands, but we can do away with nationalism, which is a heresy, a great danger to the Church of Christ.”
Church, correction
Yes, he writes, “we cannot do away with the nations and native lands but we can do away with nationalism, which is a heresy, a great danger to the Church of Christ.”
When the Church accepts all nations and peoples, it doesn’t properly demand they take on a different national identity. That would be nationalism. We see that Patriarch Bartholomew isn’t trying to turn Ukrainians into Turks or Greeks. Granting autocephaly to Ukraine also breaks any misconceptions that the Orthodox Church is trying to “Russify” them.
Nationalism is problematic when one nation denies the national identity of another, or tries to “do away with the nations and native lands” of others. That’s an aggressive nationalism. I believe that is what Metropolitan Hierotheos is referring to as the “great danger to the Church of Christ.” The unapologetic Russian annexation of Crimea is an example of aggressive Russian nationalism.
Joseph, the Crimea historically was never part of Ukraine. Khrushchev “gave” it to Ukraine in 1954. That was a meaningless gesture, since both Ukraine and Russia were then part of the Soviet Union. Crimea not only was never part of Ukraine historically, it has the smallest Ukrainian speaking population of any area in what used to be the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
I don’t see your Patriarch addressing the rights of Slavs and Albanians in Northern Greece. Why, in Greece, the existence of a Macedonian language is denied, except in proclamations prohibiting its use!
Look, I’d like to see a Pan Celtic Kingdom of Scotland and Ireland, but it ain’t gonna happen. Not only do you have two types of Scots, and two types of Irish, but you have the Eastern Islands of Scotland, which never were Celtic nor ever spoke Gaelic. They would actually identify more with Norway, not surprising, since a Norse language was spoken there until about 200 years ago.
You don’t set up a rival church organisation on someone else’s territory, and than talk about negotiating. Ask yourself also, why the West is suddenly so concerned with Ukraine? I didn’t see much concern when the Soviets crushed Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. We didn’t stand up to Khrushchev over Hungary, nor Brezhnev over Czechoslovakia. But we meddle in Ukraine.
Solitary Priest,
I don’t think anyone really denies that Crimea had a long history as being part of Russia and is still predominantly inhabited by people identifying as Russian. Nonetheless, it was an acknowledged part of an independent Ukraine for almost 25 years. For Russia to suddenly take it back, there needs to be compensation given to Ukraine in exchange
It seems reasonable to me that Russia could at least acknowledge the OCU in some canonical capacity in exchange for Crimea. There has to be some give for Russia’s take.
Joseph, and yet, the EP in particular refuses to acknowledge the United States as a true nationality, Greek, Greek, Greek and more Greek. God help us.
He relates the story of the 2009 preparatory commission for the Great Council. Specifically on the topic of autocephaly, the Moscow representative continually undermined the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch and even said “Our Patriarch would never authorize the Ecumenical Patriarch to speak as his representative!” One observer noted that the commission concluded “in a spirit of not just coolness, but literally in frost and ice.”
Metropolitan Hierotheos points out:
“the Ecumenical Patriarch does not act as ‘Pope of the East.’ Beside this, he himself has proclaimed many times that in the Orthodox Church we do not have a Pope. But the synodical and hierarchical constitution of the Church functions on the basis of sacred canons, which means that there is a First-throne Church, which has a coordinating and determining role.”
So the Orthodox Church is both synodal and hierarchal. To undermine either aspect of the Church would undermine the fullness of Orthodoxy in the Church.
Furthermore, he says “When the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is cast in doubt, a role sanctioned by the Ecumenical Synods and the tradition of all centuries has made venerable, then no problem in the Church can be solved.” Essentially, if the hierarchy of the Church is undermined, then we end up with protestant chaos, and synodal relations, such as councils, break down also.
Finally, Metropolitan Hierotheos concludes that the attempts in the 2009 preparatory commission to “undermine the canonical priviledge of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as determined the Ecumenical Synods” was the result of the theory of a “Third Rome”.
