What happened to the money they already spent to make it look like this. . .
If they’re going to change it to this?
Honestly, does anybody at this point believe that when all is said and done, the cost isn’t going to be much higher than $80 million? This leads us to another question (or two or three or four): couldn’t this money have been better spent on solidifying the priests’ pension fund or bailing out Holy Cross, or maybe even making it a philanthropic fund that can be directed to parishes that want to set up soup kitchens?
That last thing would have made St.om Nicholas especially proud.
Well when it’s eventually sold or given up on I hope the Russians buy it and turn it into a proper Orthodox parish. I’m not a huge fan of the new Russian parish in Paris, but, it’s better than this.
Also, what a complete and utter narcissistic man:
https://orthochristian.com/127156.html
Oh come on, man. Shouldn’t all faithful Orthodox Christians have pens with Abp Bartholomew’s signature engraved on it?
These pens are a wonderful use of GOA/C’ple funds. Far better than feeding the poor, helping young unwed mothers, building homes for people who need them, etc. If you don’t glorify the Patr of C’ple, then God hates you!
(Heavy snark/sarcasm and satire here, lest anyone think it isn’t. You really can’t be so sure these days.)
Nice for practicing the signature to sign a tomos or two…
I found one of these pens in the parking lot. It looked nice, but the ink didn’t work.
If the Russians buy it, as you anticipate, then Putin will turn it into an intelligence listening post on Wall Street, manned by his FSB trained clergy. It should be a matter of national security that Russia not be allowed inside the wire.
I don’t have any tinfoil. Will aluminum foil work as well?
I’ve found that aluminium foil hats work ok if you need to communicate with or understand them.
This wire?
https://nypost.com/2015/05/24/high-wire-strewn-through-city-lets-jews-keep-the-faith/
That’s not due to the Russians but the parisians themselves. The city wanted something modern.
This is actually a good point, as municipalities have an interest in what is built. There was a lot of negotiations between the GOA and the NYC Port Authority for years over this building. Archbishop Demetrios choosing Calatravas was probably a bargaining chip with the NYC Port Authority. The adjacent $4 billion Calatravas-designed subway station is absolutely stunning:
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/08/29/santiago-calatrava-oculus-world-trade-center-transportation-hub-new-york-photographs-hufton-crow/
Yes it’s a farce. Like u I’m not over loving of New Russian Paris church BUT CHURCH IT is, and much much better than the ground Zero moth ball and has a sort of atrractive feel.
. As to money, well as long as Greek Americans bow to the byzantine farce and put their hands in their pockets, FOLKS THE SHOW GOES ON!! ?
Re. The greek fiasco at 9/11. I think the saddest victims after those killed in the atrocity , are the ordinary parishioners of St Nicholas who almost two decades later, still have no church to worship in, to replace the one they lost..
This to me seems the biggest moral crime of GOA. But them ordinary humble parishioners for like of karloutsos, are cannot foddder, for the use of.
Brother Niko,
” the ordinary parishioners of St Nicholas who almost two decades later, still have no church to worship in, to replace the one they lost”
There may be a silver lining to losing their old Church:
The may have found another church in the area, whether OCA, ROCOR, etc etc. A Church which is interested in the people and not in fancy capital Star Trek multi-faith 2nd floors.
I hope so and probably so re finding another church that lives a Life in Christ.
Are there potential parishioners for this building, living in that neighborhood? If not they should just sell the land.
They should use traditional Orthodox architecture. The glowing dome is particularly repulsive.
The intent to put a prayer room or shrine for all religions in the temple is directly from Satan – this is an ‘abomination of desolation in the holy place’ and a corruption of the worst sort. No Orthodox Christian should set foot in that building if they build it that way.
One way or another they will suffer the fate of Emperor Julian if they persist in building a false temple. Lord have mercy.
Perhaps this is the real reason underlying its continuing failure?
The communists spent 30 yrs trying to build a monument to communism on site of destroyed Christ Saviour Cathedral but the foundations kept on sinking and in end it became a hated outdoor pool where I am told secret Baptism used to happen as people pretended to swim .
The Russian communists tried for 30 odd yrs to build a huge monument to communism on site of Moscow destroyed Christ Saviour Cathedral. Each time the foundations started to sink.
In end became a heated outdoor pool where many Moscovites were secretly baptised under guise of swimming.
There are still members of the parish. Also, the parish can’t sell the land because the parish doesn’t own the land. Chances are the parish will not own the building either. It will become, if not already, a purely Archdiocesan structure, with the old parishioners having no say in its functioning.
I hope it becomes the first newly constructed Pan-Orthodox Church of the United States. Greek-Americans and the GOA should take both their recent and ongoing humiliations as a sign: The time has come to relinquish the “death-grip” on ethnic preservation and segregation while initiating and facilitating an immediate consolidation of all Orthodox jurisdictions within the U.S.
It’s the right thing to do.
George, when it is completed is that a sign of God’s favor?
The St Nick shrine is not a church but rather a symbol of the Greek-American success story. The reason behind the desire to complete the project is not to serve God and His Kingdom, but to eliminate embarrassment to the Grrek community. The Gospel will not be served through the structure.
It looks like a prison.
Looks like a grain silo, on the farm.
Exactly!
Actually, this silo type building is ugly. A silo on the farm is beautiful in comparison.
But, after I posted the above, I showed the ediface to my wife and she agrees that it looks like a sile, I stand corrected.
To me this Calavrita edifice belongs in Alaska … it’s an igloo ! Nothing Orthodox in architecture about it.
Dionysia what u got against Alaska.?? ? Alaska has some wonderful Russian church architecture.
They should pack it up and send it to.Halki
It looks like a pressure-cooker in a crate, which is exactly what it is.
And when it blows…!!!
To me, it really doesn’t matter what it looks like. Remember the early Christians met in homes. I do understand there are certain guidelines to be followed when building an Orthodox Church.. But the real issue is, is this really a structure built to the glory of God or a cheap imitation of the Tower of Babel built to project Hellenism. Orthodox churches are meant to be places of worship, sources of social outreach, presentation of the Gospel, celebration of the sacraments– places that promote salvation and new life in Jesus Christ. I guarantee you, even if the structure looked Orthodox, the vision for the structure does not align with Gods vision for a church.
Except grain silos are beautiful in their functional simpicity. Actually it looks more like the composting tanks seen on pig farms for safely processing pig poop.
May St Nicholas forgive you for your words, and may you visit the Church once completed and repent in the presence of his holy icon. I’m really scandalized by the vitriol on this site. Every word will be accounted for, and comparing a church – any church – to a pig farm rivals the demons infesting the Gadarene herd….
Anon, Michael was talking about the appearance of the building, not the church itself, were it to be a church, which it isn’t now and may never be.
St. Nicholas notwithstanding, I’m guessing the One to whom we will all be accountable will not only pay attention to our words but to how they were used and if anyone is to be found lacking in an exchange like this, it will be the one who misjudged his brother, behind the cloak of anonymity, on a public forum.
Sorry to offend you Anon but the building is flat out ugly. I have seen worse like the RC parish in my town that looked like a Big Mac (that was it’s nick name) on the outside and some big dinner theater in the round on the inside. It has since been torn down.
Actually the composting tanks are rather pretty, usually a deep blue and they turn what would otherwise be dangerous pollutants into usable compost. Would that any parish could fulfill that mission.
A parish filled with the Holy Spirit can transform any building and a bad parish can make any building ugly. So, time will tell
Anon, what’s wrong with you?
I never expected such a post from you.
You really mean to say that St.Nicholas (and more importantly Christ!) will be satisfied with the fact that above their holy icons, on the next floor people will be praying to other “gods”?
I mean, really….
Do you know of any other Christian Orthodox Church temple having such a thing?
Anon, the church will look beautiful once completed- my guess is it’s modern futurist design is in keeping with other modern designs at Ground Zero area.
47 million raised says Karloutsos. My best guess on how it was used:
Minus–6 million in fees to the fundraiser
Minus— 30 million carelessly spent to “build’—includes fake overhead from archdiocese, useless consultants and probably kickbacks, architects, legal fees, overpriced and unmanaged contractors and everything…..with few results.
Minus –up to 5 million siphoned off to cover general archdiocese shortfalls after Jaharis and Bouris died. (They admitted to that and mortgaged 8-10 East 79th to re-pay).
Minus–5 to 10 million upstreamed to Bart
Rounded off, give or take, that’s about 47 million.
The disbursements are very similar to the Gambino Crime Family management model–throw all money in the till and all the Capos feed their crews from it until it’s pissed away. Then go find some more victims.
That is a pretty good list! As far as I can tell the only thing you missed were 100 or so pair of gold cuff links intercepted on their way to Black Bart.
Can you substantiate any of your claims? While some are certainly possible, even probable, the one that jumps out is 6 million in fees for the fundraiser. To whom are you referring and where did you get this information? Don’t raise red flags because of supposition and hearsay unless you can give us specifics.
Credit card processing would gobble up close to $2 million by itself.
“Patriarch Bartholomew congratulated Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus for being the first primate to reject Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem’s invitation for the primates of the Orthodox Churches to gather and work together as brothers on restoring and strengthening Church unity……Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens was actually the first primate to reject this initiative”.
https://orthochristian.com/127156.html
I suppose that, to Bartholomew, Ieronymous isn’t really a primate.
He’s just the local branch manager.
The difference maybe is that Ieronymous is already in Bart’s pocket, having not only said he won’t go to the meeting in Jordan but having recognized and begun commemorating the schismatic in Ukraine. Chrysostomos hasn’t taken that second step, at least not yet, so he’s the one whom Bart wants to butter up.
The question that needs to be raised is why isn’t Greece being invited to tomorrow’s Berlin conference on Libya? Tomorrow’s conference will be attended by envoys from countries all over the world. It appears that Germany is now eerily turning it’s back against Greece. Will this be the start of a two-speed Europe and a new “Schengen” zone of the Aegean?
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/01/15/germany-shuns-greece-athens-excluded-from-berlin-summit-on-libya/
Blinded by their desire for worldly security, praise, position, and money, the Greek new-calendar Orthodox with their atheist counterparts have neglected to notice that they are merely useful idiots. Dump the Chumps is one of the Empire’s favorite games. The masonic patriarchs of Constantinople and their accolytes of the last 100 years may now proceed to the red door to pick up their prize for betraying Orthodoxy in oh so many ways. As the Brits say, be sure to “Mind the Gap!”
Greece will be tested for it’s commitment to Holy Orthodoxy. They have chosen the difficult and narrow path of respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate. May they now stand firm in this much harder right instead of the easier wrong. Against all odds, God will protect Greece.
http://orthochristian.com/88169.html
By its actions Greece has struck a blow against the unity of the Church and its phronema. I am Greek by four grandparents and hate to see this, but I believe even darker days are coming for Greece. She does not stand with God, why should God stand with her?
The Greek government just ordered pro-life posters (which were legally placed and paid for) remover from Athens subway stations because they contradict the EU position that abortion on demand at any time is a human right. God forbid! But in keeping with the views of the modernist ecumenist Patriarch of Constantinople.
Greece is running, not walking, away from Holy Orthodoxy. The fruits of this will be seen. Perhaps the first fruits are Greece’s exclusion from the Libya talks.
Many of us who are Greek by ancestry love being Greek. But we love being Orthodox first. Until Greece repents of its betrayal of Metropolitan Onuphry and the canonical Church ok Ukraine, Greece deserves what she gets. As a Greek-American it will be painful to watch. But perhaps it will bring correction.
Constantinople is dead and isn’t coming back folks. Time to leave the clutches of a dying relic holding on for dear life and to build the authentic American Orthodox Church that will preach the Gospel to the American nation rather than being the local Hellenic Club.
michael. Sadly you are spot on. And the posted stuff one example. Abortion is a Subject we are NOT ALOWED to have a different view on from the sisterhood whose not in my name crap was quite happy to be in Bill Clinton’s name.
Where i see this, as much as I loathe and despise Trump et al WITH GOOD REASON, even as a none american,well it’s enough to get me if i were american, to vote for him. Although let us be clear, that man cares about abortion far less then he does about grabbing them by the. Etc. And has one abortion we know about to his credit.
And his denial of Christ’s words appalling. Christian.?? IN fairy land. Give me British politicians who don’t do God. Most would not have a clue where the Church is, any Church, just like the votors. They would sure no where to find the mosque as needed
Joseph,
Why do you assume that
“commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
is the same as
“respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate” (no matter what it says and does)?
Ioannis, is the EP guilty of dogmatic error? As far as I can tell, there is still no credible claim of the EP espousing any dogmatic error that would justify an interruption of respect and communion with her. As such, disrepecting the EP is merely a pernicious trap. It is a following of our passions through the wide and fulsome gate that leads us down the broad path towards our perdition.
Oh, I think Bartholomew is guilty of dogmatic error. His view of sin is a great example. Nothing he says here is supported by the Church. https://www.patriarchate.org/bartholomew-quotes
Yes Black Bart is guilty of serious dogmatic error. Just on the issue of “first without equals” he is already in serious dogmatic error concerning the role of bishops within their own Churches and within the broader pan-Orthodox world. He has tried to make himself an Eastern Pope. We have been separated from our Western brothers for nearly 1,000 mostly over the role of the Papacy and universal jurisdiction and all that crap. He is guilty of serious dogmatic error, which has led to schism. I am sure I don’t need to remind you that the fathers taught that even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the sin of schism. Black Bart is guilty of at least this, and I believe much more as well.
I believe dogma only refers to the Church’s teaching on the Trinity. However, one can fall into error when thinking/saying/acting differently than what is taught by the Church on a particular subject. Then there are some who say he has fallen into error because he prays with non-Orthodox.
In the Orthodox Church, the position of Primus Sine Paribus is not vacant. It is already occupied by Our Lord. No bishop, no matter how grand, can usurp that title. This very claim is at the root of why Rome fell away from the Church. It seems history is now repeating itself – this time as farce.
Regarding dogmatic errors, the EP said this as he was meeting with the Pope in 2014;
“The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by the “Word in the beginning,” by the one “truly with God,” and the Word “truly God”, according to the evangelist of love, unfortunately, during her engagement on earth, on account of the dominance of human weakness and of impermanence of the will of the human intellect, was divided in time.”
To state that the church is divided he is overturning dogma of the Church, confession of faith, Incarnation and continuation of the ONE Holy and Apostolic Church. How can we be divided and remain ONE? Not possible.
Blurring the boundaries of the Church is the goal of the enemy. It confuses the Faithful, it creates a new ecclesiology and nullifies the Theanthropic nature of the church. Regarding Ukraine, some Local Churches now commemorate Epiphany some do not lending to more confusion as to the unity of the Faith and the Oneness of the Church. Separately but relevant, what of the recent statement from Pat. of Alexandria to the Coptic church, “Our Churches are one Church, headed by Jesus Christ.”? Is this not fruit of dogmatic errors and the heresy of ecumenism?
Pachamama, Pope and Pat Bart!
Truly ONE inclusive Church!
Brendan,
The two “beloved brethren” naturally have similar targets
AND problems, see these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mpBPatKMBcmJzgMSOwvesHRG3Cz7bcp
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful… Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
Joseph,
“Ioannis, is the EP guilty of dogmatic error? “
Joseph, why don’t you read my post once again carefully:
QUOTE
Why do you assume that “commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”is the same as “respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate” (no matter what it says and does)?
UNQUOTE
I did not even go as far as saying the words “guilty of dogmatic error”.
My main question is the part without the brackets, here it is for the THIRD time for your convenience:
“Why do you assume that “commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”is the same as “respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate” ?
The addition in brackets is optional and thus secondary.
So there you go again, playing tricks:
You avoid a reply to the main question but going into the brackets and then even therein adding words which I have not written!
So please, please, please if you want to have an honest discussion here, PLEASE reply to the main question, just re-written.
You see Joseph,
“commitment to Holy Orthodoxy” is NOT the same as “respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate”
without needing at all to examine whether Bartholomew says this or that.
Finally regarding your discovery of the “hidden” words
“guilty of dogmatic error” the brethren here have addressed it appropriately.
Now then, where is your reply to the main question?
Ioannis,
If the EP is not espousing heresy, then yes, respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy and to the good order of the Church. The same principle applies to our parish priest, our diocesan bishop, and the head of our Local Church.
Yet even if one of these were espousing heresy, it should still be dealt with in a respectful manner, or as St. Paul says, “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
Joseph,
“If the EP is not espousing heresy, then yes, respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
you have now added the words:
“and to the good order of the Church”.
Ok let’s stay to your initial words to narrow the subject/discussion and finally get to some conclusion, otherwise we are running around in circles, and the circles become larger all the time. I trust you do not want that.
“respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
I could write many similar sentences, all of them valid:
“respecting the local Bishop is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
“respecting the parish priest is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
“respecting my neighbor is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”
So, where do we go from there?
Please use clear language!
I have a feeling you mean:
“blindly obeying Bartholomew is a commitment to Holy Orthodoxy”.
Now how do you prove this?
Ioannis, no, I don’t mean blind obedience. That’s why I brought up heresy. I don’t know of any Orthodox bishops accusing Patriarch Bartholomew of heresy.
If a bishop is not asking us to commit sin or heresy, then is it a sin to be obedient to the bishop? No, I don’t think so. Rather it might be a sin to be disobedient, especially if it’s our own bishop. I’m not saying we have to agree with our bishop either.
Joseph,
firstly I ‘ve got good news:
Totally by accident, I saw some of your posts here, written years back long before I joined you all here! I couldn’t believe my eyes! I couldn’t agree more. It was just like me having written the posts and then were even better! So, it’s really a mystery to me how/why you have changed so much in 4-5 years! I have now established that there is no way you are a troll etc. (unless in captivity). I do hope, one day to understand what has happened to you in the last 4-5 years.
But now back to your last post:
I don’t mean to blindly do what B. says because it is sin or heresy, I mean it in general. Can you show me where the bible says that I have to do EXACTLY as my own Bishop says, let alone the bishop of Constantinople, or even the Bishop of Jerusalem the “Mother of Churches” as per St.J.of Damascus?
In other words, say I read St.Chrysostom, I listen to EP, JP, Kirill, etc and I say to myself “I’ll do what Kirill says, I think it’s better. I’ll do that!”
Now tell me brother Joseph, why in the world must I do what Bartholomew says, where is the appropriate bible pericope?
Ioannis. Re good man Joseph. I long ago realised it’s like going round in a circle because he seems not to hear, or read the main point and just starts at beginning g again. Perhaps that is his job?
Yes we are a hierarchical church, but not in roman sense.
The power etc of Phanar as Rome, historically grew out of need and history, the fall of west empire in Rome ‘s case and byzantine in Phanar case. And yes in dark days as human institutions, they did some good in holding Christendom together and supporting faithful against Islam and barbarians. But such times are past ( not in supporting Faithful, but that does not need these structures) and such structures are Totally HUMAN, nothing to do with Christ. The Phanar and its outriders are trying, as Rome did, to make this a dogmatic teaching.Let alone secular intervention, which nothing new. This is heresy by what ever name u give it. The longer it is lived with, and this must be their hope, the more ‘THE NORM”, it becomes.
“They have chosen the difficult and narrow path of respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”
I think CNN is searching for a new chief of Spin. Have you submitted your CV to them?
Blinded by their desire for worldly security, praise, position, and money, the Greek new-calendar Orthodox with their atheist counterparts have neglected to notice that they are merely useful idiots. Did the they really think they would be influential insiders? Dump the Chumps is one of the Empire’s favorite games! The masonic Patriarchs of Constantinople and their acolytes of the last 100 years may now proceed to the red door to pick up their prize for betraying Orthodoxy in oh so many ways. As the Brits say, be sure to “Mind the Gap!”
Mr. Lipper’s perspective could be based on the notion (and I had to look this up but I think it fits) that “The king can do no wrong,” an idea apparently drawn from William Blackstone’s maxim, “That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution.”
Whether one can properly substitute “Patriarch” or “Patriarchate” for “king” and “Holy Orthodoxy” for “the English constitution” is the question that Mr Lipper’s comment raises.
Or perhaps it’s based on the idea of, “L‘église, c’est moi.” Or, from the perspective of a committed fan of the Patriarch, it would be, “L‘église, c’est lui.”
Note the possible trajectory here.
“The king can do no wrong,”
“L’état, c’est moi,”
“Après moi, le deluge.”
“That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and
fundamental principle of the English constitution.”
Y-e-e-s-s-s…BUT! There is a corollary. Any wrong that is done
(and wrong surely is done – which the doctrine does not deny)
must be the fault of his ministers – who must answer for it.
michael. Sadly you are spot on. And the posted stuff one example. Abortion is a Subject we are NOT ALOWED to have a different view on from the sisterhood whose not in my name crap was quite happy to be in Bill Clinton’s name.
Where i see this, as much as I loathe and despise Trump et al WITH GOOD REASON, even as a none american,well it’s enough to get me if i were american, to vote for him. Although let us be clear, that man cares about abortion far less then he does about grabbing them by the. Etc. And has one abortion we know about to his credit.
blimbax, there have been many Patriarchs who were wrong in matters of dogma and are now considered heretics. Yet Patriarch Bartholomew has not been shown to be a heretic. He’s still recognized as an Orthodox bishop and even by Russia.
He hasn’t been anathematized by anyone .
There is a time before a person is called a heretic that he shows he is a heretic. In other words, one does not need to be called one to be one.
I don’t know that it is accurate to say that Bartholomew is recognized by Russia as a bishop. If that were true, the MP would never have gone into Bartholomew’s territory.
To anathematized means to separate someone from the Church. No one needs to anathematized Bartholomew. He left the Church on his own accord.
Gail, before a person is anathematized as a heretic, there is at least an accusation of heresy. Have any bishops accused Patriarch Bartholomew of heresy?
Not yet.
Joseph, if I may: Orthodox bishops are very chary about throwing the term “heresy” and/or “heretic” about willy-nilly. As they should be.
Joseph, You misunderstand the point I was trying to make, which is that you seem to think that Bartholomew can do no wrong and that therefore everyone must “respect” “the Ecumenical Patriarchate” (i.e., agree with it and refrain from any criticism).
You wrote that Greece has “chosen the difficult and narrow path of respecting the Ecumenical Patriarchate. May they now stand firm in this much harder right instead of the easier wrong.” I assume you are referring to the fact that the Archbishop of Athens has recognized the OCU and has stated that he will not attend the meeting that the Patriarch of Jerusalem is trying to organize.
I did not say anything about anathemas or heresies. What I am addressing is what you appear to be saying. Your statement seems to be a criticism of Russia and of all those who support the Russian position or who, like Theophilos of Jerusalem, have tried to remain relatively neutral. And your statement seems to suggest that Bartholomew can do no wrong and that it is improper to criticize him for what he has done in Ukraine.
Contrary to what you have written, the easier path for ethnically Greek hierarchs – and in my opinion the wrong one – is to side with Bartholomew. (Note in Bartholomew’s letter to Theophilos the prominence given to Bartholomew’s complaint about the language in which the Theophilos’ letter was written, not to mention Bartholomew’s references to ‘our race’ (‘το γένος μας’).”)
Theophilos has taken the more difficult path. Whatever the reasons for him doing so, it is good that the Patriarch of Jerusalem has made an effort to be a peace maker, to try to create the conditions for resolving the current conflict. His letter, by the way, was extremely well-written. It contains none of the arrogance of those written by Bartholomew.
As an ethnic Greek myself, I appreciate what Theophilos is trying to do, and even more so I am embarrassed by the pettiness of certain claims made by others on ethnic Greeks, as if they are obliged to support Bartholomew for ethnic reasons if nothing else.