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos Weighs in on the Division Between Constantinople and Moscow
“It lies, first of all, in the theory regarding the ‘Third Rome,’ which says that after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 Moscow became the ‘Third Rome.’ But this is not the case, because historically there existed an Old Rome and a New Rome and not a First Rome and a Second Rome. Since therefore there never was a Second Rome, a Third Rome cannot exist.
“I think it is primarily an ecclesiastical problem, which began at the Synod of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1439 (from which began the pursuit of Moscow to become a new center of Orthodoxy) and went up to the Synod at Crete.”
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2018/10/metr-hierotheos-of-nafpaktos-weighs-in.html
Joseph,
I read this with interest. Thank you.
Lest there be any misunderstanding between you and me, nothing I have ever written, nor any thoughts I have ever expressed on this subject, carry any notions of a “third Rome.” Nor do I (nor, I suspect, most others who comment here) have any issue with the rightful canonical place of the CP. Ironically enough, Archbishop Job Getcha best expressed the truth of the matter, and I agree with him in these words.
“As for the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the all-Orthodox level, they are also interpreted from the viewpoint of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the spirit of Apostolic Rule 34. That is the patriarchs and heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches should know who is first among them, recognize him as their head, and should not do anything special without his consent nor should the head do anything without their consent. The ecumenical patriarch has a right to accept letters of appeal and care for the unity of the church by convening all-Orthodox meetings attended by heads of each patriarchate and autocephalous church (or their representatives) but he cannot decide anything himself, without them, unilaterally.”
We either have a “head” (not of the Churches, but of the Church’s bishops in synod) who is first AMONG equals or we have the very Papist ecclesiogy we decry as Orthodox. It is really as simple as that. If the latter continues to be insisted upon in practice (however much it is denied in name), it will be the undoing of the CP and the perpetuation of yet more ecclesiological chaos.
Very well put.
Well, the Third Rome theory is gaining preponderance. It is buttressed ultimately by the nature of that city, towit: is it a Christian city? The First Rome is in heresy. The Second Rome is Islamic. Only the most rabid propagandist believes otherwise. Indeed, its patriarch has long existed at his Moslem overlord’s pleasure. Although Bartholomew’s tenure has been longer than most, it is no different in this regards.
When all is said and done, the Third Rome is clearly Christian.
George Michalopulos: ” The First Rome is in heresy. The Second Rome is Islamic. ”
If I may, I would like to make a correction;
According to the ancient tradition, the Rome is the power that prevents
coming of Antichrist.
The First Rome was pagan Rome, the second was the New Christian Rome.
After the fall of the second, this eschatological role was continued either by the Russian Empire (or by the Empire of Hapsburgs from Catholic perspective).
I recommend “Imperial unity and Christian divisions” by Father Meyendorff
Martin, well said. “Rome” is the restraining (katehon) power against the Antichrist. When it is removed, Antichrist will arise.
George, if indeed Moscow was ‘Third Rome’, then didn’t it fall with the abdication of the Tsar, his martyrdom, the Bolshevik revolution, and the creation of the Living Church?
The various prophecies (St. Paisios, St Cosmas, Elder Joseph, Elder Ephraim, and Elder Sophrony) about the re-emergence of Constantinople as if from slumber are interesting because it actually supports this viewpoint that “‘Rome’ is the restraining (katehon) power against the Antichrist.” and that “When it is removed, Antichrist will arise.” Their prophecies all seem to indicate that “New Rome” is not actually dead yet. Nevertheless, we can rest assured that Christ will preserve His Church, no matter how shocking and insane the world becomes.
Excellent points, Joseph.
First, the Tsar did indeed fall as did his restraining power. However like Cpole which likewise fell in 1204 for a little over a century, it too, rose back again. Likewise the Soviet govt fell after 70 years (a tribulation perhaps?). Time will tell if a God-anointed Emperor will ascend to the throne of Russia.
That in no way mitigates against the possibility of Cpole rising again as an ecclesiastical power, one free of Moslem constraints. Cpole can (and should) be a “free city” however it’s difficult for me to see how the present Greek nation can rise to the challenge of empire again. I could envision this if the Russians conquered Thrace and the Ionian Coast however.
That is a hypothetical (admittedly). Russia on the other hand has indeed arisen as a Christian polity and because it has more nukes than anybody else, it is most definitely a candidate for a Christian-based empire.
It’s all about the nukes. That’s was the OCA needs. Then it would get some respect.
For once we agree. “My Kingdom is not of this world,” and it’s definitely not about ‘nukes’ or any worldly power.
A few comments above I saw a prediction about when the “Antichrist will arise.”
I believe that we need to be careful about end times prophecies; they have already caused all manner of distress and confusion among our Protestant brethren.
John Sakelaris: “I believe that we need to be careful about end times prophecies; they have already caused all manner of distress and confusion among our Protestant brethren.”
That is why it is important to stick to the Church Fathers in these matters.
http://orthochristian.com/106805.html
Could not agree more about end of time stuff. All I need to know are the Words of Christ we find in Gospels. Nothing else. Christ did not preached protestant Culture wars either. But then many protestants never read the Gospels do they??
Brian, when Archbishop Job says the the EP does not act unilaterally and “can not decide anything himself”, it seems he is referring to the Church canons and what is approved at Church councils. As Metropolitan Hierotheos says, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate moves within ecclesiastical and canonical norms.” When for example the EP says the Crete Council is “binding”, it seems it’s mainly considered as “binding” for the EP itself. That’s why it’s perhaps unfortunate that the EP was not “bound” by the document on autocephaly that was ultimately dropped from the Crete Council and dropped primarily at Moscow’s request.
Patriarch Bartholomew has made the point that of the fourteen autocephalous Churches, the nine youngest have received their autocephaly from the EP. So for better or worse, this has been accepted as normative for quite some time.
It should be noted that the EP did make a big effort to approach the topic of autocephaly at Crete. The EP also promised Moscow that the topic of Ukrainian autocephaly wouldn’t come up at the council, and that promise was kept. However, given that Moscow was not able to heal the schism by demanding repentance from the “Kievan Patriarchate”, and given that the schism was only worsening after the annexation of Crimea, the EP ultimately acted within established ecclesiastical and canonical norms to grant autocephaly to Ukraine. This action was justified by the EP’s documented assertion that the Kiev Metropolitan was never formally released from his duty to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Primate, and therefore Constantinople still remained the Mother Church.
“As for the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarch on the ALL-ORTHODOX level…
“That is, the PATRIARCHS AND heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches should know who is first among them…
“The ecumenical patriarch has a right to accept letters of appeal and care for the unity of the church by convening ALL-ORTHODOX meetings attended by heads of each PATRIARCHATE AND autocephalous church (or their representatives) but he cannot decide anything himself, without them, unilaterally.”
It couldn’t be any clearer – or true, for that matter, in the sense of established and accepted canonical order. It just happens not to fit the current narrative of the CP.
Regardless of the history (which is almost always messy) and how one interprets it, how is it that Moscow, though ‘autocephalous’ (even by the CP’s convoluted and oxymoronic definition) remains ‘under’ the patriarchate of Constantinople (the “Mother Church” from whom she was supposedly “never released”) while having no representative on its synod – NOT EVEN ONE? That’s a pretty neat trick.
None of this nonsense could withstand the test of another council.
Joseph Lipper: “the Kiev Metropolitan was never formally released from his duty to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Primate”
Beginning in year 1445 AD, Kiev Metropolitan had duty to stop commemorate Ecumenical Patriarchate.
There was a fall from Orthodoxy, but it was later restored. The Metropolitan of Kiev was consecrated in Kiev by the Ecumenical Partriarch in 1589.
After that fell apart when Kiev entered the Unia a few years later, the EP then sent the Patriarch of Jerusalem to Kiev to restore Orthodoxy and the Kiev Metropolia in 1620.