If you are saying that the right thing is for everyone to support Bartholomew’s position no matter how wrong headed it is, so long as it is not a matter of heretical dogma, and to refrain from any criticism, then I think your characterization of Bartholomew puts him at the level of an Eastern “Pope.” In fact, this does seems to be the underlying theme of much of what you have written.
Furthermore, to say that a particular patriarch is entitled to unquestioning support and deference does seem to approach the level of dogma, but then I am no theologian.
blimbax,
It’s fine to respectfully disagree with Patriarch Bartholomew. That would be the position of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, for example, who doesn’t agree with Patriarch Bartholomew’s decision in Ukraine. Yet the key difference is that Metropolitan Kallistos nonetheless accepts the decision made in Ukraine, even though he doesn’t agree. Disagreement among bishops is normal in synods.
Yes, I believe Patriarch Theophilos is well intentioned. His planned meeting in Jordan is a dramatic and self-emptying gesture that appeases the wishes of the Moscow Patriarchate. Yet the only possible outcome will be a show that there is still disagreement and division within the Church and a refusal to accept the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It won’t bring about any desired unity. Cyprus has refused to attend for this very reason.
Come on, the Jerusalem stunt about calling a meeting in Jordan has nothing to do with “self-emptying”. It is more about self-filling. More precisely the filling the J.P. coffers with money from the Russian pilgrims who visit the Holy Land.
If he upsets the Russians they will shut down the pilgrimages, and he will go bankrupt. So he is willing to play as they sing. It’s that simple.
Ok ….Scorilo,
if you like that kind of reasoning, consider this:
Constantinople started as a small town called Byzantium built by Mr. Byzas. Small, unimportant place.
Jerusalem was the first Church, 1st Bishop was Jacob the brother of Christ. Jerusalem was (still is) truly the “mother of churches” as still sung every 8th sunday vespers, written bt St. John of Damascus.
Constantine the Great chose Cple as capital. The remote Bishops used the the local Bishop as kinda coordinator to see the Emperor and get some secular assistance whether political or money (there is your money factor!).
You say JP gets money from the R. coffers.
What about EP?
Even his journalist fans get 100k bucks for support.
Come on ….Scorilo!
The clear and overwhelming majority of Orthodox Bishops—including many in the patriarchates whose primates have recognized the fake Ukrainian “church”—not only disagree with Bartholomew’s actions, but do not accept them, nor accept that he is able to do what he has attempted to do.
It has nothing to do with the Moscow Patriarchate. Recall that Moscow planned to attend the 2016 “council” and only pulled out at the last minute because Bartholomew refused to take up his role to mediate in the dispute between Jerusalem and Antioch, despite being asked to do so.
For me, that action is the point in time where Bartholomew lost all moral authority in the Church. He will never miss a chance to lord it over the other Churches, but when asked to help constructively solve a problem—which is his only actual role in the wider Church outside his diocese—he flipped his brother primates the bird. He has zero credibility, and as far as I’m concerned, he cannot win it back, short of putting off his mitre and literally groveling at the feet of all those he has offended.
He is unworthy to sit upon the throne of St. John Chrysostom.
Indeed. I am glad that you reminded us of his unwillingness to resolve the dispute between Antioch & Jerusalem. If there was any indication at all that Bartholomew is always acting in bad faith, that dispute was one of them.
AS, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
George: “If there was any indication at all that Bartholomew is always acting in bad faith, that dispute was one of them. ”
Here is another example: Patriarch of Constantinople’s Letter to the Archbishop of Greece: Defrock and Sever Communion with those Opposed to our Council in Crete https://orthodoxethos.com/post/patriarch-of-constantinoples-letter-to-the-archbishop-of-greece-defrock-and-excommunicate-those-opposed-to-our-council-in-crete
He has form in these behaviours…
Brendan,
Fr.Peter Heers did the wisest move to go away from Thessaloniki and return to the US and go to the R. Church!
May God help him, a real priest of Christ.
Is Fr. Peter Heers still at Jordanville?
Yes dear Joseph,
I think Fr. Peter Heers still at Jordanville.
Have a look at his web-page:
https://orthodoxethos.com/
“We recall this ecclesiological and canonical principle–that matters are to be examined and decided upon synodically...”
-Pat. Bartholomew
Never mind that four entire Churches did not sign on to these ‘synodical’ decisions.
“…in light of our responsibility as Ecumenical Patriarch…and as guardian of the dogmatic and canonical order of the Eastern Church.”
-Pat. Bartholomew
Will the irony never cease?
He has no other way any more.
A S
“He is unworthy to sit upon the throne of St. John Chrysostom.”
And to think that St. Chrysostom was merely called
“Archbishop” of Constantinople, and not
the All-Most-Holy Patriarch of C. (notice 2 superlatives above God)!
John Chrysostom had no ambition. Indeed he never wanted to be made a bishop, never mind an Archbishop (and far less a Saint).
In this he seems most unlike His Most Divine All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, Primus Sine Paribus.
Right.
Antiochene Son,
I’m not exactly convinced the EP was unwilling to resolve the dispute about Qatar. Given the nature of the problem, of Antioch being barred by the Qatari government from sending priests, I personally think Qatar should be transferred to the EP.
I don’t know if this solution was offered, but it probably wouldn’t be received well by either Jerusalem or Antioch.
Joseph,
“I personally think Qatar should be transferred to the EP”
.
Of course, that would increase the power of Bartholomew, QED.
Surely Bartholomew could have used his contacts at the State Department to compel the Qatari government to allow priests in. Or at least he could have tried, and used his considerable bully pulpit to speak boldly in public before settling on a temporary caretaker situation, with the consultation of Antioch and Jerusalem, reaching a consensus. If the EP is the last court of appeal and mediator in the Church, he had the obligation to do so. But he did nothing.
Every time Bartholomew has acted in the sole interest of his own See, he rejected a path where he could have promoted the interest of the Church. This is a prime example.
To be sure—I don’t care if the EP has the ear of powerful secular authorities. That is great, in fact. But those connections need to be used in the proper and lawful governance of the Church, not to—as you suggest—increase his own power.
Joseph, You’ve confirmed what I said. Sometimes, when I read some of your comments, I begin to wonder whether you work for the State Department or whether you are a visitor from a Roman Catholic or Uniate parish, or someone who joined the Orthodox Church without realizing its true structure.
Stripped down to their essentials, your descriptions of how others should deal with what Bartholomew is doing is that, while they can respectfully disagree, they must nonetheless abide with whatever he does or says. If we were Roman Catholics or Uniates that might make sense. For those of us who are Orthodox, it is incorrect.
I cannot speak for Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (although I have met the man). He apparently disagrees with what Bartholomew has done, but, unlike Theophilos and the heads and bishops and metropolitans of other local churches, there really isn’t much he can do about it apart from murmuring some criticisms. Actually, I’m wrong about that, he could shout it from the roof tops. Maybe he is reluctant to do so for personal reasons. He is rather elderly and perhaps is reluctant to end up out in the cold by crossing Bartholomew.
One of the essences of Orthodox is that there is no first without equals, and that important decisions, particularly those that affect the unity of the Orthodox Church, are made under the right circumstances by all of the Church, not by one Patriarch or Patriarchate. Bartholomew, the head of the Church in Constantinople, a backwater town before Constantine made it his capital, and a muslim city today, may be entitled to the “primacy of honor,” but the way he is behaving, his arrogance and dismissiveness and barely concealed contempt, he is entitled to neither primacy nor honor, let alone respect. On that last point, he shows virtually no genuine respect to those who disagree with him.
And, therein, lies the heresy: Bartholomew, a bishop, preaches, in everything he does and everything he says, the primacy of the New Pope of Rome; not in terms of the diptychs to which it applies, but to Roman papacy, as in “first without equals.” I may not be saying it right, but that is his greatest error and every other error he has ever made comes from that one thing. If they, the Local Churches, could just agree on that, i.e. there is no first without equals in the Orthodox Church (which they already know and accept), the problem would be solved. Bartholomew would have to renounce the idea or leave the Church, which he has effectively already done, as he ALSO knows this idea is not Orthodox.
Gail, I believe the “First without Equals” phrase comes from Archbishop Elpidiphorus’ essay with this same title. The point he makes is that the Ecumenical Patriarch has unique responsibilities that aren’t shared by the other bishops. Likewise, we could also say there is a Second without Equals, and a Third without Equals, and so on. We are a hierarchical church, and there is always primacy reflected within a hierarchy.
Yes, to your first point, but it would be hard to argue that the objective of the essay was not to prime the pump for the eventuality of an Eastern pope.
It’s these “unique responsibilities” you mention that have become the sticky wicket.
WE know he has the prerogative to (1) offer assistance to the Churches (does not apply to non-churches like the Ukrainian schismatics) who request his involvement in disputes, and (2) to mediate (not arbitrate) in those instances where his assistance is requested (again by the Churches, not non-churches) and (3) call Councils.
What HE thinks his “unique responsibilities” are include (1) playing “Mother Church” where he is the final arbitrator of all disagreements, even when his involvement is not welcomed by one or both parties, (2) doing what he wants when he wants, even if it means replacing an existing metropolitan in another bishop’s territory, and (3) refusing to call a Council when asked by all his brother bishops simply because he doesn’t see the need.
On that last point, just because he has the right to call a Council, it does not necessarily follow that he also has the right NOT to call a Council when required to resolve a dispute. This would be like me saying that because my job description says I have the responsibility to set off the fire alarm in the presence of a fire, I don’t have to. If an employee were to die as a result of my inaction, it would not help me to argue in court, “But Your Honor, because I had the responsibility to pull the fire alarm in a fire it also means I have the right not to pull the fire alarm in a fire if I don’t want to.”
“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” (Cool Hand Luke)
Gail, Joseph, et al: at the end of the day, this “primacy of honor” has morphed under this particular EP as “first without equals”. And this formula is totally consistent with papalism.
We are talking nothing less than bad faith and self-serving here.
Consider: by his own formulation, he created an “autocephalous” Church in the Ukraine. (We’ll leave aside for the moment whether the real Ukrainians even invited him in to exercise his supposed prerogatives.”) OK, well then he told the Dumenko that he needed to commemorate the Russian patriarch in the diptychs. I’m sorry, but that’s not his call, that’s Dumenko’s. Just like the CoG now confusingly (and stupidly and clumsily) commemorates both Dumenko and Onuphriy in their diptychs. It’s asinine and all that but that’s the CoG’s call, not Bartholomew’s.
And just like several autocephalous Churches commemorate Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA. It’s Bulgaria’s, Russia’s, Poland’s, etc, call to do so. Why? Because they’re autocephalous. But in this instance, Bartholomew told Dumenko he had to commemorate Kirill.
See the incongruity? If nothing else, what has been resolved? Nothing. It’s all been made more confusing thanks to Bart’s illegal and uncanonical meddling in the Ukraine.
Gail, it does seem strange that Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to call a council, and it is evident that the Local Churches are frustrated by this. Yet if we believe that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then why does his refusal actually pose any problem? If we believe his primacy is largely irrelevant, then his refusal shouldn’t really matter.
Perhaps we’ll see how the meeting in Jordan turns out. Although right now it’s not looking so good. Only three primates have actually confirmed, and I understand that Albania and Poland have both sent letters to Jerusalem declining to attend.
The reason it poses a problem is because only he or an emperor can call one. Those who have tried to get him to do it are ignored and told to ignore the request of any other Church to call one. In the meantime, those who refuse to acknowledge the UOC are threatened with sanctions.
Gail, I think you mean the OCU.
Yes, thank you!
Joseph,
“…it does seem strange that Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to call a council, and it is evident that the Local Churches are frustrated by this.”
Yes. And this is the crux of it all. The claim to a role of primacy, and the steadfast refusal to fulfill it in Orthodox conciliar fashion. If, as he states (with no canonical basis, I might add), no one has the authority to call a council except himself, he cannot justify his refusal to do so when the Churches are so at odds over what he did.
We can debate his proper primacy until Christ returns, but I suspect there would be little or no debate about his primacy at all if only he would fulfill the role of primacy that the Churches already acknowledge.
It is his own refusal that creates suspicion and renders his primacy superfluous and meaningless. There are no ‘rights’ that do not carry responsibilities.
Joseph Lipper (January 23, 2020 at 10:30 pm) says:
Gail, it does seem strange that Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to call a council, and it is evident that the Local Churches are frustrated by this. Yet if we believe that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then why does his refusal actually pose any problem? If we believe his primacy is largely irrelevant, then his refusal shouldn’t really matter. Perhaps we’ll see how the meeting in Jordan turns out. Although right now it’s not looking so good. Only three primates have actually confirmed, and I understand that Albania and Poland have both sent letters to Jerusalem declining to attend.
~~~~~~~~~
The problem here is described in logic as ‘circular reasoning’. American law recognizes this situation as being disabled by ‘conflict of interest’.
The canons anticipate such logjams, and recognize that the usual authorities might sometimes be compromised and unable to act objectively. In such cases, affected parties may have recourse to the highest ecclesial authority (Constantinople, now) or to the government (formerly the emperor/basileus).
Since there is no longer an emperor for all Christians and secular governments are not realistically likely to help, and since the highest ecclesial authority is itself compromised, the local churches have only one option, which is to co-operate in convening a council in agreement among themselves.
That process is starting, so there are bound to be a few missteps along the way until people get their bearings.
May the Lord’s Holy Spirit guide us.
Gail: “The reason it poses a problem is
because only he or an emperor can call one.”
There is no Emperor. There is only Bartholomew,
whose conduct is what is at issue.
If only he can call a council (and he won’t),
then there is no remedy and he is a Pope already.
I refuse to believe that. There must be a remedy.
Jerusalem has offered a viable solution.
If the other Primates refuse to take it up,
they are abdicating their Primacy, their Authority.
Agreed, Brendan.
Joseph,
“it does seem strange that Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to call a council, and it is evident that the Local Churches are frustrated by this.”
There is another parameter in this problem.
As stated by somebody else here, practically all ecumenical synods were called by the emperor.
Say there is a terrible WWIII and in a few weeks or months (they say it will be fast) from now either Trump or Putin become the Emperor of the planet Earth.
And say, for the sake of argument, the Emperor will move to Istanbul. Then, seeing the problems in the Orthodox Chuch, the new Emperor tells Bartholomew “organize an Ec.Synod quickly!” Then our ecclesiastical problems will be solved!
Can you imagine Joseph? With all our Holy or Most-Holy Bishops we cannot organize it, the spiritual work of God, and we will need the decision of a SECULAR Emperor?
The lesson is Joseph, that there must be some secular pressure to “encourage” (meaning to force) Bartholomew and his friends to organize the assembly.
Hopefully, we won’t have a WWIII very soon,
but there is another scenario:
Bartholomew won’t change his de-facto attitude as “first WITHOUT equals” and at some stage the Russian “group” will do the Ec.Synod, gathering more than half of the Orth.Christian population. At the same time they will exert “secular” power towards Bartholomew, yes comparable secular pressure as the Cple Emperor exerted on EP in the past.
The big lesson is that unfortunately the Russian Church is too big for Bartholomew to ignore.
I am not Russian, I am Greek.
Are you more Greek than Russian, considering what you said in 2017:
“If it were not for the prayers and examples of saints like Herman of Alaska and Seraphim of Sarov, I would never have become Orthodox. Personally, I feel very indebted to their prayers. Would American Orthodoxy be the same without Herman of Alaska? Would Russian Orthodoxy be the same without Seraphim of Sarov? Would world-wide Orthodoxy be the same without either?”
Joseph Lipper, November 22, 2017 9:15 am
A Way Out for the GOA?
Joseph,
“perhaps this canon has not been applicable in it’s original form for some 500 years, but that doesn’t change it’s intent and the tradition we keep. Despite the obvious change in circumstances, the tradition of Constantinople’s primacy has continued to be guarded”
Yes! Exactly, correctly: its intent, ie the spirit of the canon, not its letter.
The intent of the canon is that
(1) All Bishops are equal.
(2) EP is the coordinator/facilitator for the remote bishops to see the Emperor and has a primacy in the honor, as explained by St.Nicodeme.
You said correctly yesterday that (2) is not applicable now.
Ok let Bartholomew, until further Ec.Syn. that he will remain some kind of coordinator
but further than that he will treat other Bishops as absolutely equal.
Then there will be church order too, and no circus etc as you mentioned.
Now then, why doesn’t he do what he is supposed to do?
Joseph,
“the Ecumenical Patriarch has unique responsibilities that aren’t shared by the other bishops”.
Yes, read Canon 28 (4th E.S.):
His definitive unique responsibility was to assist the remote Bishops to see the Emperor/Head of State in Constantinople.
Now, please tell me Joseph,
When was the latest year when EP did THAT?
Ioannis, I honestly don’t know. Perhaps that canon is not currently applicable.
Perhaps not, Joseph, there being no currently Emperor in Constantinople.
Exactly dear Joseph!
You said it directly with the innocence & truthfulness you had back in 2016:
WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Perhaps that canon is not currently applicable.”
In that case,
“Perhaps that capacity is not currently applicable”?
The Church is not held hostage by a badly behaving EP. His actions mean that this canon does not apply until he behaves in an Orthodox manner. The other Churches will come around but things have unfortunately not gotten bad enough.
Ioannis, perhaps this canon has not been applicable in it’s original form for some 500 years, but that doesn’t change it’s intent and the tradition we keep. Despite the obvious change in circumstances, the tradition of Constantinople’s primacy has continued to be guarded, not only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but also by the tradition of the Whole Church.
I think we would all agree that there needs to be functional primacy in our lives. We need it in our family’s fathers, in our nation’s president, in our parish priests, in our diocesan bishops, and in those who head our national and autocephalous churches. Yet our tradition also shows us that we need primacy in an Ecumenical Patriarch for the unity and well-being of all the Orthodox churches.
The current primacy of Patriarch Bartholomew has become an easy target for attack and criticism. While the EP’s aim of granting Ukrainian autocephaly was intended to contribute to that nation’s reconciliation and unity, it hasn’t yet brought about this desired result. The almost thirty year-old schism still persists much the same as it had before the autocephaly, except now the “schismatics” are reconciled with the EP. Far more troubling for Orthodoxy is the ROC’s world-wide global schism that goes beyond the borders of Ukraine and is unchecked even by the normal boundaries of the Slavic lands. It is perhaps this global schism against the EP that is the true rationale for Patriarch Bartholomew’s refusal to call a council.
Joseph: “…we need primacy in an Ecumenical Patriarch
for the unity and well-being of all the Orthodox churches.”
This claim would render Markos Eugenikos a schismatic.
Do you really mean to assert this?
Here is an Ecumenical quote from a real First Among Equals
(in the days when the Bishops of Rome were Orthodox),
Pope St Gregory the Great: “Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
I don’t care where the phrase comes from. It is not Orthodox and it is wrong. In the Orthodox Church, the First Without Equals place belongs to Jesus Christ and no one else; not to the Bishop of Constantinople or anywhere else – including Rome. Indeed, this was the very root of the schism between Rome and Orthodoxy.
Joseph,
“I believe the “First without Equals” phrase comes from Archbishop Elpidiphorus’ essay with this same title. “
Exactly, well said.
And this very man unanimously elected as Archbishop of GOA and thus statistically almost 100% the next EP.
Now Joseph have you ever complained/criticized that very election in any blog or elsewhere? Will you be kind enough to post a link of your complaint?
Ioannis, this was not a criticism or complaint about Archbishop Elpidiphorus. It’s an interesting essay he wrote, although I’m not sure I completely agree with it.
However the point he drives home about certain aspects of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s primacy being unequaled is not anything novel or “papist”. For example, it’s been accepted for hundreds of years that councils are called and chaired by the Ecumenical Patriarch, especially since there is currently no ruling emperor in Constantinople. As such, it’s the unequaled prerogative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and it is for this very reason that the meeting in Jordan is doomed to fail. A synod is not complete without a head, and without a head, any disagreements among the bishops will not be overcome. Is it any wonder that Antioch has been hesitating about the meeting in Jordan?
Archbishop Elpidiphorus’ essay is a good read though, along with the original Ravenna document and the MP’s awkwardly entitled “On the Problem of Primacy within the Universal Church”.
You’re mixing up terms here, Joseph. If you are “first without equal” then “first among equals” makes no sense. The inverse is also true. If you are “first among equals,” you are not “first without equal.” These terms are mutually exclusive: you cannot be both.
Based on what you’ve just said, one might think an emperor is unequaled in authority in the Church because he can call a Council!
As a Project Manager, I call countless meetings for executives several levels above my pay grade. I also chair these meetings. But that does not make me “first without equal.” It makes me the facilitator of a meeting! That’s it. And that’s all the EP is; a facilitator and a participant. Nothing more.
“Joseph Lipper says January 25, 2020 at 9:48 am
Ioannis, this was not a criticism or complaint about Archbishop Elpidiphorus. It’s an interesting essay he wrote, although I’m not sure I completely agree with it.”
So Joseph you are not sure you agree. So you may not agree OR you may agree with Bartholomew being “first WITHOUT equals”!
In 2018 you wrote (emphasis mine):“St. Mark of Ephesus was a true ecumenist who stood up for the true primacy and unity of the Church, and he spoke out against and rejected the false Council of Florence. This false council rejected the real primacy and unity of the Church, trading it for the false primacy of the pope and the false unity of papal dogma.““The Ecumenical Patriarch is still commemorated by Orthodox Christians all over the world, and is currently commemorated as first among equals by the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches.”Joseph Lipper, June 19, 2018 9:48 amSee: Checkmate?
But now, in 2020 you are not sure any more. What happened between 2018 and 2020 and you are now not sure? “Archbishop Elpidiphorus’ essay is a good read”It is certainly good for Elpidophorus for his future promotion to EP.
On “The Heresy of Constantinople Papism,” an article by Priest George Maximov, for me explains a lot and puts things into a perspective I have for myself been trying to achieve.
I assume this has been posted before, but I just found and read it and it seems to explain an awful lot that is directly relevant to the problem with the Patriarchate of Constantinople: https://orthochristian.com/118982.html . For those of you who have not read it, I urge you to do so. And please try not to pick out isolated fragments but consider the essay in its entirety.
blimbax, admittedly I sometimes wonder if some people who post here are actually protestants, or maybe who have come into Orthodoxy with a protestant phronema intact, or maybe have just been influenced by the protestant mindset. Nevertheless, I think we both agree that Orthodoxy is neither papist nor protestant. That’s why a proper understanding of primacy is so important.
Joseph, I hope some day you will come to have a proper understanding. But most of your responses to mine and others’ comments seem to show a studied reluctance to engage on the core issues. I am beginning to think you maybe fully understand what you are doing. What seems to motivate you is to use every opportunity to say that Constantinople is at the apex of the Orthodox pyramid. And often that means ignoring or misinterpreting what other people say.
Joseph, the Orthodox Church is not a pyramid. There are no “first without equals” or “second without equals” or “third without equals.” That might be true of the Roman Catholic Church.
Your responses come across to me as slippery and evasive. That applies to your comment allegedly responding to what I wrote, in which you “wonder if some people who post here are actually protestants, or maybe who have come into Orthodoxy with a protestant phronema intact, or maybe have just been influenced by the protestant mindset.” I don’t find that to be true at all, but more importantly how is that even relevant to what I wrote?
The slippery and evasive nature of your statements and putative “responses” have driven others to frustration. I am thinking in particular of the dialogue, if one can even call it that, between Ioannis and you. You simply ignore anything that does not fit your doctrinal frame, and misinterpret other things to make them fit.
Maybe you don’t work for the State Department. Maybe you aren’t a confirmed member of the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe you aren’t a troll. But honestly, to one degree or another, it would be hard for me to reject any one of those conclusions.
It’s not our (or anyone’s) job to make Mr Lipper, Abp Elpidophoros, Patr Bartholomew, or anyone else grasp the proper understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
If they choose to be open and invite God to enlighten their understanding through His Son, then He will.
For some men, changing their worldview is simply too emotionally painful to do. They can’t do it, at least not in this life.
I like Met. Onuphry of Ukraine’s words on how to handle this sort of thing: with few words and much prayer.
Sometimes we need to simply let go and let Mr Lipper – and those who believe as he does – be wrong.
Besides, if things continue along the same trajectory, in 5 years or so Mr Lipper’s jurisdiction will likely be unified with the Roman Catholics and, thus, it will be formally Roman Catholic itself. And then he and his ecclesiology may finally be among more like-minded folk.
Colorado I am with you,
I could always reply to Joseph by a single “Lord have mercy”
but there is a small problem:
:
Many readers will think that Joseph is right!
That is why I have chosen to reply to him more comprehensively, in the hope that he will get stuck with his contradicting inaccuracies, and finally see the truth.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
Joseph Lipper.: “I sometimes wonder if some people who post here are actually protestants, or maybe who have come into Orthodoxy with a protestant phronema intact, or maybe have just been influenced by the protestant mindset.”
Orthodox “mindset” is not less free than Protestant. More, it is much freer, as even Luther had to struggle with antinomies of “the bondage of the will”. We got freed by Christ, and will not get corralled back by some petty neopapist tyrant. The milk got spilled 2000 years ago.
Let me expand and reverse what Joseph said; “maybe have just been influenced by the protestant mindset.”
What is the mindset of Phanar partisans, both from inside or outside Orthodoxy? I think that they see the Church as a worldly institution, as the left hand of Hobbesian Leviathan, designed to control the naive masses by religion. They see the talk about mystical Bride of Christ or otherworldly Kingdom as a device to inspire simpletons to the blind obedience. They are not able to see the underlying spiritual reality and are disoriented when their clever policy fails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)#/media/File:Leviathan_by_Thomas_Hobbes.jpg
Come on Joseph,
your boss doesn’t mind Papists (cum Pachamamas), Protestants, Muslims, you name it!
His real problem are the …Orthodox.
Every bishop is ontologically equal, but some bishops have special administrative responsibilities—metropolitans over bishops, patriarchs over metropolitans, and the EP over other primates. Hence the term “first among equals.”
The trend with Bartholomew and his lackeys is increasingly to imply the EP is ontologically in his own class and beyond question or rebuke. Indeed, every time another bishop musters the boldness to rebuke him, they are slapped down by this loving spiritual father of the Orthodox Church.
No wonder he has this bromance with Francis, the two are very similar in their humble-tyrant ways.
Within his own diocese, the local bishop is the icon of God the Father. (Not a very Protestant thing to say.) We are not polytheists, so neither do we have multiple icons of God the Father. I certainly don’t have more allegiance to the All Holy Dhimmi of Istanbul, who cares not a whit for me, than to my own bishop who comes to my own humble parish annually and knows me by name.
The true shepherd knows his sheep, and his sheep know him.
Excellent point.
A S,
“No wonder he has this bromance with Francis, the two are very similar in their humble-tyrant ways.”
https://gloria.tv/post/kPWjQeJvtyot2BkXikRPLwNDi
Antiochan son. U state the essence of Orthodoxy. Elpidophoros may have gifts and seems pleasant enough but he knows he is just treading water to get to the Phanar when the sad day comes when Bartholomaios goes as we all must, to answer to our Maker, he is next in line. So u and any one else in USA are just figures on a passing scene.
The bishop, any bishop, is the living icon of Christ.
Alitheia,
“The bishop, any bishop, is the living icon of Christ”.
if I may propose a small correction:
“The bishop, any bishop, must be the living icon of Christ”.
This is what he invariably promises (in his enthronement) to do in his life as Bishop. As St.Chrysostom said, some Bishops may not do what they are expected to do. In an extreme case, the Pope originates from holy Bishops but he certainly is not “the living icon of Christ”.
Now back to the Orthodox, that is why in the Divine Liturgy, after
“It is meet” (Axion estin) the priest asks the Lord
to give the (Arch)Bishop “safety, honor, health and rightly preaching“. Thus the Bishop has no automatical “safety, honor, health and rightly preaching” and that is why we pray for that expressly.
Ioannis,
I was referring to an Orthodox bishop. I certainly agree with what you said. And yes there is the condition that the bishop must strive to be the living icon of Christ, but he is the living icon of Christ unless and/or until he does not rightly preach the faith, falling into heresy, etc. Even if bishops, or priests, or deacons, are immoral, etc., their Mysteries are still valid.
Joseph, “primacy” has been argued, debated, spit upon and abused since the Church came into existence (was not the dispute between Cain and Abel one of primacy?). The only way to approach it is apophatically. But, what do I know I am just a former heathen heretic who is probably polluting the Church–unlike the modern Pharisees.
From where I sit, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have, for the most part, never lived up to what they claim for themselves.
Heresy divides the Church. Anything that divides the Church is of heresy whether or not it is an actual heresy. The question in this instance is who instigated, prolonged and continues to foment division.
With my bias in mind, I have to say that falls clearly upon the shoulders of the Patriarch of Constantinople for the last 100 years or so. Even further back than that, the distortion of the faith and the office brought about under the Turkish Yoke(still in place) gives me real pause as to the authenticity of the Patriarch of Constantinople at all. Compare the general acquiescence to Turkish simony with the martyrdom of the Church in Russia. (Yes, I know, they have their problems too).
Clearly, your bias leads you to the opposite conclusion but that is just it. Bias. That, too, is a symptom of division. Talking about “primacy” does nothing to address the underlying division. As long as the “discussion” is about external things of the law, nothing will be healed. That includes deciding on our own who is a “heretic” and who is not. That, in itself, is a manifestation of disunion–a symptom of the underlying disease. Falling into the scapegoat trap is not far behind. Repentance is required.
Repentance can only occur when it is preceded by humility. That is one spiritual virtue I find in short supply, especially in me. When I summon up a speck of it, my heart begins to ache. That is hard to bear. I have seen an even deeper pain in my bishop when I have shared my concerns with him. But then, he has far more humility that I do.
May Our Lord, have mercy on us.
As usual, Michael, you’ve given us lots to think about.
Michael Bauman, thanks for your response. I think the bias we hope to share on this blog is for Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. Personally, I don’t see the need to blame Patriarch Bartholomew or Patriarch Kyrill for the current division that exists. We all believe and confess that there is one Church. Nonetheless, this and other divisions still persist. God will provide a solution.
It’s just my opinion that a false understanding of primacy within the Orthodox Church is at the core of this division. I believe the jurisdictionalism we now witness, especially here in America, is the evidence of a false understanding of primacy, though it’s often excused for ethnic reasons. Whenever we have competing or alternate “primacies” in the same territory, then we can rest assured there is a false understanding at play. Generally speaking, an ambition for primacy, or a stubborn and unjustified refusal to accept it, is a sign of a false understanding of primacy.
Joseph,___”Primacy”:
–
Who ever said that there is primacy between bishops????
–
Did Christ say such a thing?
–
Did the Apostles or the Canons say this?
–
I’ll give you an example who DID say this:
Bartholomew,
Elpidoforos,
Joseph here.
–
Bartholomew and all bishop are EQUAL brethren.
The EP had a sort of coordinating function for as long as there was an Emperor in Cple. It is now a ancient title.
–
So, Joseph, why do you insist on primacy and more primacy?
You have said it is necessary for “order” and no “chaos”!
Isn’t that an indirect insult to all the bishops who have received the Holy Spirit? If they cannot have order (without a terrifying Pope) how can they inspire Christian Love to the people?
Joseph, I sometimes wonder if some people who post here are actually Roman Catholics, or maybe who have come into Orthodoxy with a Roman Catholic phronema intact, or maybe have just been influenced by the Roman Catholic mindset. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy is certainly not papist. Which is precisely why a proper understanding of primacy is so important – which understanding Bartholomew clearly lacks.
Bimbax u express it perfectly. And the shame is we have hierarchs who lack courage. Re Ware. A good decent man, and done much good but if not a bishop he would have been a British civil servant, by his class, education etc, and been a good and dutiful one, and high flyer as they say, but a rebel!! Ha No way. They may if one were harsh, be called enablers. I was going to mention Von Pappen and Hitler BUT NO!!! ?
The Phanar is going this road for self same reasons Rome did. Inherited history and sense of survival as big player on the scene. But all this has nothing to do with Christ and I would argue running the Church as if it’s middle ages might account for fact of why Orthodoxy is growing SMALLER, NOT LARGER. While we have arguement over the real estate, the punters have died out, or gone shopping else where.
Blimbax: “Metropolitan Kallistos Ware…could shout it from the roof tops. Maybe he is reluctant to do so for personal reasons.”
Metropolitan Kallistos is an upper-class Englishman.
Upper-class Englishmen to not shout from the rooftops.
It would be vulgar. That is what servants are for. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tXBC-71aZs
BrendanI have met Ware on several occassions . When he is celebrating the liturgy he is animated and speaks well but in normal.social situations lacks social skills. The lady who drives him about told me that she broke her arm badly and it was in plaster and she left him a message to that effect . He phoned her to.sort out his travel needs and never once asked after her broken arm.
Not because he is calous but just socially inept.
Yes as an upper class sort one does not shout.
Truth is he would have done much better to have gone with the russians. But of course he might not have got the Oxford perks.
Nikos, your comment puts things into perspective. I met the Metropolitan once when he was in the States and found him to be very standoffish and almost condescending, but your description is actually a better explanation.
Basil yes. Basically an Oxford Don who expected the Church and the world to be Oxford. A decent man, a believer and I am sure has lived a celibate life. Probably a bit afraid of that side of life. And a bit of a liberal!! God useses all sort including us.
Bishop Anthony Bloom was very different type and of course had ‘ street cred. younger life.
Joseph,___“Yet the key difference is that Metropolitan Kallistos nonetheless accepts the decision made in Ukraine, even though he doesn’t agree” , (emphasis mine).
It’s like saying,
“he accepts the decision to elect Trump as President, even though he does’t agree”, so accepts it and says e.g. “Yes, Mr.President”.
Does he have another choice not to accept?
Thus I do not see the practical value of the distinction between agree and accept.
Joseph Lipper: “Yet Patriarch Bartholomew has not been shown to be a heretic.”
Well, to claim that one bishop is “first without equals” and that his see is an essential keystone of the Church is a heresy. You do not need a dogmatic definition by ecumenical council to see that.
He studied canon law in Vatican, and it shows.
Martin, while I agree with you that this novel doctrine is indeed heresy, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of canon law, a man cannot be adjudged a heretic unless these five conditions have been met:
1. He is a bishop (check),
2. He preached heresy while alive (check),
3. He never repented of preaching said heresy,
4. A subsequent Council of the Church upholds the heretical nature of said preaching,
5. And therefore condemns the author/preacher of said heretical doctrine.
Can anybody offer any critique on this?
George Michalopulos: “a man cannot be adjudged a heretic unless”
Well, I do not have standing to officially adjudge. I just express my well thought opinion as a private person. “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
I didn’t disagree with you Martin. I manifestly believe that Bart is preaching a species of heresy having to do with ecclesiology but which is based on a massive misinterpretation of fundamental theology. (And also an extreme lack of humility bordering on hubris.) I was just pointing out what is the process for adjudging a bishop to be a heretic.
George I agree. I never took much notice of bartholomaios. I was indifferent really as seeing him irrelevant to my life and as believer and to reality and I felt sorry for him. Turks and all that . But the Ukraine stuff has brought me up short and he is preaching papalism and most of the rest of church is going now down the false appeaasement road to disaster.From racism and cowardness. I have a question George. DO OUR BISHOPS NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH BELIEVES? And CAN THEY NOT SEPARATE THAT FROM DEAD BYZANTINE FANTASY LAND.? Two questions !! ?
To add. Should not be left to individual clergy to be defending the Faith,at this level, but to our/ their, bishops to speak up to ‘ Rightly divine the word of thy truth’ as the Liturgy says. So sad, with most disgusting example, Alexandria who literally in Odessa at liturgy, gave Onouphrios the kiss of judas.
Niko, George,
Here is a recent short video from Theodoros of Alexandria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=0&v=8KbCxnbzk6Y
The transcript is:
Ἀπ΄αὐτήν ἐδῶ τήν ἐκκλησία πέρασαν χιλιάδες ἂνθρωποι.
Ἐδῶ στό Κάϊρο στήν ἐκκλησία λατρεύεται ὁ Θεός,
καί στά ἱερά τζαμιά λατρεύεται ἀπό τό Κοράνι ὁ Θεός.
Ἀπ΄ὃλους μας ἀνεβαίνει ψηλά στόν οὐρανό ἡ εὐχαριστία στό Θεό.
Translation as much as possible in the Greek order to facilitate recognition:
From this church here, many thousands of people have passed.
Here in Cairo, in the church God is worshipped,
and in the holy mosques God is worshipped from the Quran.
From all of us, thanksgiving to God rises high to Heaven.
A corresponding article (in Greek) is
https://attikanea.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_333.html
George,
Just as saints are well known to be saints long before they are formally canonized by the church – indeed, canonization does not impart anything magical or special upon the saint being canonized, it is simply a formal acknowledgment of what all the faithful already know – the same is true for a church synod or council formally naming one to be a heretic.
By his words and behavior, Pat. Bartholomew has been consistently demonstrating himself to be following Roman Catholic ecclesiology rather than Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.
Just the same, many of Pat. Bartholomew’s “defense attorneys” – even though they purport to be Orthodox Christians – consistently prove that they think like Roman Catholics. Many commenters on this site – and even senior leaders in the GOA/C’ple – consistently demonstrate that they think like Roman Catholics, despite calling themselves Orthodox Christians.
No, we don’t need to wait for a council or for a statement from on high to confirm that Pat. Bartholomew and those who agree with him have been preaching heresy for a long time now and have been sowing discord in the Orthodox world (and continue to do so), all at the behest of the secularist globalists and their money, in the name of “anti-Russsianism” (whatever that is).
Same reasoning why the faithful didn’t need to wait until July of 1996 (when he was formally canonized) to begin praying to and asking for the intercessions of St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. They knew him to be a saint long before. Millions of saints are never formally canonized by the Church.
We Orthodox Christians living in the West need to be very attuned to the fact that the more worldly we become, the more we’re at risk of thinking like Roman Catholics and rationalist Protestants.
Sorry,
To be precise and to correct the above, Vladika John was formally canonized in July 1994, not in 1996.
Apologize for the error!
Colorado,
many thanks for your good point!
It also answers a question frm Joseph Lipper to me!
I hope he reads it.
Colorado. Thank u. Said so well Agree every word.
I have icon of Fr Alexander Men painted ( with John of San Francisco and Chrysostom of Smyrna.) and pray to him for us as he is a martyr for sure. We had need of him for longer. An open man at all but totally Orthodox.
George: “a man cannot be adjudged a heretic
unless [this] condition… ha[s] been met:
1. He is a bishop”
I don’t think Arius ever made bishop…
Joseph,
St. Paul says:
“but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”
(Galatians 1: 7-10)
“accursed” is a KJV translation of Greek “anathematized”
The official, or public anathema (announced to the wider public) may take some bureaucratic time to finalize. However if you see/hear TODAY somebody “pervert the gospel of Christ” then you know NOW, that man is not to be trusted, as far as YOU are concerned you know it already!
This is clear language applicable even to angel from heaven, let alone Bartholomew & Co.!
The rest is sophistries.
Joseph,
please read Colorado’s post
he also indirectly replies to you for me:
Colorado says
January 22, 2020 at 9:21 am
There is a stone that the builders rejected. The Royal Law and the rest of the Words of the Christ. The most paramount rejection is not regarding the warning that, he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This church is built as a prominent show piece for Orthodoxy in a country that utterly, and un- apologetically lives as it always has by the sword. The Russian faithful are also confronted with the same government doctrine, as are all the peoples toiling under nations and religions that condone living by the sword under the 10 kings of the antichrist. There is no escape from not reaping what we or they sow. Wars are determined until the end, as predicted in Danial. These pagan cretins that rule us are also fighting with Mother Nature, who will very soon prove that it is not nice to mess with Mother Nature and Holy Trinity. The perfection which the Holy God called Good will be created anew, and all satan’s efforts will be proven fruitless. All Glory to the Only Good One.
Joseph. Stop drinking the cool aid. It’s not good for you. Believe me.
On this holy day in which we commemorate St. Mark of Ephesus, I am reminded of the fact that the Holy Orthodox Church is the faith of the apostles. How on earth could the Greek Orthodox Church in America ever think that making some sort of universal prayer space or whatever it is that they wish to call it ever be any kind of example to the countless saints and martyrs who laid down their lives for the true faith. Anything less than proclaiming the Orthodox faith is actually cruel because you are telling people who are in denial or who have never truly heard of Christ that their beliefs in Budha, Islam, Judaism, Confuscianism, tree-hugging, gender-bending, or whatever else whackjob religion is just the same as the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church handed down once and for all. If they wish to continue to throw money at their tower of Babel, more power to them. I think I remember a certain dictator of history who did that with a swimming pool and look at how that turned out. In the end though, God will set it aright or tear it down as He wills. Lord have mercy!
Here we are just a little under two weeks from the beginning of February and still not much word on the synaxis in Jordan. So far we know that Constantinople, Athens and Alexandria are out, but, no word from Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, etc. I believe it is Russia, Czech-Slovak and Jerusalem that have confirmed, with the possibility of Antioch? I personally do not think Patriarch Illia of Georgia will attend due being pretty frail, maybe he would send representatives? Also of note, would be curious to see if clergy from Athens/Constantinople/Alexandria who do not agree with their patriarchates plan on attending.
I pray that more is being done behind the scenes that we don’t know about as the silence is concerning.
May God’s Will be done and may we do all we can to protect and preserve the Orthodox faith.
I think the real problem with the EP is that they are not close in proximity to the majority of the flock that they govern. Imagine if the USA was ruled by a bunch of autocrats located in Asia or Europe.
Correct C S,
and that real problem is caused by the devilishly beautiful female Gloria, the Glory who (according to St.Chrysostom) is tempting the Bishop, in this case EP. Why doesn’t he let go?Has he not enjoyed enough glory yet, why doesn’t he do something for his soul, at his age now? And for peace in the Church too?
Ioannis. Re good man Joseph. I long ago realised it’s like going round in a circle because he seems not to hear, or read the main point and just starts at beginning g again. Perhaps that is his job?
Yes we are a hierarchical church, but not in roman sense.
The power etc of Phanar as Rome, historically grew out of need and history, the fall of west empire in Rome ‘s case and byzantine in Phanar case. And yes in dark days as human institutions, they did some good in holding Christendom together and supporting faithful against Islam and barbarians. But such times are past ( not in supporting Faithful, but that does not need these structures) and such structures are Totally HUMAN, nothing to do with Christ. The Phanar and its outriders are trying, as Rome did, to make this a dogmatic teaching.Let alone secular intervention, which nothing new. This is heresy by what ever name u give it. The longer it is lived with, and this must be their hope, the more ‘THE NORM”, it becomes.
Niko,
“he seems not to hear, or read the main point and just starts at beginning g again.”
To paraphrase a Greek proverb,
“if one tells an inaccuracy he will say more inaccuracies to to cover it up.”
I have decided to discuss things Joseph, because I believe that at the end of the day he will realise he is stuck. Because he is a believer, he will then have to admit the truth about Bartholomew.
Another reason is that he gives us the chance to address points that other readers like him would like to ask. In other words we get the chance to fully reply to ecumenist views.
Plus, Joseph is very straightforward and reasonable with respect to discourse. We don’t always see that here, especially when things are so emotionally charged.
Gail,
True is true.
Whatever his shortcomings, (who hasn’t?) I get the impression Joseph is a very kind and soft person, who, unfortunately as myself in the past, has been EP-brainwashed just like those RC’s (not all, see gloria.tv) who think that the Pope is “almost” God!
Ioannis I agree and he is always curteous and I believe sincere. And as you say we need to have dialogue. Not within a Bubble. But does get tedious.
I for one. make my views clear but important to respect where due. As listening to Nikitas the new uk boss, i felt I was listening to an open, decent man, quite humble. Good clear communicator.And in passing unlike some, looks like an Orthodox bishop. Now he is an EP.bishop and I obviously do not agree re Ukraine, and, and, BUT I will not take back my impression. Just as Emmanuel of France. Leaving aside the racier bulgarian aspects! always looks and strike me as a worldly beaurocrat.
“Nikitas…is an EP.bishop and I obviously do not agree re Ukraine”.
As far as I am aware, Nikitas has made no public expression of his views on the Ukraine. Until he does, if he does, I will not attribute any particular opinion to him.
Ioannis,
“,,,it’s like going round in a circle because he seems not to hear, or read the main point and just starts at beginning again.”
That is because… “The beginning of the Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate; “in this is life, and the life is the light of the Churches.”
– Patriarch Bartholomew
I am kidding, of course. I, too, appreciate Joseph’s courteous and respectful discourse, particularly toward those who have not responded in kind. And though we couldn’t disagree more when it comes to the role of the CP, I agree that he has a good heart that cares about the truth.
Right!
I saw a video of Nikitas, the new Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain ( came over as a humble aporoachsble man must say but I know nothing about him) from London, interviewed by London greek radio stn, telling story of him flying into CHICAGO a O” Hare airport from Hong Kong and going through customs, being pulled over and asked how he got there with no visa in his AMERICAN PASSPORT!! ?? When he pointed out the customs guy was holding a USA passport, the man said, ‘ why u dressed like that ‘? When Niketas explained, the guy said, ‘ I don’t know about you guys ‘ To which he said that the man should buy a book!! I OFFER THIS AS IT IS.
Niko,
after all, Saint Mark of Ephesus was one of the “EP” Bishops.
Let’s hope and pray that Niketas is (and remains) a real Bishop of Christ, because the courtyard is dangerous.
Ioannis. Re Nikitas, yes let us hope. And judge him by his actions. The St Sophia set up in Bayswater London are the sane ilk with yr leadership 100 etc Archons ( ship ownership and professional Greeks, those that still have a faith or cultural tie ) but the parishes are the greek cypriots who are stubborn in their conservative attitude. As for the young, a lost cause. I would say in majority.
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. In addition, please take note of the comments section below the article.
Have Faith in Saint Nicholas!
By Dennis Mehiel and Michael Psaros
January 24, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/281944/have-faith-in-saint-nicholas/
Below please find another article from today in The National Herald. In addition, please take note of the comments section below the article.
A Plea for Saint Nicholas
By Father Alexander Karloutsos
January 24, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/282024/a-plea-for-saint-nicholas/
Joseph,”
“ if we believe that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then why does his refusal actually pose any problem? If we believe his primacy is largely irrelevant, then his refusal shouldn’t really matter.Perhaps we’ll see how the meeting in Jordan turns out. Although right now it’s not looking so good.”
Your sentences kind of pose the question “IF” he is “among” equals why do we have the problem, and why most probably they cannot organize their meeting in Jordan. I have the feeling you are laterally suggesting some wrong conclusion.
Allow me then to re-write your phrase without the hypothetical “If” but with reality:
““We know that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then why does his refusal actually pose any problem? If we believe his primacy is largely irrelevant, then his refusal shouldn’t really matter.Perhaps we’ll see how the meeting in Jordan turns out. Although right now it’s not looking so good.”
Now the answer is very clear. Bartholomew is unilaterally simply not complying with the correct “only a first among equals”. Period. Any consequences, schism and other problems etc will be because of his insisting to act as “first without equals”. Just like a real Pope.