Joseph Lipper: “There was a fall from Orthodoxy, but it was later restored.”
And now it is the third fall from Orthodoxy. (The second one was in 1920s, when EP sided with the Bolsheviks against Russian Church.)
Joseph Lipper (April 9, 2019 at 8:31 pm) says:
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos Weighs in on the Division Between Constantinople and Moscow SNIP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Met. Hierotheos Vlakhos’s ecclesiology, as expressed in the cited documents, is mistaken. Constantinople hasn’t ever had the unilateral authority to make and unmake autocephalous churches That is a process which has had several historical methods employed, all of which were acceptable to the other autocephalous churches already in existence. Asserting that such authority belongs to Constantinople alone is absurd, since there are more ancient churches. In our hymns, Jerusalem is called ‘mother of the churches’ — not Constantinople. It’s been suggesed out that Met.HV might be polishing Constantinople’s apple because he’s afraid that the putative authority he concedes them might be used against him and his church if he disagrees with Pat. Bartholomew’s moves in Russia. This is not a healthy ecclesiology.
Moscow is not attempting to position itself as any sort of ‘third Rome’, not before or since the false synod of Firenze-Ferrara in the 1440s’ The Russians merely rejected Constantinople’s claim to the authority to take all of the Orthodox into a union with Rome, unrepentant of its heresies as Rome was and remains.
It is rather silly to describe ‘Old Rome’ and ‘New Rome’ as the end of the line when it comes to the position of ‘first in honor among the churches’. Old Rome was first, New Rome was second, and we’ll have to see if a third one emerges, _pace_ Nestor the Chronicler. . That’s just arithmetic, and it doesn’t need to be disproved by semiotic inferences which simply aren’t germane to the discussion.
The first Rome lost its honor because of incremental heresy, and the second has done so suddenly in the past but repented. Now, Constantinople’s intractability in ecclesiological affairs is making it seem likely that the other churches will once again deprive it of its honor, too. In terms of seniority, the next-honored church is Alexandria, and it may well succeed Constantinople if present trends continue. Moscow’s larger population is interesting, but not a determining factor in such a shift.
I would be in favor of the Pope of Alexandria becoming first in the Dyptichs.
Well said, Monk James. I intend to address this imbroglio soon. The Assange thing took precedence upon awakening this morning.
George so would I. And as happens current one good man. And be good for middle East. And an ecumenical Council where it’s authority in real world could be spelt out and agreed.
Perfectly stated, Monk James. You saved me the trouble of replying.
“at the beginning of the 20th century the Russian Church itself requested the appointment of its bishop [Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky] as the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Ukrainian lands, and then it did not consider it ‘an invasion of another’s canonical territory.’ Therefore, it is not clear on what basis now the Synod of the Orthodox Church in Russia has changed its position and is trying to deny the Mother Church the right to appoint exarchs to the lands that historically and canonically have been the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate”
https://www.ecupatria.org/2018/09/20/ukraine-has-always-been-the-canonical-territory-of-the-ecumenical-patriarchate/
“the act of 1686 concerned the Ukrainian territories of the Hetmanate, which were temporarily part of the Russian state, but had no canonical influence on other Ukrainian territories, in particular, Transcarpathia, Bukovina, Podolia, Galicia, Volynia, Khan’s Ukraine in the south and Crimea. All these territories continued to remain under the canonical omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
https://www.ecupatria.org/2018/09/20/ukraine-has-always-been-the-canonical-territory-of-the-ecumenical-patriarchate/
“I note that the territory of Ukraine has never been a canonical territory of any other Local Orthodox Church, except the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Metropolis of Kiev was canonically and historically, since its foundation in the days of the first Kievan Christian princes Askold, Olga and Vladimir, and more than 700 years later, was a metropolis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And even after the transfer of part of the Kievan throne to the Russian territories under the temporary care of the Moscow Patriarchs in 1686, Ukraine always remained a canonical territory of the Constantinopolitan Church.