I’ll use your own words (& my emphasis) from Checkmate? : :
“St. Mark of Ephesus was a true ecumenist who stood up for the true primacy and unity of the Church, and he spoke out against and rejected the false Council of Florence. This false council rejected the real primacy and unity of the Church, trading it for the false primacy of the pope and the false unity of papal dogma.”
Joseph Lipper June 17, 2018 3:23 pm
Ioannis, if we really know that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then we shouldn’t give him such a hard time about not calling a council. I’m sure Patriarch Bartholomew has better things to do than listen to a bunch of bishops argue. Surely any one of his “equals” or dopplegangers can do it. Maybe they could just hire an actor to play emperor for the day and call a council.
But that’s the point, Joseph. It’s not about him. He has the right to call Councils; he doesn’t have the right not to call them just because “he has better things to do.” If his equals ask for one, and they all did, then it’s his obligation to call one.
Gail, since they’re all equal, why doesn’t Metropolitan Rastislav of the Czech Lands and Slovokia call the council? There must be somebody who can call a council. Why does it have to be Patriarch Bartholomew? If it’s true that Russia doesn’t recognize him, then how can he call a legitimate council anyways?
If you think that an EP is the only one other than an emperor who can call a Council because he has authority over other bishops, then you don’t understand Orthodoxy. He has no special authority over his brother bishops. If he did, 2/3s of the Church wouldn’t have been able to skip his last Council.
An EP can call a meeting. That’s it.
Gail, if he calls a council, then he’s also exercising his special authority and priviledge. That would be a first without equals kind of thing to do. Remember, we’re trying hard in this thought experiment to keep him in place as just one of the equals.
Patriarch Kyrill wrote a letter stating that Patriarch Bartholomew would no longer be considered to have primacy as Ecumenical Patriarch. According to Moscow, Constantinople’s primacy is only derived from it’s place in the diptychs. I guess Antioch now has this primacy from Russia’s viewpoint, although Antioch doesn’t agree and still commemorates Patriarch Bartholomew.
Anyways, would Russia attend a council with those who have joined themselves with “schismatics”? Patriarch Bartholomew naturally would insist that a council be attended by Alexandria, Greece, and the OCU. In such case, there is the risk that whoever attended the council would then be labeled by Russia as “schismatic”.
I suspect what Russia really wants is for all the churches who have not yet joined themselves with “schismatics” to come together and denounce those who have. Well, it’s just not going to happen.
I think you’re right: Russia won’t have anything to do with Bartholomew, the schismatics, the State Department, or NATO. The Church is splitting right down geopolitical lines. Is it any wonder why Poland joined Bartholomew? https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_172334.htm
The funny thing is, I don’t think they’re going to get what they probably thought was in the bag, i.e. the good ‘ole U.S.A.
Joseph, you keep asking the same question in different ways hoping to get a different answer. The EP can call a Council. That’s the only thing that makes him unique. His role is unremarkable in every other way.
Gail, this might sound like a long shot, but perhaps Moscow will reach out to Pope Francis to call an “Orthodox” council. I realize that sounds strange, but desperate circumstances call for desperate measures. If Moscow somehow united with Rome, then I suppose Rome’s “primacy” could be leveraged.
After all, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfayev and the Pope are already close friends:
https://mospat.ru/en/2018/10/19/news165499/
Joseph, this is interesting. Moscow wouldn’t consider uniting with Rome, but they might accept their help if it was offered in this regard. Pope Francis did them “a solid” a while back when he said that Ukraine belonged to the MP. – Maybe Francis could call a Council based solely on the fact that the two Churches were once united. There may be a cannon out there that would allow it. I don’t know.
Joseph, this is a tragic course of affairs:
Bartholomew, seeing he has no support of Canon 28th(4th S.) any more has decided to gather secular lateral support instead, but he didn’t realize that he has infact lost that too. Why? Simply because of the mere size of Russia and the tens of millions of the faithful, real human holy people, not diplomats, not Davos, not $. There is no way Bartholomew can have THAT.
The Chrysostomical beautiful “Gloria” doesn’t let him alone.
The Bishop of the Mother Church has called a Synaxis, following in the footsteps of his predecessor James the Just. The EP did not call that one. Neither did the Emperor. Not all the Apostles attended. Nevertheless, as Bishop James stated: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…etc.”
In other words, we don’t NEED no EP.
“Joseph Lipper saysJanuary 25, 2020 at 10:56 am
Ioannis, if we really know that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then we shouldn’t give him such a hard time about not calling a council.”
Joseph we really know that Bartholomew is only a first among equals, hencewe give him such a hard time because he is working against such council. Obviously because he is afraid he may be declared heretical.
OK Joseph, you are an honest man, now please tell me:
There are many laity but also clergy, e.g. notably the “veteran” 90-year-old Fr.Ioannis Diotis who are accusing Bartholomew. But Bartholomew wants to defend himself in his own “clever” way by obstructing such a council being called.
OK Joseph, you are an honest man, now please tell me: What is in your HONEST opinion the way of calling the council, if Bartholomew and his friends do not want? See also the recent post by Monk James who characterizes this as a circular problem.—————————-
“I’m sure Patriarch Bartholomew has better things to do than listen to a bunch of bishops argue.”
“Better things”:
—————
Indeed Bartholomew HAS better things to do, things that will solidify his political, financial, publicity, environmental connections, and he will try thereby to beat MP in a “total power arena”.He proved it a few days ago he spent a few days in the Davos assembly meeting and talking with e.g. George Soros,Mark Zuckerberg, U2 singer Bono, Angela Merkel, Greta Thunberg, et al.
Now are you the same person who wrote in 2017:”Freemasonry is such a cornerstone of the philosophical architecture of America. Personally, I am inclined to believe that we are more of a country founded by the principals of Freemasonry than Christianity. So much of the religious rhetoric of our nation’s founding fathers was very carefully crafted in the terminology of Freemasonry. It’s deistic terminology is ambiguous and completely avoids saying that Jesus Christ is God. It instead refers to the “Glorious Being” and “Author of the Universe” and the “Great Lord and Ruler of Nations”. It is actually Lucifer, “the prince of this world” (John 12:31), that they refer to, but they carefully craft their terminology in a very deceptive and dangerous way that hopes to resonate with peoples of all faiths. It’s really a denial of Christ.”Joseph Lipper,May 14, 2017 7:35 pm
Read more:
https://www.monomakhos.com/milwaukee-priest-excommunicates-parish-council-treasurer/
.
“Bunch of Bishops”:
—————————
These are his EQUAL brethren!If he shows them this paradigmthey will use it against him too, ie ignore him.
Ioannis: “[Joseph: I’m sure Patriarch Bartholomew has better things to do than listen to a bunch of bishops argue.]…a few days ago he spent a few days in the Davos assembly meeting and talking with e.g. George Soros,Mark Zuckerberg, U2 singer Bono, Angela Merkel, Greta Thunberg, et al.”
Well, so PatB participated in a more important council.
Ouch!
Joseph,
“why doesn’t Metropolitan Rastislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia call the council? There must be somebody who can call a council. Why does it have to be Patriarch Bartholomew? If it’s true that Russia doesn’t recognize him, then how can he call a legitimate council anyways?”
Joseph you are a clever man, just think for a minute:
-Is Metropolitan Rastislav (M.R.) the “Green Patriarch”?
-Is M.R. a speaker in Davos with many financial and other connections?
-Has M.R. been visited by Pompeo and /or Pyatt for support?
-Can M.R. tell Ieronymos, JP etc what to do, or even ask a favor?
The answer is to all of these NO!.
But your “hero” has been cleverly “cultivating” all that and even more and has accumulated “lateral” power.
If you now “anno 2020” chose to be proud of exactly that highly “Christian” situation, then, brother, I really cannot find the right words to characterize it.
Ioannis, well I suppose Metropolitan Rastislav is at least unsullied of all those cultivations. Doesn’t that count for something? Maybe the Orthodox Church just needs a young fresh face to call a council.
Joseph,
Wow!
The Original Joseph Lipper is waking up!
YESSSS, a new SAINT Mark the Evgenikos could call a council.
You appreciate, Bartholomew will fight against him to the end, gathering all the secular forces he is until now constantly cultivating so far plus the most important topic of our Church he has been reading since since the age of 26, ie the letter of the Canon Law!
Let’s once more read your fantastic post in 2018:
“St. Mark of Ephesus was a true ecumenist who stood up for the true primacy and unity of the Church, and he spoke out against and rejected the false Council of Florence. This false council rejected the real primacy and unity of the Church, trading it for the false primacy of the pope and the false unity of papal dogma.”Joseph Lipper,June 19, 2018 9:48 amhttps://www.monomakhos.com/checkmate/
Needless to say,
similarly, we do not want another kind of Pope in the East with a new false primacy.
Ioannis, AGREE TOTALLY. I did not know bart was at Davos a talking shop for mega -wealthy who spout hot air and keep their.hands on the cash. But makes perfect sense as where he belonging. DON’T THEY MAKE ME QUITE SICK.
What he ‘is’ is not the problem.
It’s what he claims that he is.
He claims ‘Ecumenical’ means ‘Universal’ – which (when applied to the Bishop of Constantinople) it does not and never did.
“Joseph Lipper saysJanuary 25, 2020 at 10:56 amIoannis, if we really know that Patriarch Bartholomew is only a first among equals, then we shouldn’t give him such a hard time about not calling a council.”
Joseph we really know that Bartholomew is only a first among equals, hencewe give him such a hard time because he is working against such council. Obviously because he is afraid he may be declared heretical.
There are many laity but also clergy, notably the “veteran” 90-year-old Fr.Ioannis Diotis who are accusing Bartholomew. But Bartholomew wants to defend himself in his own “clever” way by obstructing such a council being called.
OK Joseph, you are an honest man, now please tell me:
What is in your HONEST opinion the way of calling the council, if Bartholomew and his friends do not want? See also the recent post by Monk James who characterizes this as a circular problem.
Ioannis. here:
https://www.romfea.news/proposal-for-dealing-with-the-ukrainian-issue/
Joseph,
please concentrate:
The big problem is NOT THE SYMPTOM BUT THE ILLNESS which causes the symptom (as Hierotheos mentions).
The Ukraine situation is just one of the symptoms, one of the wounds.
The illness is Bartholomew’s passion for glory and thus RC Primacy which you yourself criticized in 2018 . This is no PERSONAL attack on Bartholomew, it is a well-known danger, a common temptation to the Bishops, which St.Chrysostom has addressed many times in his homilies.
Chrysostom was so terrified by this temptation, the passion for glory that HE(!) refused to become a bishop! Can you imagine, honest brother Joseph, that there are people out there now with a “holy desire” of becoming Bishops? Surely they are “cleverer and holier” than Holy Chrysostom.
Now, regarding Hierotheos of Nafpaktos. I do not know when you “discovered” him, but his is no St.Chrysostom! About 30 years ago I went on holidays in his city, Nafpaktos. I talked to the people about the church there. I also visited his own monastery (convent) elsewhere.
From all of this I got the impression that he was not far from the typical Bishop who is not uninterested in his personal glory.
It is a mystery how he changed his dogmatical/canonical beliefs after talking to DIPLOMAT Pyatt. Can you explain THAT?
The Enemy was tempted to become First Without Equals.
Popes were likewise tempted.
Now the EP walks the same road.
We must pray for him, not encourage his delusion.
Ioannis, I personally met Hierotheos Vlachos twenty-five years ago and had a short conversation with him through his interpreter. He wasn’t a bishop then, but I think he was ordained bishop later that same year. He had a very quiet, prayerful and peaceful presence about him, and he would light up when he would talk with someone. Anyways, that was just my own personal impression. I’ve never got the sense that he was interested in the “glory” of being a bishop, but rather his own writings overwhelmingly indicate that he takes being a bishop very seriously. He was critical of the Crete Council, and I agree with his criticisms. No, I don’t believe his position has changed even now. What evidence do you have that he has changed his “dogmatic/canonical beliefs”?
Thanks Joseph.
speaking from memory I said about 30 years buy i now looked up my docs and it is between 24-25 years ago because when I went to Nafpaktos he was already metropolitan for “about” a year.
When I visited his own monastery that was even later because the nuns told me that the Bishop does not come very often because he is busy in Nafpaktos. Yes he was also very busy with his books. They sold all of his numerous books in the monastery. That was one source of income. Hierotheos is a softly-speaking man, and he speaks sharply implying authority. He gives the impression of “a man of letters”, just like Hieronymos before he became ArchBishop of Athens.
For any years Hierotheos had a friction with a monastery inside his city Nafpaktos (which I visited too). The monks were very popular then than the new Bishjop, I am not sure how much that had to do with the friction. Their differences looked very complicated to me, I think they went to some court too. The simple explanations mentioned things about who was the boss in this and that.You may know more about this than me, I did not have the time or the interest to learn the details.
Having said that, Hierotheos was right about being critical of the Crete Pseudo-Council.
The problem was that at when Pyatt contacted him he changed his opinion about things. Also being the spokesman of the Hierarchy he did not give accurate information about the Hierarchs’ decision to the press and that was discovered later.
Now I characterized his newer comments as dogmatic/canonical if they relate to the main framework/topics in the Pseudo-council and the Pseudo-autocephaly in Ukraine.
Joseph,
how does the following news agree with your good views in 2017?
PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW ATTENDS ELITE DAVOS WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
The annual event gathers the world’s key players in business, politics, academia, and charity, as well as celebrities, to find solutions to the world’s major problems, and to work out business deals on the sidelines. This year’s forum was held January 21 through today, January 24.
Read more:
:
Ioannis, I don’t know. It sounds more interesting than listening to a bunch of bishops arguing. Could it be that Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t want to be the Ecumenical Patriarch? Maybe he wants to retire soon.
“It sounds more interesting than listening to a bunch of bishops arguing.”
You’re really scraping the barrel, now…
I think you may be right about him not wanting to be “Ecumenical” anymore. Perhaps he just wants to be the “Green” Patriarch or just the “Schismatic” Patriarch.
Or it could be the case of him moving out of the way for “Young Turk” Elpidophoros to do his thing.
Joseph,
“ Could it be that Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t want to be the Ecumenical Patriarch? Maybe he wants to retire soon.”
The sooner the better because the schism in the Church is increasing every day.
Joseph, you know his cooperation with the West
and you know what that means from your own texts:
https://www.monomakhos.com/losing-the-culture/#comment-117857
and
https://www.monomakhos.com/milwaukee-priest-excommunicates-parish-council-treasurer/#comment-112177
Ioannis,
The almost 30 year old schism in Ukraine is not about Freemasonry. It’s not about Patriarch Bartholomew either. Do you really believe that if Patriarch Bartholomew retired, then the schism would be healed?
Joseph, why do you never answer any of my questions?
Particularly those where I cite SS Markos Eugenikos
and Gregory the Great?
Is it because you have no answer?
Brendan, please forgive me I must have missed these. If you would like, perhaps you could repoint me to your questions or rephrase them.
Brother Joseph,
“The almost 30 year old schism in Ukraine is not about Freemasonry. It’s not about Patriarch Bartholomew either. Do you really believe that if Patriarch Bartholomew retired, then the schism would be healed?” (emph.mine)
Not only did you not answer to brother Brendan and sometimes to me, BUT when you did answer to me mow, you misunderstood my question first:
As I have already written the current problem in Ukraine is ONE symptom only. The illness (causing the symptoms) is the Bartholomew’s passion for glory and power. When I said “the schism in the Church is increasing every day” I meant the schism in THE WHOLE ORTHODOX CHURCH! This is what this man is doing.
Bartholomew’s passion for power and glory (generally diagnosed by St.Chrysostom) has pushed him to cooperate with the powerful and glorious people of this Saeculum (hence secular).
Whom did Bartholomew go to “Davos-World-Economic-Forum” last week to meet? Here are some of them:
Donald Trump Vladimir Zelensky, Angela Merkel, Antonio Guterres, Jennifer Morgan, Greta Thunberg, Jens Stoltenberg, Winnie Byanyima, Christine Lagarde Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bill Gates.
Now your older posts (links already mentioned) said:
(emphasis mine)
“Joseph Lipper says
January 12, 2018 at 6:02 pm
What is the high Western culture that we are trying to preserve anyhow? Protestantism? Freemasonry? Greek paganism? Renaissance Enlightenment?
On our nation’s East Coast, thirteen colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776. Those colonies gave us a cultural and political legacy based on Protestantism, Freemasonry, Greek paganism, and Renaissance enlightenment.
On our nation’s West Coast, the Russian colony in Alaska was sold to the U.S. in 1867, and the official Orthodox mission to Alaska dates from 1794. The spiritual and cultural legacy of that colony is the one that I want to preserve and protect.”
and the other link of yours:
” Joseph Lipper says
May 14, 2017 at 7:35 pm
Billy Jack Sunday,
Freemasonry is such a cornerstone of the philosophical architecture of America. Personally, I am inclined to believe that we are more of a country founded by the principals of Freemasonry than Christianity. So much of the religious rhetoric of our nation’s founding fathers was very carefully crafted in the terminology of Freemasonry. It’s deistic terminology is ambiguous and completely avoids saying that Jesus Christ is God. It instead refers to the “Glorious Being” and “Author of the Universe” and the “Great Lord and Ruler of Nations”. It is actually Lucifer, “the prince of this world” (John 12:31), that they refer to, but they carefully craft their terminology in a very deceptive and dangerous way that hopes to resonate with peoples of all faiths. It’s really a denial of Christ. One can see this deistic terminology, for example, in the proclamation of thanksgiving of 1789 from our first president of the United States, George Washington, who was himself an advanced Freemason.
Orthodox Christians are deceived by George Washington’s rhetoric:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/view/what-george-washington-shows-us-in-his-first-thanksgiving-proclamation
Washington’s rhetoric sounds nice, but it isn’t actually Christian. It’s really a denial of Christ as God, and written in such a way as to draw the support of those who actually profess Christ. It’s a great deception.”
Joseph if that is what you think about your own country, what do you think about Davos? Is Davos and its attendees not related to the same groups of people?
Are you forgetting that it was Mason Athenagoras who financed and sent 26-year old Deacon Bartholomew to the Eastern section of the Jesuit-Ignatius-Loyola institute to learn everything about the Canons? Was that a “long-term-investment”? We are certainly living the results now.
I have already asked twice without receiving an answer:
What’s happened, brother Joseph, and you have changed your above views as compared to a few years ago?
___
Ioannis, rest assured, I still stand by everything I wrote in these posts you bring up. My viewpoint still hasn’t changed.
Although I haven’t really examined what was said at Davos, it sounds like the theme was on the environment and global warming, a theme that’s actually a criticism of the worst of western culture. So it would seem appropriate to have someone who offers a different ethos like Patriarch Bartholomew.
At it’s best, Orthodox Christianity stands counter to the worst aspects of a disposable western culture. For example, if people simply followed the Orthodox fasting rules, that by itself would significantly lessen the demand for beef cattle and the needless destruction of rainforests for cattle pasture.
Yet the Orthodox ethos, rather than externalizing social and environmental issues, gives us instead the opportunity to address these problems through our own repentance. The temptation to blame our authorities, bishops, and neighbors for society’s problems is always fundamentally a temptation that seeks to avoid the real problem, the problem of our own need for repentance.
Joseph___to give you one quick example.
One of the attendees is e.g. Greta Thunberg.
Now the Sweden Church headed by a woman Archbishop(ess?) said in 2018 that Greta is the Successor to Jezus.
how would you like your (grand)daughter to become a Greta-fan?
Now, really, you have the holy inspiration to justify Bartholomew’s presence there?
Lord have mercy!
Ioanni, if I may ask this question: what in the last fifty years has America accomplished in the realm of High Culture? I was recently watching Season three of The Crown, I believe it was Episode 8 “Moondust”.
It was about Apollo 11 and Prince Philip’s mid-life crisis. Leaving the latter aside, what has America (or the West) done that was exemplary during my lifetime, other than the moon landing?
The internet is a sewer of pornography. The majority of young males cannot find a wife. The last piece of truly great literature (Tolkien’s corpus) was written in the 50s. Other than Rock-n-Roll (and I’m stepping in it here), which flamed out almost as soon as arrived on the scene, what great legacy does my generation have to bequeath the future?
Where is our Mozart? Or Gen X’s Beethoven? Does Gen Z have a Tolstoy or a Dostoyevsky? During the depths of the Great Depression, lean and hungry, barely-educated men built the Hoover Dam in record time. The Empire State Building was built in 100 days. What do we have that is comparable to these things? Why, it would take 3 years to just get the building permits and another 5 years to do an environmental impact study to make sure there are no snail darters in the way.
Whenever we export “democracy” we invariably destroy entire nations and reduce their cities to rubble and their people to nomads. At least when Andrew Jackson ethnically cleansed the Southern tribes to what is now Oklahoma, the Southerners built cities and universities in their place.
What’s my point? What exactly is it that we are fighting for? Drag-queen Reading Hour? A toxic maternalism that encourages the castration of young boys? The legalization of marriage for anal fetishists? Governors who will fight to the death so that infanticide can be normalized? And to take all this nonsense and export it to foreign cultures at the point of a gun?
George, your post has got real deep thinking,
with many correct questions. I guess, if I had the time,
I could fill many pages with various thoughts.
Suffice it to say a couple of things now:
“What exactly is it that we are fighting for?”
At the end of the day ONE thing really matters:
We were created by God for ever and we belong to him only.
We are here for some time to prepare ourselves for our final destination:
To be with God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In practical terms, we are here and now to do God’s will, not ours.
Remember, “thine will be done”.
Easily said, difficult to do always. But at least we know it.
Instead of the above, “What are we fighting for?”
Ego, glory, fame, pleasure, lust, good food, money, you name it.
Does all that make us really happy? I think not.
The governments of the world have one thing in common:
Economic growth.Thus more goods, more food, more weight, more weight-watching and so on.
The average business is not a philanthropic organization, it’s a profit making engine.
Lord, thine will be done, not mine.
George, in a nutshell,
that is the real guarantee that we will make ourselves really happy, and our countries and societies really beautiful.
Joseph, Pat. Bartholomew does not in fact offer an alternative. What he offers is a neo-pagan anti-humanism that destroys the irreducible connection between God and man as microcosm in His creation. Indeed it is That is why they like Pat. Bartholomew. He is just like them, he just dresses funny.
Would they even want him at Davos if he weren’t the “Ecumenical” Patriarch?
That’s an interesting question, blimbax.
Gail no they would not. But none of the Popes have attended?
At the very best it’s a ‘ bad look’ as the journalists phrases go. Would he even understand it’s not good look? Needs new PR but then he does not care any more.
I see him and his ilk as narrow greek nationalists in a way thst irrelevant for young today. He has nothing but empty words. That is all they recycle at the Phanar. Still u have him with you this year. Enjoy.
Blimbax,
one hand is helping the other hand.
“Ladling butter from alternate tubs,
Stubbs butters Freeman, Freeman butters Stubbs.”
Brendan, good man though he is and polite, Joseph never answers the main question. That is the Ukraine is not just about interfering in another patriarchate’ s back years, cos they all do this to be blunt at one time or another. That would be bad enough, but it is about the sacramental theology of the Church being made rubbish and the election of crooks paedophiles and all laymen to episcopate etc with an imperial signature . I presume Joseph is happy with that.? As I understanding Orthodox sacramental theology by Phanar, I CAN CELEBRATE THE LITURGY THIS SUNDAY IF I GET A COUPLE OF LAYMEN TO ORDAIN ME.? Perfectly Ukrainian!!! ?
My Dear Niko,
It is not in fact ‘perfectly Ukrainian’ as you say. I sense a putdown, a whitewash in your remark. I ask you to reconsider.