“Thousands of Orthodox parishes and millions of Orthodox believers in Ukraine through this schism all this time are outside the unity with the Universal Orthodox Church, deprived not only of the Eucharistic unity with their Orthodox brethren in faith, but also deprived of the most important thing – salvation in the bosom of the canonical Church. Of course, this cannot cause anything but pain and anxiety in the Mother Church.
“But the events of the last 30 years, and especially after 2014, clearly testify that the internal forces of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine cannot alone overcome the problem of the schism and unite, as it is hindered by external political factors and influences, in particular, by the neighboring Russian state…Probably because of this the Orthodox Church in Russia, under the influence of some political factors, is not able to ensure the unity of the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine, does not seek to dialogue with those who for some reason are outside the canonical church borders, and therefore does not seek to find the best means of the canonical economy for the return of these faithful in the bosom of the Universal Church.”
-Archbishop Job
Now I understand. The Patriarchate of Constantinople (with “pain and anxiety” for the Ukrainian faithful in their hearts) waited 30 years for the Russian Church to solve a problem on the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been responsible.
Brian, you wrote:
“Now I understand. The Patriarchate of Constantinople (with “pain and anxiety” for the Ukrainian faithful in their hearts) waited 30 years for the Russian Church to solve a problem on the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for which the Patriarchate of Constantinople has always been responsible.
Do you also agree with what Bartholomew did in Texas:
“Patriarch Bartholomew at Coca-Cola Center”
Complete video, quran is donated from 32:15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0PSYG30BRY
Please note quran rejects:
The Holy Trinity
the Crucifiction and Resurrection
The basis of our faith.
And then this same man “with pain and anxiety solved the problem of Ukraine”?
How do these things click together?
Patriarch Bartholomew is shown ridding himself of a Koran.
Vladimir Putin also got rid of a Koran to Ali Khamenei. It was a nice gesture:
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2015/11/23/putin-presents-russias-oldest-quran-manuscript-as-gift-to-irans-khamanei
Bartholomew didn’t just “rid himself of a Koran,” Joseph. He presented it to the Chairman of the Caucasus Muslim Board Baku as a present to mark the 60th anniversary of the Caucasus Muslim Board Allahshukur Pasha-zade in full view of delegations from the local Orthodox Churches, the Vatican, and Islamic communities worldwide. Metropolitan Emmanuel handed the Qur’an to Pasha-zade and said the present was a sign of “special respect” from Patriarch Bartholomew I! http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6623
Joseph, you state the similarities only,
but there are differences as well, namely:
-Bartholomew is a Bishop whilst Putin is a politician.
-Bartholomew said the “Holy Koran” but Putin did not.
Let’s be fair in our comparisons!
Ioannis Exactly Bartholomaios is a Orthodox bishop.
Ioannis,
(Tongue thoroughly planted in cheek)
Of course I agree. He is the Ecumenical Patriarch, the first without equals, head of the great “Mother of all the Churches who speaks for all Orthodox Christians in the world. Have you not read, “In the beginning was the Word . . . in him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1.1,4) The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.” ? How could he possibly do anything contrary to the Faith?
Indeed, I now agree with it all. Just as the great Archbishop Job has now convinced me that my mother who loves me and never surrendered her rightful authority over me would leave me in the hands of a neighbor for thirty years , herself suffering great “anxiety and pain” year-after-year over how she felt he was treating me, all the while having the power to retrieve me – only to proceed to blame the neighbor for how I fared in his care and thus claim the right to seize not only me, but his house and his children also.
It all makes sense. How could I have missed it until now?!! How can anyone not see the justice and obvious reasonableness of it all?
Only the most hardhearted and unreasoning person could possibly fail to fall down in gratitude and veneration before such a loving, caring, constant, and thoroughly selfless “mother.”
Thanks Brian.
You know, some (African) natives did not like Protestant missionaries because they preached Christianity but actually wanted to establish a colony.