I have been to Ukraine many times. I have worked there and lived there. I have visited and worshiped in their many fine churches and cathedrals, shopped in their bazaars, eaten in the homes of many fine people, and been welcomed. I am convinced I was the first and perhaps the only westerner many of them have ever seen.
I have also traveled to many parts of Ukraine, lived and worked there. One thing I’d like you to try and understand is that western Ukraine is unique from the rest of the country. Truly, it is in western Ukraine that the patriotism and the much of the strength of the country resides, where much of the history is remembered. And it is a unique history, much of it tragic; so is the remembered history tragic.
I’d like to ask you to have a look at Magocsi’s excellent ‘A History of Ukraine’, at least from the time of Kievan Rus to the post Soviet collapse. The collapse was truly frightful. It was worse there than anywhere else in the post Soviet bloc.
Read Gogol’s ‘Taras Bulba’. Understand who Shevchenko was, St Job of Pochaev, Bogdan Khmilnetsky and the history of Galicia (Halychina). Read, if you will, Sienkiewicz’s epic ‘With Fire and Sword’. Please try and understand their long and troubled history with the Russians, the Ottomen, the Poles and the west, especially the period after the First World War.
I think you will come to understand they are a very devout people, very committed to achieving an autonomy and a freedom denied them, due to the machinations of the nation-states which have always surrounded them for a thousand years (no exaggeration). There is a lot for them to throw off, to come to terms with, and to settle within themselves. But from history, they intuitively know there has never been any ally upon whom they can truly rely.
From our armchairs, it is easy to poo-poo the strident ethnic and nationalist impulses that motivate them, the propensity towards militarism and Nazism, the seemingly blind willingness to compromise canonical principles in their aim of a united and national faith. I also abhor all this. But they are simply repeating what an understanding of their long history has always shown them; that this is likely a short opportunity in time for them to gain for themselves some small autonomy that history has denied them.
They are a passionate people. They do not have as much of the melancholy and introspection (yes, and sobriety) that the Russians do. They sing stronger, happier songs in defiance of whatever dark fate may await. They pray earnestly, they fight over their churches (because they mean something to them), and they struggle to live day to day with hope in a better future. Their monasteries are full, their churches are full, and the magnificence of their services are awe-inspiring. Can we say the same?
Please then, I ask you to reconsider, and have some understanding and compassion for a people I have lived with, eaten with, prayed with, and loved.
Sincerely,
E M Cimmins
What bothers me, E M Cimmins, is that our own State Department and NATO are fanning the flames of the fire between Russia and Ukraine and using the Church to do it.
Whatever their destiny, they should be in charge of it. But each is being manipulated by outside forces. Bartholomew, in his stupidity, has put the Church in the middle. The Church doesn’t belong in this dispute. Certainly, not BARTHOLOMEW. Bringing the OCU into the Church was not the prerogative of Bartholomew. He doesn’t have the right to meddle in the MP’s territory, uninvited, as he is now also doing in the Serbian Church with Montenegro. By aligning himself with politicians who are leveraging Constantinople in their effort to isolate Russia, he has severely weakened the Church, which may be the ONLY true witness left in the world.
Take a look at the reasons he thinks canons 9 and 17 give him the right to mess around with the ecclesiastical issues in territories belonging to other canonical bishops:
1) Because he was in the capital, the bishop of Constantinople gained increasingly in prestige and authority in the East, such as that enjoyed by the bishop of Rome in the West.
Does Pope Francis still enjoy the authority of the Bishop of Rome? No, that all changed in 1054 and somewhere along the line, it ended for the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Orthodox Church, as well. If Bartholomew had any prestige and authority, 2/3s of the Church wouldn’t have ditched his Great and Holy Council.
2) As head of the church of the capital, he was in close proximity to the emperor and court. This contributed significantly to his advancement in prominence and authority even beyond the limits of his immediate jurisdiction.
The EP is no longer in close proximity to anyone. Whatever prominence or authority the Ecumenical Patriarchate once enjoyed, it’s gone. It would be like a “Nellie Oleson” saying to her brother: “Daddy liked me best when we were growing up and because I was put in charge of you when we were young, I should inherit all the money.”
3) The Resident Synod, of which he was presiding hierarch, contributed greatly to his projection. The other members of this synod were bishops who had come to the capital to seek favors or resolve problems. The Resident Synod was a way of accomplishing the latter.
Are other bishops coming to “the capital,” which is no more, to seek favors or resolve problems? Well, yes, if you include politicians and schismatics who are leveraging the EP to isolate Russia!
4) The Resident Synod is the last stage in the organizational development of the synod as reflected in the canons, beginning with the provincial synod.
Meaning what?em>
5) Canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council afford the right to bishops and clergy in general with grievances against their metropolitans to appeal their case to the exarch of the diocese, here understood to refer to those bishops later known as patriarchs, or to the see of Constantinople.
In Ukraine, no canonical bishop or member of the clergy appealed to Batholomew. In addition, Ukraine was NOT under the see of Constantinople, as Constantinople previously recognized the MP over Ukraine. So what we’re left with is an EP who will listen to the grievances of people OUTSIDE the Church and make decisions on their behalf.
6) Canons 9 and 17 recognize the right of the bishop of Constantinople to hear, upon appeal, disputed cases of all kinds which have already been examined by other sees. Not cases “of all kinds.” He has no authority over (or responsibility to) those OUTSIDE the Church and he cannot interfere in another bishops’ territory, uninvited.
7) The prerogative of supreme judicial authority made the see of Constantinople the highest ecclesiastical court in the East, a similar prerogative accorded the bishop of Rome in the West by the canons of Sardica.
If the EP has the same authority as the bishop of Rome, then LIKE the bishop of Rome, he has no authority in the Orthodox Church today. (One wonders when the Pope is going to claim the same thing about his own authority within the Orthodox Church.)
8) This prerogative ought not to be seen as a violation of the rights of other sees, in view of the fact that the bishop of Constantinople intervened only upon request by the litigants.
In the case of Ukraine, Bartholomew’s involvement was not requested by the MP and he can only litigate disputes that come to him from INSIDE the Church. His authority stops at the gates of the Orthodox Church. He cannot bring “litigants” OUTSIDE the Church, INTO to the Church, and give them territory belonging to another canonical bishop.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-primacy-of-the-see-of-constantinople-in-theory-and-practice-
As usual Gail, you hit several nails right on the head.
P.S. Gail, for what it’s worth, it looks like the Trump Administration is getting fed up with this entire Ukrainian imbroglio. According to a reporterette at NPR, Mike Pompeo blew up at her with words to this effect: “Here’s a map of the world, can you point to me where Ukraine is? Do you think the average American cares anything about Ukraine?”
If anything, I’m upset with Trump because he didn’t hold up the aid to Ukraine indefinitely.
What bothers me about Lewis Patsavos’ historical tract on the Primacy of Constantinople/New Rome is this paragraph: “5) In the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarchs intervened directly until the separation of the Metropolis of Kiev from that of Moscow in 1461. Thereafter, contacts of varying significance continued to exist. These led ultimately to the granting of autocephalous status to the Church in Russia and ratification in 1593 of its elevation to patriarchate.”
Constantinople fell into heresy in 1439, which heresy the Russian Church rejected. It became independent, not because it wanted to be but, because it had to be. It had no choice.
Mr Patsavos passes in silence over Constantinople’s self-subjection to Rome.
Hi Gail,
Thanks for replying.
I am in complete agreement with you on everything you have posted above.
What is going on in the Church nowadays causes me no end of grief, especially when it hits so close to home in so many ways.
When I realize it is not just myself, but that these crises are affecting millions around the world who are my spiritual kindred, my fellow communicants, my unseen (but not unknown) greater family near and abroad, I simply have to accept it as the will of God.
This is very hard. But I can’t ignore the sense that God is placing these situations in front of us for a reason, and I think the reason is to compel us to make decisions. My spouse and I have had to make decisions about several realities we didn’t expect to find within the Church. Generally, we thought people would behave better than what we’ve seen. It shouldn’t surprise me now that these highly-questionable attitudes and behaviors are seen even in those that should know better (but it still does). In a way, odd as it might be to say, when we see blatant self-seeking, inappropriate and haughty pride, and a love of opulence in our monks, priests, and bishops, we know we are seeing ordinary men that have fallen into delusion. Everyone’s behavior is a good or bad example to all the rest. And I don’t think it it goes too far to say that this is one of God’s blessings to the rest. We avoid future pitfalls after we’ve ourselves fallen into them. We also avoid pitfalls when others do.
Gerondism, for instance, is a terrible and prevalent disease within the Church, especially (from my experience) among the converted clergy. It’s very sad to see, and can cause a lot of damage. But it will eventually work itself out as people pick up their wounded selves and vote with their feet. So, when we see priests and bishops (who are but men) defaulting to using the imperial “we” and talking down to us as if from a great height, we know what’s happened. We avoid them and go about our business of caring for one another, and praying for one another, and for them.
There is an old saying, “the spiritual life is not a theory, you have to live it.” This forces us to narrow our focus to what is most important in our lives, and as Maslow once said, “even if that means giving up perfectly good things now, for something better later.” I’ve seen men behaving badly before, men who thought very highly of themselves. If they are harming people, it is my duty to bring it to their superiors honestly and without anger. In the Orthodox Church, all sin and delusion is an illness. This is one of the best things about our Faith. It deals with the reality behind the symptoms.
As to the waywardness of Patriarch Bartholomew, Metropolitan Nathaniel and others (yes and the Ukrainians), it will be good for me to see these episodes run their course. It might not make me happy, but like everything else, it will be good for me. I would like to see the Mind and Heart of the Church, probably in the form of wise hierarchs, be forced to come forward and deal with these issues. Looking back as we do to our history, we’ve always seen in it as the movement of the Holy Spirit. It will be the only voice Bartholomew or his successors are most likely to respect. From our history, it seems it’s always (and only) forced to come out in a crisis. I respect the process, hard as it is sometimes.
Warmly,
E M Cimmins
E M Cimmins
very well said,
keep up the good work!
Concerning the first paragraph of Gail’s post, see this interview of Professor Stephen Cohen, a long-time scholar of Russia and professor emeritus of NYU and Princeton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th3PuyqYqQU&feature=youtu.be
Dear Gail.
Thank you, I never knew GOARCH had such manipulative nonsense on their website.
If we sent the rebuke of Metropolitan Luke of Zaporozhye to the author(s) of the scholastic minded points from GOARCH do you think it would have any effect? I doubt it would, such rebukes have had no effect
on the bishops of Rome for centuries or Mr. Lipper.
“Only a hierarch who has forgotten the Gospel could proclaim his primacy to the world”
https://orthochristian.com/127612.html
I appreciate authentic Orthodox Bishops rightly dividing the word of God’s truth as they proclaim the simple message of the Gospel which separates the wheat from the chaff. All committed ecumenist are not for that but that’s what ends up happening, are they upset?
I’m sure it wouldn’t matter, Matthew, as they have put blinkers or winkers on themselves to prevent them from seeing anything behind or beside them. They are so invested in being Greek and their way of life in the Church reality is just a pesky annoyance.
Mr Cimings, you write eloquently about Ukraine and its people. I am not anti-Ukrainian at all. In fact, several years ago I wrote about the Holodomyr and continue to lament the fact that in the West, this is largely memory-holed.
Nothing of what you write though is antithetic or contraprobative to the issue at hand, which is:
1. The canonical Ukrainian Church is not anti-patriotic or anti-nationalist,
2. Nobody in the canonical Church asked for autocephaly from Moscow (indeed, they were already autonomous: Onuphriy is the only head of an autonomous eparchy to have the honorific “His Beatitude” appended to his name, a title which belongs only to the primates of autocephalous Churches),
3. Bartholomew did intrude into another Church’s eparchy. That is an undisputed fact and not one that is justified by any canon.
4. His action was self-evident to even his partisans as they had to clumsily rewrite history to accommodate this egregious action.
5. The ramifications of what Bartholomew did are multilayered and unfortunate. And I’m being extremely charitable here. Not only has he plunged the Orthodox world into chaos but he has incited a schism.
Please understand, there is no easy way out of these unfortunate actions. More violence awaits, not only on the parochial level but in the geopolitical sphere as well. As for the Orthodox Faith itself, short of a real ecumenical council, this schism cannot be healed.
Bartholomew clearly didn’t think this through. Instead he believed his own press-clippings and thought that his very presence (or office) would carry the day; that the Russians and the other Churches that were startled by his egregious unilateralism would accept his actions as a fait accompli.
Clearly, nothing of the sort has happened. Indeed, even those Churches that have gone along with Bartholomew have done so in an ambiguous fashion and have been plunged into intramural squabbling. I for one, don’t see the Church of Greece recovering from this self-inflicted wound; at the very least, what little moral authority it had has now vanished.
I challenge you or any of our readers to see a way out of this morass. Short of divine intervention, there isn’t any.
Hi George,
You have a great site here. I really enjoy it. I haven’t posted this much online in probably fifteen years.
It looks like I have caused a misunderstanding. I wrote a reply to Niko’s remark above, and didn’t really set out to add to the theological discussion overall, just to what I perceived as as a slight against Ukrainians. I meant to appeal to him to see them as people, wayward though they be, and point out that they have been through a lot as a people yet have done many things that are truly laudable.
I agree with your post. Of course I do. I just thought I was replying to Niko. And I also agree that ultimately it will take the work of the Holy Spirit, however He chooses to manifest Himself, to resolve these terrible quandaries.
Sincerely,
E M Cimmins
E M, I heartily second Gail’s recommendations. This is not an echo chamber; feel free to write (cogently hopefully) whatever you want. Criticize me or whomever to your heart’s content. All we ask is that all comments not be ad hominem.
George, I thank you and Gail for your kind words and encouragement, and for other commenters as well.
I will certainly try to write more cogently. I read an awful lot more than I write, so I could definitely afford spending more time editing my comments beforehand.
With increasing respect,
E M Cimmins
E M, please forgive me, but I did not mean to imply that you do not “write cogently”, you do. This was a general statement to all of our correspondents and potential writers.
As far as I’m concerned, you write lucidly, cogently and to the point.
Hi I posted a reply. I do understand Ukrainians are a people. The Ukraine friends I have certainly are and are close good friends. I as you feel pain, sorrow, that the beauty, love and Orthodox Culture of this unique people have been used and walked over and hidden and now abused.. But I make a judgement that Russia and Ukraine need each other. And yes Russian actions not always, how shall we say, right.!! But we need to over come that. And of course peaceful, respecfull relations with Poland. And Poland to understand it’s past that led western Ukrainians in 1939 to see invasion of the Soviet army as a liberating act , if only for a nano second!!
My Very Dear Nikos!
I saw instantly what had happened. I responded to a poster named “Niko”, not Nikos, and after searching up the thread and not finding another “Niko”, I thought it was a one-shot poster casting aspersions. Of course I have seen your many posts and would not have dreamed you were one and the same! People are, after all, very attached to their pseudonyms.
Sheesh, it was just a typo! You are plainly not casting aspersions, and I like your posts. Please forgive!
E M Cimmins
George as impractical and as unspecific as it seems, the way out of our morass is attendance on the Sacraments (especially confession); prayer, fasting and almsgiving with a merciful heart. Management will not work and that is a great American temptation.
One of the points I took away from the conference was the reality of confessing other people’s sins as our own with tears (which they are after all). That means facing the shame that is induced in us and not trying to place it on a scapegoat or simply excusing it or demanding “they” change.
I am afraid that the office of the EP is dying, slowly and painfully. That is a grief even to me but likely irreversible. Even when the death is final, we will tend to feel pain in the amputated limb.
We all are in anguish. Lord have mercy on us and heal our infirmities for His name’s sake.
I DO have compassion for such people. My screen name should indicate that I’m all about small nations, their right to preserve their languages, cultures;etc.
You cite several examples which have nothing to do with the fanaticism of the Ukrainian extremists of today.
Professor Magocsi identifies as a Carpatho Rusyn. He is hated by Ukrainian nationalists who view the Rusyns as bad Ukrainians. The name Carpatho Rusyn is considered only slightly less offensive than Carpatho Russian.
“Taras Bulba” was written by Gogol. Gogol was a Ukrainian who was pro Russian. He wrote about the Cossacks who were a rough people, but passionate defenders of Orthodoxy. They fought the Poles, because the Poles attempted to impose Catholicism upon them. The Poles enticed most of Ukraine’s Orthodox bishops to submit to Rome; while retaining the externals of Orthodox worship. Thus, the Ukrainian Catholic(Uniate) church was born. Most Ukrainians who knew what was happening, rejected this union. That is precisely what led Bohdan Khmelnitsky to unite Ukraine with Russia.
St. Job of Pochaev was an Orthodox monk, who resisted the union with Rome. To him, Orthodoxy was far more important than an political ideology.
When Poland was partitioned, Halychyna became part of Austria. It was here that the Uniate church survived. This explains why Western Ukraine is more anti Russian than the rest of the country. In the rest of Ukraine, almost all the people who had been Uniate, returned to the Orthodox church. The same occurred in neighboring Belarus’, since all of Belarus’ went to Russia. Prussia and Austria received those parts of Poland without a Belarusian population.
Taras Shevchenko, although a nationalist, was equally critical of the Poles as he was of the Russians. His poetry reflects the glory of the Cossacks. There is no evidence that Shevchenko ever departed from Orthodoxy, anti Tsar though he was.
Incidently, there have been many Cossack separatists, both the Ukrainian speaking Kuban Cossacks, and the Russian speaking Don Cossacks. I’ve known some of the former. A Kuban Cossack may identify with the Ukrainians, but he will never, ever set foot in a Ukrainian Catholic church.
I don’t doubt that many Ukrainian nationalists are sincere. I would be the last one to accuse them of all being neo Nazis. But as Orthodox, we ought to put the faith above any nationality. I have corresponded with an Estonian priest who belongs to an uncanonical bishop, because he wants to “keep the Estonian experience alive.” I’d like to keep the Estonian language and culture alive, too, but not at the expense of leaving the ark of salvation, the church.
Ukrainian Orthodox have a canonical church, with great autonomy, under Metropolitan Onufry. It’s belonging to Moscow actually protects it from whatever regime might be current in Kyiv.
Since my church is on the New Calendar, I went to visit my son in his ROCOR church for the Old Style Nativity. There, I met the lady who taught me Ukrainian. Her credentials as Ukrainian are perfect; she grew up near Kyiv. She must be a good teacher, because Eastern Ukrainian people often think I’m a native; I’ve never set foot there. She and others from that region are heartsick over the hatred and bigotry of the extremists in their homeland. Nationalism, yes, by all means; but without the fanaticism.
Thank you for this window to reality.
God bless.
My Very Dear Estonian Slovak,
Ach! It seems as though I have caused a conflict without intending to. I was responding to a post by Niko above, and my response was purely my own subjective opinion on my experiences living and working in Ukraine. He implied that two laymen could consecrate a priest that could then serve the Divine Liturgy that Sunday, and that such a noncanonical act was somehow ‘perfectly Ukrainian’. I then made suggestions how he might learn a good deal more about Ukraine and it’s history and culture. That’s all.
But I am so glad to see you know your history and literature so well! It’s so nice to be able to make references to sources and have people know what you’re talking about!
No, my references above to Niko were only to show him the scope of a people that he seemed to be denigrating, nothing more.
But yes, the neoNazism is an anomaly in their culture. I was there just as the first conflicts over churches was coming to a close; it was basically the Uniates reclaiming churches that had been ‘appropriated’ by the Church under the Soviets, the leftovers of which went on to become the ‘autocephalous’ church under Makarios. It was at that time that the issue of paying pensions for veterans of the SS Galician Division, which had of course been denied under Soviet rule. The first regimes under Kravchuk (or Kuchma, I can’t remember) initially denied them pensions also, which launched a heated national debate.
And it was hot, let me tell you! I was at first completely in the dark as to the issues, but the whole Galician Division and then Stepan Bandera sagas came forward. The Banderites etc considered their efforts against the Soviets to be patriotic (especially in lieu of the Holodomor) and therefore worthy of support. They eventually paid these pensioners, but not after rupturing the country at the very beginning of it’s new independence. Looking back, I think that’s what inevitably made east-west cooperation impossible. It sure has taken over much of the western section like a plague. I never in a million years thought I’d see the black-and-red flying in the boulevards of beautiful Lviv. Of course, and quite tragically, they conflate the Russians with the Soviets as they do now in the west.
I was expanding my understanding of the Carpatho Rusyns just today. You are perhaps from the Presov region? It looks beautiful there!
Thank you,
E M Cimmins
For what it’s worth, I think the liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic church by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1946 was wrong. Not that I’m a great fan of the Uniate church; I’m not. But here they were dealing with Ukrainian people who knew that they belonged to an Eastern Catholic church, not illiterate peasants, as was the case with the Union of Brest in 1596. Plus, in either case, it was wrong to force people into a union against their will. Plus, in 1946, the MP was very much under Soviet control. That’s why Russians living abroad were right to steer clear of it.
I have no problem with the rebirth of the Ukrainian Catholic church. I do have a problem with them interfering in Orthodox affairs. Almost invariably, they support the uncanonical groups against Metropolitan Onufry. I’ve read comments by Ukrainian Catholics saying that the MP is hated in Ukraine. But by whom? Mostly by either the Uniates or the fanatical chauvinists among the Orthodox.
Actually, my ancestry is Eastern Ukrainian on one side. And one Ukrainian grandparent was allegedly descended from Scottish Jacobites. I wish I could claim Slovak or Rusyn heritage. I’m a Hunkie wannabe!
By the way, E.M. Cimmins, I’m sorry if I didn’t clearly understand your response to Nikos. I see you do know your history. You’ve actually been to Eastern Europe, something I have yet to do. All the best.
Hi Estonian Slovak,
Please, by all means don’t feel the least bit uncomfortable about this! I was very glad to see someone know so much about was talking about! All is well. I study a lot more than I actually write, so my ability to express myself in writing is not very polished.
Hey, I found an article over on The Saker by George Eliason I’d like your input on:
https://thesaker.is/ukraines-zelensky-honoring-hitler-at-israels-holocaust-commemoration/
I had followed Eliason over at the old Washington’sBlog website before it went down. I liked his commentary for the most part there. He’s definitely an ethicist and demonstrated many times the complete failure of the US gov to hold itself to account, although he tended to get a little pedantic.
In this link, I just ignore his screechings about Zelensky and the Old Ukrainians, but was taken aback by his references to the Canadian-supported Ukrainian Nationalist base from after 1917.
** I have watched the public-access channel, CHMN, a channel provided to the various ethnicities in Canada for broadcasting home-country news and information, and sometimes entertainment. I have been really shocked at the contents of their Ukrainian programming. Of all the ethnic groups with programs there, the Ukrainian content is by far the most politicized and militaristic: armed groups and battle scenes from early wars and in the Donbass, etc. The bloom is off the rose as far as Canada’s reputation for balance and fairness internationally as far as I’m concerned. It’s too bad really. I’ve always admired the Canadians for their experiment in creating a multi-ethnic society, and had a hard time believing they could have been so involved in international politics in such a nefarious way. I guess Chrystia Freeland should have been a dead giveaway.
** But after reading Eliason’s article, I dimly recalled the events he describes about Simon Petliura and Mykola Plavyuk, and the official transfer of govt from this group to the early Ukrainian govt of Kravchuk. I had a two-volume set printed in Canada on my bookshelf about this, but I haven’t seen it now in twenty years. I distinctly recall that these events actually happened. I find it so difficult to believe that a government-in-exile for seventy years could come forward and legitimately claim the right to rule the country! If so, it would mean there was never any hope whatsoever for a modern, united Ukraine.
Do you have thoughts or references, or even any memory of this?
I look forward to your reply!
E M Cimmins
ES, you write profoundly on Ukraine and succinctly describe its history –not just its nationhood but its commitment to salvation.
As a Greek-American, you describe the choice that awaits those of us who are Greek (in origin or nationality): when the time comes, will we abandon the false nationalism that is antithetic to Orthodoxy and is propounded by the EP or stay with the Ark of Salvation?
Because I can sense the pain in your voice, you have made it easier for me (speaking for myself) to make the right decision if and when the time comes.
You are right George.
The people in Cple chose the Turk and not the Pope’s tiara!
E S, would you consider expanding this historical analysis a little? I’d like to publish it as a stand-alone piece if you don’t mind.
E C climmins. Thank you for yr words. The problem with I T is that one cannot express all in one posting. Well. I can’t.!!
I did not mean a put down for Ukraine. What i was refering to was the irregular situation of the self ordained in Terms of Orthodox sacramental theology, for all of us.
The legal Ukraine Orthodox church is also Ukrainian!
Yes all you say is true. And over many mails I have made many of same points, if not so well.
Ukrainian Orthodox Culture had influenced Russian Orthodox Culture very much and often what we think of as Russian, is Ukrainian!! And unlike some I do see a Ukrainian national consciousness. But I as an Orthodox do want Ukraine and Russia to be close.
As u know Poland had not been a innocent bystander in history here. But a constant threat. Inter war, 1920_39 Poland was an occupation power of west Ukraine and persecuted any expression of Ukrainian sentiment and language and Culture. by. FORCE . Older Ukrainians have told me of Polish cavalry horse whipping pupils and teacher speaking Ukrainian in Galician villages. .. I have one Ukrainian Catholic friends in London and the anti Polish sentiment, even anti Catholic ( yes bizzare??) sentiment from THIS QUARTER, greatly surprised me. I maybe am in minority here when i express respect for the way Ukrainian eastern Catholics keep their Faith and their worship, very moving indeed , that seems to be moving back to a much more Orthodox tradition freed from many Latin rite ways. CF to greek America often. They saw there unia as a middle way between Poles and Russians. How to survive.
I know Russia close up much better than Ukraine, but have been there with Ukrainian friends. Including Kviv ( Kiev)
Yes I understanding that ordinary Ukrainians are caught in a maze of Great power conflict to which Christ seems an add on. That is the tragedy
@ Joseph – try these…
Point 1: In the Orthodox Church, the position of Primus Sine Paribus is not vacant. It is already occupied by Our Lord. No bishop, no matter how grand, can usurp that title. This very claim is at the root of why Rome fell away from the Church. It seems history is now repeating itself – this time as farce.
Do you agree Joseph? Or not.
Point 2 – Joseph: “Joseph: “…we need primacy in an Ecumenical Patriarch for the unity and well-being of all the Orthodox churches.”
Do you mean Primacy of Rule? If so, you would render Markos Eugenikos a schismatic. Do you really mean to assert this?
Point 4: Here is an Ecumenical quote from a real First Among Equals(in the days when the Bishops of Rome were Orthodox),Pope St Gregory the Great: “Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist.”
Do you agree with St Gregory or not?
Brendan, yes, Christ is both the first and the last and without equal. Yet until Christ returns to this earth, His presence is represented and symbolized by the bishops. All bishops of the church equally represent and symbolize Christ. However, there is only one Christ and not many “Christs”. When bishops meet in synod, it is not a synod of “Christs”. Any representation of more than the one Christ is a representation of Anti-Christ. Thus, there has to be order so that the bishops are of one mind and give testament of the one Church and of the one Christ. This is why there needs to be primacy in the Church. It protects both the synodality of the bishops and also their singular representation of Christ and His Church as one.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter was present. Yet James, who was not an Apostle, both presided at the Council and announced the result in terms (“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”) that indicate there was a vote. Where lay the Primacy then? And was it a Ruling Primacy?
Peter was not a bishop, but James was. Eusebius describes James as the ruling bishop of Jerusalem. The apostles appointed bishops, and the Apostle Peter is thought to have appointed James as Bishop of Jerusalem.
This Council of Jerusalem is considered a pre-ecumenical council, and it’s concern was mostly with the Mosaic Law. It decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe it, and because of this, the Jerusalem Council sort of undoes it’s own primacy regarding Judaism and the Law.
Jesus Christ didn’t establish a new Jewish Kingdom in Jerusalem as His apostles had hoped for, but instead He recognized the primacy of the pagan Roman Empire, being obedient to it’s ordering of His torture and crucifixion . The primacy of the Early Church, from Christ’s own obedient example, was held to be in Rome.
Also, you state: “..there has to be order so that the bishops are of one mind and give testament of the one Church and of the one Christ.”
But why should that mind be that of the Ecumenical Patriarch – without a vote?
After all, we have had heretical Patriarchs before in Constantinople, have we not?
Brendan, it’s a good question, “why should that mind be that of the Ecumenical Patriarch – without a vote?”
In synod, there is a vote, and the Primus has the responsibility to express the will of the majority. Yet it’s also quite possible for the majority of bishops to be in grave error, such as was the case at the false Council of Florence. In view of this, the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch also has an additional responsibility as custodian… that is, the responsibility to express and guard the decisions of prior Ecumenical Councils and the traditions of the Holy Church. If the Ecumenical Patriarch is misinterpreting, ignoring, or falsifying canon law and tradition, then it’s the responsibility of the other bishops to address this.
The EP’s interpretation of canon law is precisely what is at issue concerning Ukraine yet he refuses to address the issue through a Council. He makes himself a stumbling-block.
And, recent ones too. The history of almost (if not all) of the ancient sees have had their share of problems with the bishops. But, as I have posted elsewhere, God will deal with the bishops, my job is to pray for them.
Joseph,
If what you write is true, then it also applies to the 12 Apostles (with Matthias) and to the Church of the very first decades after Pentecost and even when the Apostles one by one died and we only had Bishops left.
Now then tell me one example for those first decades that there was one Apostle and later one Bishop of “more Primacy” or any title you like, so as to avoid the problem you Joseph have discovered, namely the many “Christs”.
Will you please answer this question?
___
Ioannis,
Christ recognized the primacy of pagan Rome, and He recognized it’s jurisdiction over Judea and even over Himself as it’s subject. Thus, Christ voluntarily submitted to His own torture and crucifixion as it was carried out by the primacy of the Roman Empire. Likewise, the apostles also recognized the primacy of Rome, and at least several of them were martyred by the Roman Empire as well.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Early Church’s recognition of the ecclesial primacy of the Roman bishop was basically a recognition of the Roman Empire’s own primacy.
Joseph, this is very eloquent and quite correct –as far as it goes.
Here is where you are right: Rome was the legitimate governing authority and Jesus recognized its authority (and His own subjugation to the secular authority). The operative word is was.
Now this is where your analysis veers off into unfortunate territory: if it was Rome which was to be the only correct governing authority –to which even Christ was subject to–then we too are subject to Rome and all present politico-national arrangements are illegitimate.
And this is where it gets even more unfortunate: not only are we to be subject to Rome in the secular sphere but a case can be made that we should be subject to Rome in all things; religious as well as secular.
Are you sure that this is the road where we as Orthodox Christians should veer off into?
If however your analysis leads to “Rome” as a concept, then you risk opening up the whole “First, Second & Third Rome” can of worms. If so, then it is inevitable that it is Moscow which is indeed the Third Rome.
Actually, the problem is with Constinople and in reality, Constantinople should have very little or nothing to say about the rest of the Orthodox world. As a friend told me (and he spent a number of years ‘over there’) there are not many Orthodox left in Turkey and the ‘brain’ pool is shallow, which includes the negligible quantity of possible applicants for the Patriarchial seat and appointees bishops. Whoever is sent out as a bishop/archbishop, etc., is a Turkish citizen. I believe that our current archbishop is a Turkish citizen.
George, I suppose in a manner of speaking we could say that there’s many “Romes”. Originally it was just the one Roman Empire. Now all the autocephalous churches tend to represent a different sense of polity, or “Rome”. That’s at least fourteen “Romes”, and Moscow is not the third but the fifth.
Perhaps where this all gets awkward is when an autocephalous church suddenly finds itself straddling multiple and conflicting polities.
From at least the time of Christ, the Church has considered itself not as being over earthly polity, but rather as a servant and subject under it. Yet no servant can properly serve two or more conflicting masters. It seems at that point the conflict should be resolved by granting autocephaly. More “Romes”, not less.
Joseph: ‘I suppose in a manner of speaking
we could say that there’s many “Romes”.’
…and a Pope for every one of them;
each with his own infallible Sola Scriptura reading.
So, you are a Protestant, then, are you?
Brendan, the synodality of many “Romes” protects the Church from papalism.
Yet without a deference to primacy, then the “Romes” will have a natural tendency to become protestant.
Joseph___(1) My question referred clearly to the “very first decades after Pentecost” and whether there was any kind of “primacy”.
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED!
The correct answer is of course that in the beginning all apostles were equal, and then all Bishops were equal.
That is our basis!
(2) Instead, you mentioned that Christ recognized the primacy of pagan Rome and submitted to his crucifiction:
You forgot(?) to mention that Christ recognized the power of the Jewish throng overriding the Roman decision to free him!
C’mon Joseph don’t play tricks!
You and I need “the whole truth”!
If you imply that the Church must likewise submit to the Roman Church, then by the some token it must submit to the Jewish throngs or something.
(3)“I believe the Early Church’s recognition of the ecclesial primacy of the Roman bishop was basically a recognition of the Roman Empire’s own primacy”
Indeed the roman Bishops gradually took advantage of the imperial primacy to get primacy in the Church! Very Christian?
Historian Stefanides says:
“The Popes wanted to subdue the whole Church”.
The Popes Primacy together with the Filioque were the most important reason for the Schism.
So what is the conclusion from your reply?
??????????
By the way, an interesting articled was uploaded recently:
ONLY A HIERARCH WHO HAS FORGOTTEN THE GOSPEL COULD PROCLAIM HIS PRIMACY TO THE WORLD—MET. LUKE OF ZAPOROZHYE
Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople’s behavior can in no way fit into the framework of the Gospel, he states, and the “church” he created in Ukraine is nothing more than a band of criminal atheists.
https://orthochristian.com/127612.html
Criminal athiests? Well, the OCU at least recites the same Nicene Creed as Moscow does. If these are athiests, then they are not being very forthright about it, claiming instead to believe in the Holy Trinity. Perhaps there are secret athiests in both the OCU and the MP, but it seems they are still keeping it under wraps.
Ioannis, it seems that you want to say that all bishops are only equals in the Early Church, and therefore the Church has since strayed from it’s original form. Surely you must believe that there is primacy among the bishops, such as in the Local Church of Russia, the Patriarch of Moscow. Do you consider this primacy to be erroneous?
Joseph,___” it seems that you want to say that all bishops are only equals in the Early Church, and therefore the Church has since strayed from it’s original form. Surely you must believe that there is primacy among the bishops, such as in the Local Church of Russia, the Patriarch of Moscow. Do you consider this primacy to be erroneous?”
Firstly what I(!) think is not important, but what the Bible and the Canons say.
No, Joseph, “Primacy of Honor” or as St.Nicodeme explains “Primacy IN Honor” is not not erroneous for as long as it remains “in Honor” which practically means acting as a Coordinator when necessary i.e. it is not not erroneous if it is e.g. per Canon (4th S.), and certainly according to the Bible.
It seems you have read very much, but you don’t know anything about how Bart. handled the anti-christian sermon in Australia and the critique by veteran Theologian Nik.Sotiropoulos. Read that and you will be ashamed of your “hero”. This happened to me! I was also a sort of “Joseph” before that. I was where you are, and you will come where I am.
Now MP has not performed anything remotely close to that of Bart.’s!
If the situation REVERSES then I shall be the first to support and justify Bart.
It seems after all these months you have not understood my main point:
I am Greek not Russian, but NOW MP is working according to the Canons
but EP isn’t.
You have said you owe your conversion to the Russian Church so according to you She is your Mother Church and now you are fighting her in favor of whom?…Bart.? I mean, seriously Joseph!
But, Joseph, whatever the Early Church believed about the ecclesial primacy of the Roman bishop, it did not include the claim to universal jurisdiction and authority. The Orthodox Church had agreed to honor the pope but believed that ecclesiastical matters should be decided by a council of bishops, and therefore, would not grant unchallenged dominion to the pope. That’s why 1054 happened. The Roman pope took his authority too far, as is Bartholomew today.
Gail, I don’t think Patriarch Bartholomew claims universal jurisdiction and authority. The Orthodox Church is structured very differently than the Roman Catholics. Especially now, the structural difference between Orthodox and Catholic couldn’t be more obvious.
But, Joseph, if he were NOT claiming universal jurisdiction and authority, why would he claim his authority “transcends national and ethnic borders” and he is “the spiritual leader to 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide”? And this is on his website! He also talks, ad nauseam, about being the “Mother Church” and the “New Rome.” He ignores ALL his brother bishops when it suits him and he claims he is the final arbitrator in all things. What would you call that?
And, the Mother Church is Jerusalem.
Not Constantinople.
I know!!! Make me so angry when he uses that term.
Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity, but Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy. The Ecumenical Councils defined Orthodoxy, and their mother is the Church of Constantinople. The definition of an Orthodox Christianity is born out of Constantinople.
The original Jerusalem Council’s main message was that the Mosaic Law of Judaism no longer had primacy. Thus, the Jerusalem Council was a necessary undoing of Jerusalem’s perceived primacy at the time.
Administrative considerations notwithstanding, this is a false distinction driven by propaganda, not by the facts of the Gospel.
It is not possible to describe Orthodoxy and Christianity — ultimately two names for the same thing — as having two different mother churches except in the most abstract academic way, since even the Oktoekhos (Saturday Evening, Tone 8) enshrines the very ancient tradition describing Jerusalem as ;mother of the churches, the dwelling of God’ as a result of Jerusalem’s being the only local church to have physically witnessed the resurrection of Christ.
Constantinople didn’t exist until the early fourth century and witnessed nothing of the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The city founded by Constantine merely heard about the resurrection, and even then only three centuries after the fact .
Jerusalem’s privileged position as ‘mother of the churches’ seems unlikely to be usurped, no matter what Constantinople (or Rome, for that matter) says or does.
Joseph, you are becoming a Chinese water torture. We do not “consider” our selves a conciliar Church we are one. I also reject the term mother Church because it implies a multitude of churches. We are not a family of churches. We are a communion of people’s each under our own Bishop who orders his own diocese according to Apostolic teaching and the transmital of the sacraments. One Church.
We are held together not by any one of them or even by any group of them but by our mutual submission to the love and mercy of Jesus, our Lord.
Bart is trying to take over Lordship, just as the Pope had done effectively denying the Incarnation and the Cross and trying to make salvation dependent on him alone.
No!
Just saying it over and over and over and over and over and over …..does not make it so.
Are we sure Mr. Lipper’s post are not produced by some computer algorithm?
Monk James Silver – what can I say?
I am in complete agreement with every word,
of yours that is; not Joseph’s…
“It happened on the first Sunday of Lent in the year 843 in Constantinople. After almost 100 years of persecution directed against the worship of the holy icons, the Church finally proclaimed that the truth had been defined, that the truth was fully in the possession of the Church. And since then all Orthodox people, wherever they live, have gathered on this Sunday to proclaim before the world their faith in that truth, their belief that their Church is truly apostolic, truly Orthodox, truly universal.”
https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr-alexander-schmemann/sunday-of-orthodoxy
Joseph,___“Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity, but Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy”.
The Orthodox Church IS the same Church as the Original Christian Church of the Pentecost, the Church of Jerusalem.
All the others, Romans, Protestants etc, left the ONE original Church.
Constantinople Church is simply a continuation of the Original (as you say Christian) Church. Constantinople/Orthodoxy is not something NEW, it is a continuation of the True, the Original!
Joseph, carry on with your effort to prove that Bartholomew is “First Without Equals”.
You know, to do that, one will need new sophistries all the time, to justify the previous sophistries he has used.
Joseph Lipper: “Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy. ”
Orthodoxy started in 4th century? It is all described in the authentic version of Constantine’s Donation, discovered few years ago in the Phanar archives 😉
What can I say? Monk James and Michael Bauman have laid the issue to rest as far as I’m concerned.
Speaking as an American of Greek descent, let me add a worry as to why this issue is particularly vexing to me, and that is that I hear a lot of pride and hubris coming out of Istanbul. Whenever that has happened in the past, it never ended well.
I ask all my Hellenic brethren to take note of that fact. And remember this: the blandishments of the non-Orthodox (and now, non-Christian) West never amounted to much when all was said and done.
Mr. Lipper, now you are clearly dabbling in ecclesiological heresy. How could there be a “Christianity” before Holy Orthodoxy? Your rhetorical gymnastics on behalf of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are leading you down a dark, dangerous spiritual path.
Archpriest Alexander F.C. Webster ,
Constantinople is the Mother Church of the Ecumenical Councils. It’s from those councils that the implicit truths of Christianity became explicitly Orthodox. Because of those councils, we now call ourselves Orthodox Christians. Were the early Christians in Jerusalem describing themselves as Orthodox?
Joseph,___“Constantinople is the Mother Church of the Ecumenical Councils.”
The Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperors residing in Constantinople. The Mother of the Council was the Whole Church, ie the Sum of clergy and Laity, not one City, not one Bishop.
Have you thought of this description “Mother of the Councils” or where does it come from?
“It’s from those councils that the implicit truths of Christianity became explicitly Orthodox. Because of those councils, we now call ourselves Orthodox Christians. Were the early Christians in Jerusalem describing themselves as Orthodox?”
Joseph, you are doing dangerous “acrobatics” with your ad-hoc conclusions:
You consider Orthodoxy was kind of created by her “Mother” Constantinople.
Orthodoxy, (literally the correct belief,thinking AND glorifying) was at some stage the term to denote adherence of the Church to:
– The word and spirit of the Bible, AND
– The word, practice and the spirit of the Fathers and the Tradition of the Church since the day of the Pentecost.
Thus, these true characteristics were not discovered or invented by Constantinople. They were recognized as the true ones just as the Church had from the beginning.
Thus Joseph,
you are posing an unnecessary and wrong question:
“Were the early Christians in Jerusalem describing themselves as Orthodox?”
No, of course not, that was self evident. The term was later coined as opposed to other groups like the Papists with there Primacy, Filioque etc.
But what you are after is to prove that:
“Constantinople is the Mother”. Period!
Where do you find this in our Christian roots?
Not in words of Christ or his Apostles,
not in the Original Church.
Why can’t you see what St.Damascenus says “Rejoice Holy Sion Mother of Churches….you first…” ?
Joseph, you have said that you were converted by the Russian Church. According to your way of thinking, THAT is your Mother Church. Why are you fighting her and taking the side of Bartholomew?
Joseph Lipper: “Constantinople is the Mother Church of the Ecumenical Councils.”
I am not sure, what is it supposed to mean. The First Ecumenical Council took place in Nicea, and out of the seven, only three took place in Constantinople.
In the time, when they took place, the Constantinople was not recognized as the first see, but only at most as equal to Rome in honor.
Joseph: “Constantinople is the Mother Church of the Ecumenical Councils”
I will not let this sub-jesuitical tripe pass without refutation, thus:
NICAEA 325 AD
What was Constantinople then?
The capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Byzantium in 324, and this city of Byzantium was later renamed as Constantinople in 330. Same city, same imperial rank in 325, just a different name.
Even though the Council of Nicea was not held at the capital, it was still an imperial council, and it was called by the Emperor Constantine. Thus the primacy of the council is associated with the primacy of that emperor and his capital city. It would be something akin to world leaders meeting at Camp David instead of Washington D.C.
I seem to recall reading somewhere (I believe it was in the Psalms and perhaps later repeated in the epistle to the Hebrews) that there is only one is “High Priest” who is “a priest forever.” Indeed, only One who has “the power of an indestructible life,” who is not “prevented by death” from continuing forever.
Perhaps these antiquated notions are now superseded in the minds of some by ‘traditions’, layer upon layer of which obscure the vision of the reality of what Christianity is?
Show me a primate – any primate – who exhibits the qualifications described above, and I will acknowledge his primacy over the whole Church.
Joseph,___please consider the following posts:
(1)
Ioannis says
February 3, 2020 at 2:16 am
Joseph,___“Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity, but Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy”.
The Orthodox Church IS the same Church as the Original Christian Church of the Pentecost, the Church of Jerusalem.All the others, Romans, Protestants etc, left the ONE original Church.
Constantinople Church is simply a continuation of the Original (as you say Christian) Church. Constantinople/Orthodoxy is not something NEW, it is a continuation of the True, the Original!
—————————————————-
Now eighteen (18!) hours later than my above post you posted another reply on the same subject:
——————————————————
(2)
Joseph Lipper says
February 3, 2020 at 8:21 pm
Archpriest Alexander F.C. Webster , Constantinople is the Mother Church of the Ecumenical Councils. It’s from those councils that the implicit truths of Christianity became explicitly Orthodox. Because of those councils, we now call ourselves Orthodox Christians. Were the early Christians in Jerusalem describing themselves as Orthodox?
I explained to you why the Church of Jerusalem wasn’t called Orthodox (yet).
BUT 18 hrs later you repeat your question to someone else (Archpriest Alexander F.C. Webster)?
What is going on here?
Do you NOT read the replies to you, or what?
Byzantium became Constantinople when it was consecrated as such in 330, not 324, after the council of Nicaea. At the time of the Council, Byzantium was not a Patriarchate; unlike Antioch, Alexandria and Rome which were. Because it became one later does not mean it was one earlier. The EP’s claims to primacy do not stem from Nicaea.
Gail, I suspect that most people in the Moscow Patriarchate consider Patriarch Kyrill to be the spiritual leader of their church in the sense that they acknowledge His Holiness’ primacy. Likewise the same could be said for Patriarch John of Antioch’s primacy in the Church of Antioch, or Metropolitan Tikhon’s primacy in the OCA. It’s an acknowledgement of the spiritual primacy and order in the Church, and that acknowledgement doesn’t mean that any of those people need to be the spiritual equivalent of a St. Seraphim of Sarov or a St. Paisios of Athos.
Yet since we as Orthodox consider ourselves to be a conciliar church, the relevant question is how does that work and happen? In the Local Churches, the bishops meet in synod, and that synodality is protected and represented by primacy. Likewise, there also has to be a mechanism by which all the Local Churches can meet together in synod and have that synodality protected and represented by a similar primacy.
Our tradition is that this primacy belongs to the Archbishop of Constantinople as Ecumenical Patriarch. Of course none of the other Local Churches have any say whatsoever about who is selected for this very important position. Perhaps they should? I don’t know. I don’t believe there’s any precendent for changing this. As things currently stand, the only way forward is to work with the system we have, rather than working against it.
The argument for changing the way an Ecumenical Patriarch is selected could easily have been made in a convened council. The see of Constantinople is obviously precarious, so it’s a completely valid concern. Perhaps this matter should have been brought up at Crete. Yet is it only the EP’s fault that it wasn’t? The importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch’s position shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Yes, Joseph. To paraphrase of the eighth chapter of the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Church at Smyrna in Asia Minor: “Where the bishop is, there is the Church” Patriarch Kyrill is the spiritual leader of the MP.
No one has mentioned anything about comparing the role of a patriarch to that of a consecrated Saint because to be a consecrated Saint you must have passed to the next life so you hold no office in this one.
You ask, “How does a conciliar Church work”? It works by bishops working in concert with one another.