We now the new MetaPaterical Orthodox B-paradigm:
You preach Christianity, you baptise them and then you apply the “Mother-Church” “Canon” to them and they cannot do anything important without your permission!
Well done B!
(please enter the appropriate name instead of B”
“And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them:
“You yourselves know how I lived among you all the time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which befell me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ… But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God… Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore, be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. AND NOW I COMMEND YOU TO GOD AND TO THE WORD OF HIS GRACE, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.”
How far we have fallen from true apostolic virtue, occupying ourselves instead with territorial rights, worldly glory (wrapped though it may be in the false humility of “sacrificial Motherhood”), and creating strange ‘theologies’ that seek to raise practical matters of housekeeping to the level of dogma and faith… rather than exercising and engendering faith in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Brian,
You’re right, it shouldn’t be about territory, and that’s why I believe the EP was so reticent (almost 30 years) to get involved. Several times Patriarch Bartholomew confronted and admonished Moscow to do something about this. Each time Moscow refused, and after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 things got worse. Ukrainian autocephaly was supposed to come up at Crete in 2016. Moscow begged the EP not to, and they didn’t. How much longer was the EP supposed to wait? Another 10 years? It’s ridiculous.
We’re talking millions of people who were outside of the Church for no good reason other than not wanting to be under the Moscow Patriarchate. It turns out it wasn’t necessary for them to be under the Moscow Patriarchate anyways. Yes, the EP was probably much too patient though, and they should have acted sooner.
Is it possible to be in the Church and be recognized by only one patriarchate? I don’t think so.
It doesn’t really seem so important or necessary right now to recognize Ukrainian autocephaly, especially given the reality of how divided the country is.
What is realistic is for all the Local Churches to at least recognize the real presence of two different Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine. One jurisdiction under the MP, and one under the EP. Nobody has to change the Dyptichs to do this. It should be easy.
Joseph, the Church isn’t big on divorcing a patriarchate from its territorial jurisdiction nor does it believe in plural marriage. Your solution isn’t going to fly. The CP either has to repent, leave the Church or try to rescind the Tomos of Russia, none of which will help his position within the Orthodox Church. The only other option is to unite whatever following he has with the RC which has some jurisdiction in Ukraine. The wound of 1054 would be artificially “healed” for a moment before festering and reopening overnight. That won’t stop him from getting some mileage out of it, though. He’ll be running around the planet telling everyone how he healed the Great Schism.
Joseph, if you are interested in EP remaining within Orthodox Church, you better stop justifying and encouraging its misdeeds.
Gail, it appears to me that Patriarch Bartholomew naturally assumed the Moscow Patriarchate would remain in Ukraine even after he granted the tomos. He even says so. That’s why he made a big point about telling the OCU to respect those who wish to remain in the Russian Church.
I believe Patriarch Bartholomew’s concern was only to bring back those in Ukraine whose refusal to be under Moscow had prevented them from being in the Church. Is submission to Moscow really necessary for Ukrainians to be Orthodox? Not anymore.
“Patriarch Bartholomew’s concern was only to bring back those in Ukraine whose refusal to be under Moscow had prevented them from being in the Church.”
Joseph, this is how your hero Arkhondonis is “bringing” them in the Church. This is who they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvqfZjtkqCs
“Gail, it appears to me that Patriarch Bartholomew naturally assumed the Moscow Patriarchate would remain in Ukraine even after he granted the tomos. He even says so.”
Ahhh…his actions very clearly spoke otherwise.
http://orthochristian.com/117747.html
“That’s why he made a big point about telling the OCU to respect those who wish to remain in the Russian Church.”
And with all his great authority, he has backed this up with…well…nothing. Not even with words. Google “Bartholomew (or Met. Epiphany) condemns/speaks out against church seizures” or any similar combination of search words. It’s rather interesting.
One has to wonder, how he could possibly have expected to be able to hold Poroshenko (you know, the purely secular government official who asked for tomos), let alone the church officials, accountable to its terms.