Synod just means “assembly.” As far as I know, the word does not portend any special meaning with regard to who plays what role. In the Antiochian jurisdiction, the metropolitan makes all the decisions. In most synods, the participating bishops come to an agreement. When patriarchs and their representatives are assembled together in a Council, Bartholomew has no more say than any other Patriarch. He is not the decision-maker; he is a decision-maker. He is also a facilitator and a note-taker.
You say, “there also has to be a mechanism by which all the Local Churches can meet together in synod and have that synodality protected and represented by a similar primacy.” What do you mean by “similar primacy”? Similar to what? The Church does not look to Bartholomew to protect or represent the Church to any greater degree than they do to all of the Patriarchs.
The only primacy Batholomew enjoys is the primacy of honor; the same honor a child with the last name of Adams receives over a student named Zink. When they receive their diplomas, Adams will get his or hers before Zink.
As you might have noticed, Bartholomew has no interest in working in concert with anyone because he would have to be willing to involve the other bishops in decisions that impact the Church as a whole. Instead, he looks to governmental agencies to dictate to the Church.
You can’t hold a Great and Holy Council without the support of the rest of the Church. If the majority of the Church doesn’t show up, it nullifies the entire process.
Bartholomew is violating the very spirit of his role within the Chruch. He is supposed to be a servant. Not a dictator. He has no right to:
1) To speak for other patriarchates with regard to interests specific to territories outside his own.
2) To add to and/or subtract from Scripture, e.g. state that it is a sin not to support environmental programs.
3) To teach RC primacy/papacy.
4) To reinterpret the canons in a way that is not historically (or presently) accepted by the greater part of the Church.
5) To bring unordained, unrepentant schismatics into the Church.
6) To independently work with governments, politicians, and governmental agencies on behalf of the Church.
7) To say he speaks for 300M Orthodox Christians.
8) To assume authority over territories outside his patriarchate.
9) To insist he is the final arbitrator in all disputes.
10) To fail to fulfill the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch: (A) by not calling a Council when requested by the greater part of the Church and (B) instead of promoting unity, leading the Church into schism.
All matters could have been addressed at Crete were Bartholomew willing to devote the time to discussing open items until they were resolved. He deliberately chose not to so, yes, it is all his fault. Russia not wanting to talk about Ukraine makes perfect sense from the standpoint that in 2016, Ukraine was only the business of the MP. But all that changed when Bartholomew inserted the OCU into the MP’s territory. Now a Council is imperative to talk about how to resolve this mess without the Church breaking into two.
Gail, very wisely put!
God bless.
Gail, what Bartholomew believes is that he can have it both ways. He’s not unlike Dean Wormer of Animal House, who makes things up as he goes along.
“Beware the double-minded man, he is unstable in all his ways”. (James 1:8).
In the last 2 years, representatives of the EP have claimed the EP is able to dissolve any autocephalous church or patriarchate which has ever been under Constantinople’s jurisdiction. I would dismiss it as trolling if Ukraine hadn’t happened.
Indeed, the EP and his partisans have gone off the rails. If this is what he believes, then there is no fundamental difference between his perception of his office and that of the Pope’s.
The inevitable result of this self-delusion is nothing less than papism.
Joseph you spend way too much time on the the word “primacy” investing too much meaning in a word that was not meant to nor can it carry the load of bollox with which you invest it.
Not only that you give it a legal meaning within the Church it does not have. We are not The Imortals among whom “there can be only one” and we go around cutting off one another’s head gaining power as we go.
It is continuing effort to create a legal foundation for whatever the EP does that is simply wrong. It is a wrong premise and no matter what “evidence” you cite you will remain wrong.
You are flogging a dead horse.
He’s flogging a dead parrot…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo
PS: In Britspeak ‘flog’ means ‘sell’ (often ‘dodgy’ goods).
I misspelled bollocks. Sorry
Michael Bauman, what about the term “counciliarity”? Is the Orthodox Church conciliar? How does that happen, and how does that work without primacy? It appears that it’s now taken for granted that bishops will somehow meet together in a council and somehow come to mutual agreements and all of this without primacy. No, that’s not the tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Joseph, the Orthodox Church is supposed to be conciliar and that happens very messily. You want too much external order, predictability and linearity. Very Roman (not Catholic)
The Holy Spirit blows wherever He wants. The actual “primate” of the Orthodox Church may be a hermit monk somewhere. Someone who follows God.
It is sure not me and it is not Bart. Unlikely to be any of the current Patriarchs. The real primate is Jesus. Only those who follow Him, the teachings and repents is of the Church. Bart does none of that as far as I can see.
Real primacy is the product of community and pastorship not office or position. Of obedience and service not authority or power. Bart has no community.
Michael Bauman, what about the “Bishop” T.D. Jakes? Now that guy has some real pastorship and community. Perhaps that’s why he’s referred to as “Bishop”.
https://www.tdjakes.org/about/
Well said Michael.
Joseph,___“How does that happen, and how does that work without primacy”?
How did the FIRST Church at the time of the Apostles AND AFTER THEM work without primacy?
Joseph: “Christ recognized the primacy of pagan Rome, and He recognized it’s jurisdiction over Judea and even over Himself as it’s subject.”
Jesus: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” [Matt 22:21]
Exactly!
Err… No, Joseph…
‘And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying,
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth”.’
[NKJV, Matt 28:18]
As Jesus said to Pilate, “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
Or as St. Paul writes that our governments are ordained by God:
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”
I don’t disagree with you at all Joseph: all government is ordained by God.
We can look at Rome in two ways: first, as a symbol of properly-ordained governmental authority in the abstract, or second, as the properly-ordained governmental authority in a specific time and place.
If the former, then all secular, duly-constituted government is “Rome”. If the latter, then only that nation which has a “Rome” as its capital is the duly-constituted government. Since the first Rome fell (in power, prestige and into heresy), this passed to the second Rome. Which unfortunately fell in power, prestige and heresy (Islam is a Christian heresy).
What to do then? Rome –whether in symbol or strength–must exist, otherwise there is no legal political authority; indeed, it must exist until the end of time (when both the political and spiritual authority are compromised by the Antichrist). Hence, there must be (at least) a third Rome. The only question therefore is this: was St Philotheos of Pskov wrong when he said that “there could be no other”?
In any event, there had to be another Rome to safeguard the Church and to remain in place until the eschaton.
George: “…all government is ordained by God.”
Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein?
Bashir al Assad? Colonel Gaddaffi? Etcetcetc….
George, while I agree that Moscow did in fact carry on the legacy of the Holy Roman Empire, and in some ways this certainly did constitute a “Third Rome” of sorts, it nonetheless didn’t displace the Church’s recognition of the New Rome of Constantinople. The Russian Church, even in Tsarist Russia, continued to commemorate the primacy of Constantinople, and Moscow, upon later becoming a Patriarchate, was commemorated in order as the fifth. Even though Constantinople did fall in power and prestige, it’s Patriarch did not fall to the heresy of Islam.
While the original Roman Empire was thought to have constituted the world’s main superpower, today we recognize at least three superpowers in rivalry with each other: the U.S., Russia, and China. There is currently not one main superpower on earth as ordained by God. If Moscow were to claim itself as the main “New Rome” now, then it could only be as a contention and rivalry.
Joseph, if your reading is correct, it necessarily follows that:
Polycarp is damned for resisting Rome;
Markos Evgenikos is damned for resisting the EP;
Dietrich Bonhoeffer is damned for resisting Hitler;
Solzhynitsyn is damned for resisting the Supreme Soviet…etc.
“Joseph, if your reading is correct, it necessarily follows that:”
I don’t see no reply from Joseph, ___5 days later!
Joseph,
12 days gone, I still miss your reply here.
Joseph: “Christ recognized the primacy of pagan Rome, and He recognized it’s jurisdiction over Judea and even over Himself as it’s subject. Thus, Christ voluntarily submitted to His own torture and crucifixion as it was carried out by the primacy of the Roman Empire. Likewise, the apostles also recognized the primacy of Rome, and at least several of them were martyred by the Roman Empire as well.”
On re-reading the above, I am compelled to ask:
“Joseph, are you the Grand Inquisitor?”
If not him, you are his spiritual child.
Anyway, you conflate ‘primacy’ with naked earthly political power.
All of your arguments are tending to: “The King can do no wrong”;
which translates religiously as: “The Pope/EP can do no wrong”.
I’m sorry. I don’t agree and am now out of this conversation.
Joseph,___Following my first reply hereabove, (which you have not answered)
I have some additional thoughts:
It is obvious that your basic thesis in favor of Chief Bartholomew is breaking up and you are kind of desperately using anything you find around you to support it, no matter how feeble the new “support” may be.
This was expected, because “an inaccuracy can only be supported by more inaccuracies (paraphrasing Greek proverb)!
For clarity I shall enumerate the inaccuracies together with my corresponding questions:
“Yet until Christ returns to this earth, His presence is represented and symbolized by the bishops”.
Q1) Are you ignoring that Christ said that when two or three are gathered in his name, then HE is there with them?
Read the Bible again and indeed Christ’s own words and promises. Read the miracles occurring!
“All bishops of the church equally represent and symbolize Christ. However, there is only one Christ and not many “Christs””
Q2) So you do agree that Bishops are not “Christs” and therefore in the singular: Bishop is NOT Christ?
Let’s carry on with your inconsistent thesis:
“When bishops meet in synod, it is not a synod of “Christs”. Any representation of more than the one Christ is a representation of Anti-Christ.”
Q3) So you believe that ONE Bishop ALONE represents Christ! It smells Papist!
Q4) BUT,with that logic you will have TWO “human” “Christs” a)EP and b)the “original” one the Pope (now Francis)? They are “dearest brethren”?
Q5) Now this “Primacy” of the Pope was one of the MAIN papist fallacies and you want us to adopt in Orthodoxy?
“Thus, there has to be order so that the bishops are of one mind and give testament of the one Church and of the one Christ. This is why there needs to be primacy in the Church”.
Q6) Who says that, you Joseph, OR Elp., Bartholomew, some Canon, the Bible, who? Please specify.
Q7) Are you ignoring that in the Divine Liturgy (all over the world), after “Axion estin” the priest carries on with the petition/prayer (and the laity sing Amen) to give the LOCAL Archbishop of the city (not the EP)”safety, honor, health, length of days, and rightly preaching…”
Q8) Are you ignoring (after Q7) that this prayer is separately done equally for every LOCAL Arch-Bishop and not for ONE person only, i.e. Bartholomew?
Q9) Are you ignoring a)the “Holy Bishops” are expected to be humble and holy, and by ignoring that, you do no expect that they can as good Christians assemble and sort out their problems but they need a “boss” who will tell them whilst b) are you ignoring that you do (tacitly) agree of having independent rulers (Presidents etc) of the States and you do not want to have ONE Ecumenical (=World) President for the whole planet?
Q10) To rephrase Q9, are you ignoring that by your thesis you imply that the holy bishops are NOT as reliable than the Heads of countries and they need a big boss (you can select the title)? Is this not a blasphemy for the Holy Spirit, given that each one of us is the temple of the Holy Spirit? Wow, brother!
“It protects both the synodality of the bishops and also their singular representation of Christ and His Church as one”.
Q11) Under the term synodality how do you justify Bartholomew’s attitude towards the J.Patriarch as if JP is an employee of Bartholomew’s?
Q12) Are you ignoring that a)Jerusalem is the real “Mother of Churches” (see Tone 8, Sat. evening, by St.J.Damascene), b) that the first Bishop was James the brother of the Lord, c) that Constantinople was then Byzantium, a small place, d) that Constantinople became the Capital and thus because of SECULAR reasons the Bishop there became “Ecumenical” thus for the whole area of the state? (Canon 28)
A final remark:
It may be a good exercise in the future to summarize your replies on the matter, (ie trying to justify Bartholomew), constantly trying to find an (unsuccessful) argument about his unique “Primacy”.
I must admit that thanks to you we can do such a useful exercise.Thanks.
‘Q4) BUT,with that logic you will have TWO “human” “Christs” a)EP and b)the “original” one the Pope (now Francis)? They are “dearest brethren”?’
Three, actually. Benedict is not dead yet.
Err… My second point has disappeared as has the number preceding the third – which now appears as the second. I’m not quite sure what happened, but there is still enough to be going on with – though, yet again, I fully expect Joseph to slip by those that remain in the fog of his night.
At the Council of Jerusalem, Peter was present. Yet James, who was not an Apostle, both presided at the Council and announced the result in terms (“It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”) that indicate there was a vote.
Where lay the Primacy then? And was it a Ruling Primacy?
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Analysis: With Faith and Unity the Miracle Will Happen
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 3, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/283846/analysis-with-faith-and-unity-the-miracle-will-happen/
Joseph, Mr. Jakes is referred to as Bishop precisely for the reasons you mention. Unfortunately his theology means he is not Orthodox.
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Dennis Mehiel and Michael Psaros, Chairman and Vice Chairman of Friends of St. Nicholas, Speak Exclusively to TNH
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 4, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/283897/dennis-mehiel-and-michael-psaros-chairman-and-vice-chairman-of-friends-of-st-nicholas-speak-exclusively-to-tnh/
Below please find the above article which has been posted in its entirety on the Orthodox Christian Laity website.
Dennis Mehiel and Michael Psaros, Chairman and Vice Chairman of Friends of St. Nicholas, Speak Exclusively to TNH
BY WEBMASTER ON FEBRUARY 6, 2020
ORTHODOX NEWS, ORTHODOX NEWS TOP STORIES
Source: The National Herald
https://ocl.org/dennis-mehiel-and-michael-psaros-chairman-and-vice-chairman-of-friends-of-st-nicholas-speak-exclusively-to-tnh/
Below please find an article from today on the Orthodox Times website.
Home > Politics
Greek Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs at the under construction St. Nicholas Church at Ground Zero
Feb 04, 2020 | 10:21
https://orthodoxtimes.com/greek-deputy-minister-of-foreign-affairs-at-the-under-construction-st-nicholas-church-at-ground-zero/
Joseph, regarding your latest comment to Fr. Alexander F C Webster: Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh!
Joseph, dear to God. You need to brush up on your history a bit (more than a bit). A few points:
1. The Councils did not create anything. They focused and articulated the mind of the Church a bit like an immune system responds to an infection;
2. The President of the 1st Council was a Bishop from Spain;
3. The first local council to condemn Arius was in Africa (Egypt) where Arius was from.
4. Constantinople was the hub of travel and commerce because of its geographic position and that it was the seat of the Emperor.
5. It was an Imperial council not a Patriarchal Council.
You, my brother, are weaving a false tapestry out of imaginings and ideology. What you describe is neither real, nor of the faith. It just is not. For you own sake, you need to rethink it.
Please forgive me for arguing with you. It is a temptation of mine that is quite difficult to resist even though I know almost nothing.
Just a note: You really owe it to yourself to listen, really listen to Fr. Alexander. I was blessed to have learned more about the nature of the Church and our life in Her in a five minute aside to a conversation with him about another matter entirely than I ever knew before. I give continued thanks for him, his wisdom and the Holy Spirit for that moment.
Michael Bauman, yes, the Ecumenical Councils were imperial councils, and it was their acknowleged imperial primacy that helped to resolve disputes, such as with the Arian heresy, whereas other local councils like the one you mention may have failed to offer definitive resolution. Although the Pope of Rome was considered to have ecclesial primacy, in fact no Roman Pope ever attended any of the Ecumenical Councils, sending instead only papal legates, such as the “Bishop of Spain” you mention.
While Orthodoxy has always existed before time began, the Ecumenical Councils gave birth in place and time to the Creed and Holy Canons that have now defined for the Church an Orthodox Christianity against error and heresies. Those definitions of Orthodoxy, coming from the Ecumenical Councils, will always be associated with the Imperial City of Constantinople. Even after the imperial fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Ecumenical Councils have still continued to be associated with the surviving seat of the Archbishop of Constantinople.
It’s a shame a CITY is being associated with the Ecumenical Councils as if it is the CITY that is important and not the work of the Councils. And it’s a shame the current ecumenical patriarch thinks because he is in the same CITY it somehow mitigates the errors and heresies he has committed.
Amen, Gail!
Exactly, Gail! The Canons seem to work for the Patriarch only when he uses them to silence opposition. When it comes to joint prayers with heretics, Jews, Muslims, and out and out pagans, such as Hindus; the Canons can be conviently discarded. And no, I am not forgetting that the MP, the Serbian church, Antioch, and others have been involved in similar violations of Canon law. That is why I initially opposed ROCOR uniting with the MP in 2007. Even though I serve an OCA parish, I oppose the false Ecumenism. I recall a Serbian deacon, boasting of his two Master of Theology degrees, telling me glibly that the Greek Old Calendar church is outside of the Church. I couldn’t respond in kind, because his bishop was there, and had his back. I wish I would have thought to ask the deacon if he considered the Pope of Rome to be inside of the Church. It is apparent that Bartholomew thinks that to be the case. If that really is the case, why did so many of the OCA founding parishes leave the Uniate church for the Orthodox church of their ancestors? Of course, I know that in many cases, it was about property ownership; the people did not want to deed their church property over to the Catholic(and later Uniate) bishops. As a young priest, I used to think that since we are a hierarchal church, that Orthodox churches should be deeded over to the local bishop. I no longer feel that way. We have no Emperor Constantine to call a Council of Bishops. It is up to the people of God to defend the faith, as it was in Ukraine after 1596, when the bishops betrayed the Church by the false union with the Papacy.
Gail, yes. While Christianity is an incarnate faith so that places and artifacts can be sanctified and transmit holiness, it does not work the other way around. Even as a history person I have never once felt that the cities where the Councils took place had any but an anchoring importance. This Council took place in this city on these dates in the year of our Lord xxxx. Like my favorite historical moment: The Defenestrations of Prague (which were due to religious conflict BTW). The fact that they occurred in Prague is only of secondary importance to the act itself and why it occurred.
There is also an interesting effect of Councils, not positive. As soon as the Church is “defined” that means there are people no longer a part of her that once were. Yes, sometimes those definitions are crucial and necessary, but the fact that we have had few Councils and even some of them were declared wrong later indicates that we should be very careful with how they are viewed and interpreted. Do we really want a situation where interpretations create more schism? Isn’t that what is going on now with Bart?
It is important for me to know the heresies and why they are heresies in order to protect my own heart, nothing more. It is a wrong use of the Councils by anyone, even bishops to justify one’s own actions and artificially place others outside the Church.
It is even worse to construct a fallacious foundation as the premise to create a logical progression to excuse idolatry and all manner of corruption and malfeasance and demand that everyone else adhere to and approve the lies.
May our Lord have mercy on us, guide us, protect us and raise up leaders filled with the Holy Spirit to bring us life. Men who will rightly divide the word of Truth.
Good point, Michael.
Hmmm, now you’re making me think.
Joseph,___“Michael Bauman, yes, the Ecumenical Councils were imperial councils, and it was their acknowledged imperial primacy that helped to resolve disputes“
:
Joseph, let’s establish the exact meaning of your above words once and for all, so that we don’t go around circles all the time. Let all of us here (incl. yourself) understand the same thing:
The word “imperial” that I have emphasized above means:
imperial = pertaining to the Emperor(!)
In other words it was the Emperor (not the Bishop) who decided, “enough is enough” the clergy and the people are quarreling all the time,
and he “told” the Bishop one way or other, “get on with it and solve these questions, and bring peace within the Ekklesia (the gathering) and no disputes of my people, do you hear?”
And EP immediately obeyed the Emperor as indeed it is now obeying another (remote) “Emperor”.
So please Joseph, whenever you use the term “imperial”, do not forget it connotates SECULAR power as opposed to religious.
You see what is happening these days:
The big country you criticised 2-3 years ago as “pagan, masonic etc” is now telling Bartholomew to do things with geopolitical targets.
If the Head of that country was a REAL, devout Orthodox (or even an honest RC or Protestant) he would say to to Bartholomew: “C’mon Bart! Organize a REAL ecumenical Synod, here and now, enough of this show-off and Mother-talk and…, or else…”
Ioannis, it’s been alleged that Patriarch Bartholomew has acted on the instruction of the U.S. State Department, but Patriarch Bartholomew denies this. He claims that the U.S. State Department instead came to him seeking counsel. That sounds credible enough to me. Geoffrey Pyatt is the ambassador to Greece and was the former ambassador to Ukraine. It makes sense that he would seek the EP’s counsel.
Google Wikileaks, Joseph. You will see that Bartholomew was constantly running to the State Department to complain that Russia was encroaching upon his throne. The State Department leveraged his fears in the hope that if they gained access to Ukraine, through Bartholomew, they could isolate Russia, which was just fine with Bartholomew.
“3. (C) Echoing the Patriarch’s concerns, some Russian media
outlets have forecast new Russian Patriarch Kirill’s
emergence as a “political tool of the Kremlin” (Ref B). The
Ecumenical Patriarch expressed fears to us that the Russian
Orthodox Church ultimately will pursue its ambition to take
over the administration of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
moving the seat of the Church to Moscow. The current
leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate feels itself
increasingly vulnerable to such maneuverings, as it faces an
impending crisis of succession brought on by Turkish
government regulations limiting eligibility for the
Patriarchy to Turkish citizens and the GOT’s ongoing refusal
to allow for the re-opening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s
Halki Seminary (Ref C).”
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09ISTANBUL243_a.html
Joseph,___So Pyatt went to Nafpaktos to talk to Hierotheos ‘”to seeking counsel”.
I wonder how you have managed to know that e.g. Pyatt was seeking counsel and he did not go there to “tell” Hierotheos things. But that is a different subject. Let’s assume you know somehow:
How do you explain that Hierotheos while “giving counsel” to Pyatt,
the next day he (Hierotheos) had changed his opinion about EP?
Have you changed your ideas about countries and politicians in 2 years after this:
https://www.monomakhos.com/losing-the-culture/#comment-117857
“Joseph Lipper says
February 5, 2020 at 8:07 pm
Ioannis, it’s been alleged that Patriarch Bartholomew has acted on the instruction of the U.S. State Department, but Patriarch Bartholomew denies this.”
Joseph are you ignoring the fact that Bart.’s spiritual father mason Patriarch Athenagoras said to the US:
“I shall comply to all your instructions to me”. ?
Why couldn’t/shouldn’t Bartholomew do the same as his big Teacher?
(I trust you still remember what you wrote here about the US 2 years ago, and you are not naive at all)
Joseph,___consider:
Joseph Lipper says
February 2, 2020 at 2:13 pm
“Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity, but Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy”.
February 4, 2020 at 9:27 pm
Joseph:
“…Orthodoxy has always existed before time began”
Welcome back home, brother Joseph!
You realize , of course what you are saying:
1) Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity (thus in her correct, ie Orthodox form).
2) Orthodoxy has always existed (exactly, it existed in the original Church on the day of the Pentecost)
Thus,
3) Jerusalem IS the Mother of Orthodoxy, the true Correct (Ὀρθή, Ortho) Christianity, although they did not call it Orthodoxy from the very beginning, since there were no Papist schisms then. It was self evident that the Church handed down then by the Holy Spirit had indeed correct (Ortho) thinking AND glorifying (Doxa)!
Brother Joseph, you have done many far-reaching and dangerous logical ‘acrobatic” jumps but this one is now an easy logical conclusion!
Ioannis,
The Holy Trinity has always existed, but when Christ became flesh, He was born at a fixed time and place. Likewise, Orthodoxy has always existed, but the Creed and Holy Canons that define Orthodoxy also came into existence at a fixed time and place.
The Ecumenical Councils resolved the apparent confusion that existed in the Church during their day, and they still do. That’s why we call ourselves Orthodox Christians. The qualifier “Orthodox” is a reference to the living truths of the Ecumenical Councils.
Joseph,___This is the first part of my reply for the Creed ONLY.