Any and all arguments of any kind aside, we are left with the fruit of this decision. Has it brought peace to the Ukraine? Has it brought peace to the Church, even if we count the “evil, stubborn MP” as an outlier from what is otherwise peace and concord in the Church? The answer at both levels is a resounding NO. It has sown confusion, division, and discord far and wide.
“But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”
-Epistle of James, the brother of the Lord
Joseph you wrote,
” I believe the EP was so reticent (almost 30 years) to get involved. ”
you are right about the word “reticent’ with the dictionary meaning
“not revealing one’s thoughts or feelings readily”.
Why so?
Bartholomew has been slowly and carefully exercising and developing his power, the right step each time, feeling his way:
A few decades ago, a bishop in Australia said very unorthodox things. Then, the famous Greek Theologian Nikolaos Sotiropoulos rebuked that bishop. Batholomew then excommunicated Sotiropoulos “in abentia” without allowing him to defend himself. Now, Joseph, I am sure you appreciate such a thing does not happen even in atheist state courts. The bishop in Australia was not affected.
This was Bartholomew’s one big preparatory “reticent” step to intimidate any Theologians or Bishops to even think of criticizing him.
Another step say a decade later was to donate the “Holy Koran” and receive the full support of a huge multinational company, I guess you know that already.
So much about being reticent.
Ioannis, thanks, I meant to use the word “reluctant”. Patriarch Bartholomew has shown great reluctance and reserve in getting involved with Ukraine. He has approached Moscow about this numerous times, and it is Moscow that has shown reticence, not wanting to discuss the matter.
Ok Joseph,
let’s make a long story a short one,
let’s make life and discussion easier, and let’s get some conclusions.
From what he has said and done so far: my general feeling is that Bartholomew is mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.
WHAT IS YOUR FEELING?
Ioannis,
My feeling is one of sadness and disgust that Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.” I see no evidence of this. On the contrary, Patriarch Bartholomew is being openly ridiculed, despised, shunned, and now the Russian Church is opening missions in territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Where is this “Glory and Power” you refer to?
Joseph Lipper: “Patriarch Bartholomew is being portrayed as one who is “mainly interested in his Glory and his Power.”
You mean that he is portrayed similarly to Denisenko (self-styled “Patriarch of Kiev”)?
Even in physical appearance and facial expression they seem to be related.
Indeed. I think adoption by our 300 yr old carer might be a good opinion
Well Joseph,
if I am not mistaken, a lot of things have been written here these last days (not from me only) against Bartholomew and guess what:
You do not see anything wrong at all !
In your last comment above you see everything OK because the Pope has done it too! You must be joking!
Since when is the criterion of the Orthodox what the Pope does?
I just cannot believe my eyes what they are reading.
Did Christ have bodyguards?
Did Christ some secular organization like Bartholomew is known as the “Green Patriarch”?
Joseph, our Criterion is Christ, not the Pope.
I do not know about Kirill. Please send me a link with a proof if you can.
The Pope also has the bank of the holy spirit, so that’s ok too?
There have been Popes who said that their words were superior to the words of the Bible, so that’s ok too? Please read the booklet
“Why I abandoned Papism”,
by the Spanish nobleman Fr. Paul Ballester-Convalier:
https://www.impantokratoros.gr/PaulBallaster_Convolier.en.aspx
Ioannis,
I only brought up the Pope’s bodyguards because you commented, “I wonder if the Pope does such things.”
I’ve personally witnessed Patriarch Kyrill’s bodyguards and security detail in Moscow. Patriarch Alexey II also had extensive security when he visited the U.S. in 1991.
Here’s an amusing link that show’s Patriarch Kyrill’s bodyguard jumping in to make sure that His Holiness doesn’t drink from the wrong glass:
https://www.unian.info/politics/10245285-who-was-supposed-to-get-the-glass-video-from-constantinople-talks-raises-questions-amid-novichok-fears.html