Let’s discuss it apart to make sure we do not mix up things:
I am sure you don’t mind the care and precision.
The Creed, from Latin Credo (I believe) is what we believe.
This was fully and clearly explained by Christ and his Apostles and existed in the Church from day One. Therefore, those first faithful had all the necessary information on the correct (ORTHO) thinking/glorifying (DOXA) of the Holy Trinity.Period.
Now as the years passed, the Wicked One sowed doubt, lie, pride, love for glory etc etc in the Church and heresies appeared.
In the Councils the Bible and the Tradition were again carefully considered and the main part of the early Church remained stable in her roots and the heretics went apart. Of they told the heretics kinda “We are staying here with the correct thinking and glorifying, we are OrthoDoxein, we are Orthodox.” This is a kind of poetical translation of the Greek description. The Word OrthoDoxia is a union of two real words in Greek, it is not like creating a new name for a company e.g. EXXON meaning nothing and having an important “birthday” of the creation of the new name.
So, Joseph please do not ever say again or imply that the “Orthodoxy” was “created” by Constantinople.
Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles constantly taught us the Correct Thinking/Glorifying, thus the constantly taught us the Ortho Doxa or combined in one quick word OrthoDoxia.
Ioannis,
There are many Christians in the world, but what separates the Orthodox Christians is their continuity and conciliarity with the Ecumenical Councils. It’s what separates Orthodox from Roman Catholics, from Protestants, from Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Yes, the word “Orthodox” means “Correct Thinking/Glorifying”, but the contextual reference of “Orthodox” for Christianity specifically pertains to the Ecumenical Councils.
Joseph,___Who said it, where is it written that,
” the contextual reference of “Orthodox” for Christianity specifically pertains to the Ecumenical Councils” ?
(for your convenience see adjacent my other reply)
Joseph Lipper: “what separates the Orthodox Christians is their continuity and conciliarity with the Ecumenical Councils. It’s what separates Orthodox from Roman Catholics, from Protestants, from Jehovah Witnesses, etc. “
I beg to differ. What separates Orthodox is the true living Faith, that was long before Ecumenical Councils took place, and long after. Ecumenical Councils were an expression of it, not the source.
I thing that you are grasping at straws, trying to put Orthodoxy in a formal box, that would be prone to the subjection by alien principles.
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”
Martin, very well said!
Joseph,___you ignore this text from the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
“As the prophets have seen,
as the apostles have taught,
as the Church has received,
as the teachers have set forth in dogmas,
as the whole world has understood,
as Grace has shone forth,
as the truth was demonstrated,
as falsehood was banished,
as wisdom was emboldened,
as Christ has awarded;
thus do we believe, thuswe speak, thus we preach Christ our true God and His saints,honoring them in words, in writings, in thoughts, in sacrifices, intemples, and in icons, worshipping and respecting the One asGod and Master, and honoring the others, and apportioningrelative worship to them, because of our common Master forthey are His genuine servants,This is the Faith of the apostles,
this is the Faith of the fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox,
this Faith hath established the whole world”.
The above-mentioned text tells you clearly what is “Orthodoxy” starting with the Prophets!.
Q1) Where do you see the words “Ecumenical Councils” in this text?
Q2) Why do you have this excessive zeal (the last year or so) to always see one thing only: everything in Church must be related/explained by exclusively Constantinople, her EP, “her” Councils and so on? WHY,WHY, WHY?
———————–
PS. Numbering of questions (Q1, etc) is for your convenience.
But, you seem to ignore them. I’ll have to resend you individually each one of those unanswered questions.
Ioannis, in the version proclaimed in my parish on the Sunday of Holy Orthodoxy it says:
“This is the faith that established the universe”
But then again, is that not the jurisdiction the EP is claiming as “First without Equals” apparently above God Himself?
Also it is clear that the Church did not create the faith, the Apostles did not create the faith, nor the Councils. It is received as revealed. Whole and complete and full. That any of us gets to participated in that is an unwarranted mercy. That anyone wants to claim that as his own a horrible transgression.
There is only one I AM. I do not imagine that the Greek written on icons of Christ is any different. One thing it does not say is: The EP IS.
Michael , the original text of the “Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy” reads:
“αὓτη ἡ πίστις τήν Οἰκουμένην ἐστήριξεν”,
ie,
“This faith settled/made-firm/set-fast the Ecumene”
Ecumene is precisely transliterated as Oikoumene, a past participle of the word Oikos=House, thus “housed“.
It is the brief form of “Oikoumene Ge”,
the “housed earth”,say the inhabited world.
That was then known to be encircled by Gibraltar, Central Europe, Asia minor, Middle East, Libya.
Ioannis, no I’m not ignoring this text at all. This text is a reference specifically to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Triumph of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasts. It’s because of this Council that we now celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
Joseph,
If you do not ignore it___then do understand, and accept from it, that Ortho-doxy is the Correct (ortho) thinking/glorifying (doxa) from all we know from the Prophets all the way to the Fathers, not from EP.
Please avoid tricks and creativity to somehow credit this to Constantinople!
I hope we shall not have to refer to this again.
Thank you.
Ioannis, you seem to be ignoring that this text is the product and affirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that it wouldn’t exist otherwise.
Joseph,___thanks for reminding me:“this text is the product and affirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that it wouldn’t exist otherwise”:
Unfortunately for you, these very words of yours disprove your thesis about the importance of EP:
Now consider carefully:
“this text”:
That text proves that Ortho-doxy i.e. correct-thinking/glorifying (whole, not just the icons)was not originally articulated by the EP,but is the words from the Prophets and up to the Fathers.Now from the Prophets to the Fathers the majority were not EP. They were elsewhere.There were some very few exceptions as eg St.J.Chrysostom who was not even called “Ecumenical” Patriarch.
“is the product and affirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council”:
Indeed “of the Seventh Ecumenical Council”, and NOT of EP, or Constantinople!Because: -The 7th Ecum.Council took place in Nicea, not Constantinople!
-The 7th Ecum.Council was called by Empress Irene, not the EP.
-The 7th Ecum.Council consisted by abt 350 equal bishops, not just the “EP” Tarasios.
-“EP” Tarasios had been elected Bishop of Constantinople thanks to support by Empress Irene.So even the “EP” at that time should be grateful to the Empress, not the EP!
“it wouldn’t exist otherwise”:So we should be grateful NOT to the EP, but MAINLY to the Empress of Constantinople Irene. Today there is no head of state in Constantinople, but in Ankara and he is not an Orthodox Christian.
Going back to your initial reply above that triggered this thread:
Joseph,___“Jerusalem is the Mother Church of Christianity, but Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy”.
So,Joseph, all your clever and creative effort to prove the above is in vain:As shown above, Orthodoxy was “born” with the Prophets long before Constantinople or the original Byzantium existed!Even the text “Synodikon of Orthodoxy” was produced NOT in Constantinople but in Nicea by 350 Bishops from all places!
I can not understand your zeal to insist in this when the facts are against you. Are these the last and therefore desperate efforts to “save” oneself by grasping even the smallest straw of hope?
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not exactly Christians.
They’re Arians, and just like the Arians of old, they identify as Christians. Thanks to the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, the Church can properly identify them as a false Christianity.
On the other hand, at least they don’t control Germany, and much of Spain and North Africa, so they don’t pose much of a problem.
Decades ago, there was a very good and well-regarded court reporter in my town that most of us lawyers used; him and his employees. He once told me that he thought that the moon landing was fake and that the world was flat. I thought it odd. When he died, his obit identified him as Jehovah’s Witness, and it turns out that’s what they believe.
I probably shouldn’t tell that story here, because it’s just possible I may find that are few regulars who think the moon landing was fake, too! On the other hand, since the Greeks proved the world was round millenia ago, I’m probably safe on that score….
TimR, I didn’t realise that about the JWs. Yet another reason to have heresy trials
On the other hand one of my colleagues at work is a Jehovah’s Witness who has spent considerable time caring for folks in the Dominican Republic who need help. BTW Tim the prayer list in our bulletin this morning for the missionaries who we support is longer than the list of friends and family. From memory: Lawrence, KS; Garden City, Ks; Fiji; Kenya; Guatamala; India; Indonesia; Syria; and a couple places I am missing. None of which accrue to my honor.
I cringe whenever I hear the word “define” as it relates to creeds or councils. It betrays a way of thought and expression of the Faith that is thoroughly alien to it. Our Fathers took exceptional care not to define, but to set boundaries – and that only when absolutely necessary to protect it from corruption. That it was necessary to do so at all was not a virtue as such, but a measure of how far many had fallen away from it/Him.
Brian exactly. I have always seen dogma as like scientific theory. It does not explain word for word something that words cannot really, but sets the boundaries of where we know the truth is found. The more we stray from it, the less truth we will hold.
Who with words can really explain how Christ is God and Man, impossible, but in the words and their form we use, we know the Church is expressing the lived reality. We stray from the words, we stray from the truth.
Brian, define has several connotations, one of which is: “To set bounds to, to limit, restrict, confine” [Oxford English Dictionary].
The OED offers the following delightful sample quotations:
1513 G. Douglas tr. Virgil Æneid iv. ii. 30 Quhilkis na way diffynis The force nor strength of luif with his hard bandis!
1624 N. De Lawne tr. P. Du Moulin Elements Logick 27 God is..so present in all places, as he is neither limited, nor defined by any place.
1643 Sir T. Browne Religio Medici (authorized ed.) i. §27 Wee doe too narrowly define the power of God, restraining it to our capacities.
Brendan being a contrarian, I am required to point out while the boundless and unlimited nature of God is true, it is equally true that He seems to love particular forms of worship done in particular ways that allow Him to be boundlessly present more easily and with greater fullness.
Thus the continuity of the form of worship witnessed by Isaiah, the form of the altar given to ancient Israel and our own altar set up and liturgies, vigils and prayer services and other sacramental acts.
Sacrament seems to require specific, particular and bounded forms.
However Joseph’s use of the word ‘define’ on reference to the Council’s has an implication for me of man creating, setting and enforcing law. Not the same thing
Michael: “Brendan being a contrarian…”
Indeed I am, but you are not; which proves I am.
QED
Alas, the lack of proper punctuation… Brendon, I am the contrarian. Just ask my wife.
Please forgive me. You have never seemed at all contrarian to me. (See even in that I object). Just a diligent and faithful man. Thank you for your contributions.
Err… It’s ‘Brendan’.
See? There I (we) go again…
Brian, I agree. The Nicene Creed is referred to as the Symbol of Faith, not the definition of faith. Yet the boundaries of what is truly Christian and of the Church needed to be articulated and defined because “of how far many had fallen away”. To simply identify now as merely a Christian is too nebulous.
Brian, I share your dislike of the word “define” that is why I like the word “articulated”. A small specific segment of the much greater faith was articulated to inoculate the Church against specific heresies.
Unfortunately, many “definitions” came later and still pour forth to our detriment.
Joseph,___”the Ecumenical Councils gave birth in place and time to the Creed and Holy Canons that have now defined for the Church an Orthodox Christianity against error and heresies. Those definitions of Orthodoxy, coming from the Ecumenical Councils, will always be associated with the Imperial City of Constantinople”.
Joseph, this is not the Whole Truth:
Data are cropped to achieve the goal QED:
“Bartholomäus über alles!”
The Creed was originally formulated in Nicea(I) and later revised in Constantinople(II). It is well-known as the Nicene (from Nicea) Creed, and NOT Constantinopolitan Creed!
“Those definitions of Orthodoxy, coming from the Ecumenical Councils, will always be associated with the Imperial City of Constantinople”.
You are ignoring a lot of data here:
The Church Canons mainly come from the following nine (9!) Councils out of which only three (3!) took place in Constantinople:
The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem was the first council in the Church’s history and is described in the Acts of the Apostles. It took place around the year 50 in Jerusalem.
I. First Council of Nicea, (325)
II. First Council of Constantinople, (381)
III. Council of Ephesus, (431)
IV. Council of Chalcedon, (451)
V. Second Council of Constantinople, (553)
VI. Third Council of Constantinople, (680-681)
Quinisext/Penthekte Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, (692)
VII. Second Council of Nicea, (787)
Who says that
will always be associated with the Imperial City of Constantinople?
Ioanni, the Quininisext Council in Trullo was so-called because it was held, in Constantinople, in a domed hall in the Imperial Palace (τρούλος [troulos] meaning a cup or dome). Other than that, you are spot on.
Joseph & Brendan
Thanks to Brendan please correct my oversight error to read:
Quinisext/Penthekte Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, Constantinople (692).
AND
The Church Canons mainly come from the following nine (9!) Councils out of which only four (4!) took place in Constantinople:
My apology and gratitude.
Ioannis,
Was it some sort of shell game the emperor was playing? I mean was the Roman Emperor moving his capital about from Nicea to Constantinople, and then to Ephesus and Chalcedon and back again? No, these councils just met wherever the emperor wanted them to meet. These were imperial councils, and the Archbishop of the Capital City of Constantinople had the special access to the emperor for all of these. It was because of this that the acknowledged primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople developed. Of course we don’t have one ruling emperor now (we have many), but the Church has still preserved both the intention and the tradition that there be primacy and order within the Church.
Joseph,___“these councils just met wherever the emperor wanted them to meet”.
Exactly!!!!
The Emperor decided WHENever and WHEREver these ecumenical councils were to meet. So much for the power of the EP. Just like now: The EP recognized everything OK in Ukraine. After some years the new kinda “Emperor” of the West (see your older post) tells EP to undo his recognizing and create a new “autocephalous Church there.
And EP obeys.
“These were imperial councils, and the Archbishop of the Capital City of Constantinople had the special access to the emperor for all of these”.
Indeed these were imperial councils called by the Emperor (hence the adjective imperial).
And the Archbishop there had access to the emperor and obeyed the emperor (just like now). You see, either you obey the emperor and you keep your sweet throne, or else you die in the caves of Cappadocia like the simple Archbishop J.Chrysostom.
“It was because of this that the acknowledged primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople developed”.
Very good, Joseph! This is the MAIN practical primacy of EP, also explained in Canon 28(4th): EP had access to the emperor and thus assisted remote Bishops to come to the Emperor for their problems. But this sort of “Coordinator” gradually throughout the years took natural advantage of his location and slowly elevated his title up from an EQUAL “Bishop” to today having a double-superlative title All-Most-Holy and a promotion to Patriarch.
The strange thing is that at the top of Constantinople’s power and glory, the EP was just “Archbishop” and now has a much higher title, whilst the Empire is gone, Constantinople is called an illiterate name “to-the-City” (Istanbul), there is no Emperor, and practically no congregation!
And EP courtyard are preparing a new title First-without-equals!
You are a clever man Joseph, I read what you wrote about your country being under pagan influence etc.
You can easily understand what the 21-year-old Sultan thought of:
He gave all the possible power and primacy to EP to absolutely govern his Orthodox throngs, and EP reported to him and received new orders.
“Of course we don’t have one ruling emperor now (we have many),”
Spot on! It follows that:
“Of course we don’t have one ruling CORRESPONDING ARCHBISHOP now (we have many)”
It clicks perfectly.
In every major country or geographical area we have a new-style “emperor”, Trump, Putin, Macron, Merkel, Xi, etc and the corresponding Arch-Bishops. Obviously, the more congregation, the more power.
“but the Church has still preserved both the intention and the tradition that there be primacy and order within the Church”.
From the above history, you can appreciate the practical meaning and practice of these beautiful words: intention, tradition, primacy and order.
Want me to analyse them once more?
In the continuing aftermath of WWII, it has often been said of the UK that: “Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a role”.
It appears that, though it has lost two empires and a congregation, the EP has found a balloon which it is expanding to encompass the universe, or try to.
Brendan,
as the power and glory of Constantinople diminishes to the illiterate name (to-the-city) “Istanbul” without Emperor and practically no congregation,
funnily enough,
the original Archbishop has got higher titles, i.e. “Patriarch” and “All-Most-Holy” (higher than used for Holy God)
….
Now, this phenomenon (higher titles as worth diminishes) has been identified by St.J.Chrysostom.
Ioannis, perfect. They are busy as Rome did, making a human, historical situation, into a God given one by use of fancy words and titles that the secular world can use. In the mean time their church is dying and the real one gets on with life.
The reality is even sadder. THEY ARE AN IRRELEVANCE TO LIFE, AND TO GOD, AND TO THE CHURCH.
There was no Archbishop of Constantinople in 325 AD
For those of you who know Greek. Below please find a short video from yesterday on The National Herald website.
Published at 2/3/2020
Hellenic Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Konstantinos Vlasis statement about the reconstruction of Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox National Shrine and its open-house in September 2021, at Saint Nicholas, Ground Zero, Manhattan, NY, 3 February 2020.
https://youtu.be/4SATgtTM1PQ
In the video Konstantinos Vlasis talks about how in September 2021 the new church will open, and that the new church symbolizes many things. It [i.e., the new church] “symbolizes brotherhood, symbolizes peace, and in here beats the heart of Hellenism, beats the heart of Orthodoxy, beats the heart of globalization.”
(«. . . κτυπάει η καρδιά του ελληνισμού, κτυπάει η καρδιά της Ορθοδοξίας, κτυπάει η καρδιά της παγκοσμιοποίησης.»)
yes I just watched. Classic modernist hot air. If i have to watch another secular greek politician doing liz service, I will puke. Give me Tsipras. At least he was honest in his disbelief
Globalism is secular and evil; Orthodoxy is spiritual and godly. Sounds like Mr. Vlasis is just another politician spouting out. I like the definition of political, many blood suckers.
Right on Niko.
Jackson. Hi. THANK. You. I have listened to too many greek politicians spouting in church. REDUCING the worship to roman empire civil religion with no meaning. AND THE BISHOPS LOVE IT.. Why Tsipras was a breath of fresh air, to be honest. And these pseudo religious politicians in reality are as secular as Tsipras. But with added hypocrisy. But what is destruction is how they reduce the Church to a dead entity
In many places it appears to already be a dead entity, but God is the master of His church and in His timing, things will change.
I was just out the hospital last Pascha, so I watched it on my laptop with a feed from a Greek church in Austrailia (only one I could find at the time) and I was very disappointed. Huge crowds have a great time jabbering and not paying any attention to the service and in particular, the processions outside of the church. After a while, I found the Pascha service going on in Moscow and what a difference; whew, Orthodoxy is still alive, not a dead entity.
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald.
Greek Deputy Foreign Minister for Hellenes Abroad Vlasis Visits NYC, St. Nicholas WTC
By TNH Staff
February 6, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/284287/greek-deputy-foreign-minister-for-hellenes-abroad-vlasis-visits-nyc-st-nicholas-wtc/
Below please find an article from Thursday in The National Herald.
Saving St. Nicholas
By Nicholas Gage
February 6, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/284311/saving-st-nicholas/
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Prominent Greek-American Businessman and Philanthropist George Marcus Donates $2.0 More Million to St. Nicholas
By TNH Staff
February 10, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285025/prominent-greek-american-businessman-and-philanthropist-george-marcus-donates-2-0-more-million-to-st-nicholas/
Below please find the above article which as of this posting, has been unlocked by The National Herald.
Prominent Greek-American Businessman and Philanthropist George Marcus Donates $2.0 More Million to St. Nicholas
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 11, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285025/prominent-greek-american-businessman-and-philanthropist-george-marcus-donates-2-0-more-million-to-st-nicholas/
Joseph Lipper says
February 9, 2020 at 1:58 pm
Ioannis, you seem to be ignoring that this text is the product and affirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and that it wouldn’t exist otherwise.
Joseph, you have it backwards: The Council is the product of the faith described in the text. It pre-existed the Council.
Time and life and faith are not linear. Our best knowledge, incomplete as it is, is revealed not thought out. Because don’t you know: “We get more stinkin’ from thinkin’ than we do from drinkin’ ”
Or, “We are fine when we are born, we get defined then we have to be refined.”
Ahhhhh. Some good things came out of the 60s.
Michael Bauman, the work of the Ecumenical Councils was the joint work of faith and the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it didn’t just appear out of thin air like the stone tablets given to Moses. It was the work of Ecumenical Councils. The Nicene Creed, and the other works of those councils, was the testament of the Church’s faith, and the witness of an ecclesiology. Orthodoxy always existed with God, but it was through the joint work of God and man in the Ecumenical Councils that Orthodoxy now exists in the Church. The evidence of this is that whereas the heretics and their heresies were formerly within the Church, now they are not.
Joseph,___”It was the work of Ecumenical Councils”.
What kind of work was it?
Inventing of new dogmas? NO!
They took the material from the Bible and the Fathers
and wrote a neat summary of it.
What has that to do with Constantinople and the EP?
(I asked you elsewhere but no reply).
The Council was called NOT BY THE EP but by Empress Irene and took place in Nicea not Constantinople.
The EP had been elected with the help of the Empress.
The EP was one of equally-voting 350(!) Bishops from all Patriarchates and places, not only Constantinople. “Ecumenical” means from the “housed” (oikos) land.
So, whose initiative was it and who decided on the text and where:
Answers: Empress Irene, 350 Bishops, Nicea.
Why all this excessive ZEAL to give the credit to EP and Constantinople,
and not to Nicea? Are you forgetting 350 equal apostolic bishops agreed on the text, and indeed it is known as the “Nicene Creed”.
Why have we spent so many days arguing on such a self-explanatory matter?
Joseph, what have you proved?
.
.
(emphasis mine)
Ioannis, yes, the Ecumenical Councils were imperial councils, called by the Emperor (or Empress). Because of their imperial nature, they have connection with the imperial capital and it’s bishop.
“Joseph Lipper says
February 12, 2020 at 9:19 pm
Ioannis, yes, the Ecumenical Councils were imperial councils, called by the Emperor (or Empress). Because of their imperial nature, they have connection with the imperial capital and it’s bishop.”___Well, Joseph,
(1) Connection with the imperial capital?
What connection? Why do they call it the Nicene Creed and not Constantinopolitan Creed? The connection is to the City of Nicea!
Less than half of the places of the Councils so far was in Constantinople. More than half were in/or Jerusalem, Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon as I already told you in February 5, 2020 at 6:41 am .
Why do you discredit those cities and you mention Cple only?
This is like saying that the Olympic Games are connected to Athens because that was the biggest/strongest city and so you could say nothing about the little/remote city Olympia. However, everybody says the Olympic Games ie from the actual city Olympia.
(2) Connection with the city’s bishop?
The Council of Nicea had 350 bishops, they equally had one vote each, as real equal brethren in Christ as taught by the Apostles. Similarly in the other Councils.
Why then do you say that the Councils were “connected” with the Cple bishop?
Is this your own discovery or,
where did you read this?
———————————————————–
Well Joseph, we have come to this point after a series of arguments of your thesis, to remind you some of them :
“Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the Early Church’s recognition of the ecclesial primacy of the Roman bishop was basically a recognition of the Roman Empire’s own primacy.” https://www.monomakhos.com/the-question-needs-to-be-asked/#comment-152590
“Constantinople is the Mother Church of Orthodoxy”https://www.monomakhos.com/the-question-needs-to-be-asked/#comment-152717
“Yes, the word “Orthodox” means “Correct Thinking/Glorifying”, but the contextual reference of “Orthodox” for Christianity specifically pertains to the Ecumenical Councils”.https://www.monomakhos.com/the-question-needs-to-be-asked/#comment-152895
“Those definitions of Orthodoxy, coming from the Ecumenical Councils, will always be associated with the Imperial City of Constantinople”.”https://www.monomakhos.com/the-question-needs-to-be-asked/#comment-152839
After this exhaustive discussion, do you still have a proof of your thesis e.g.:
Cple is the Mother of OrthodoxyEP is “First Without Equals”
etc etc?
Joseph: “…it was through the joint work of God and man in the Ecumenical Councils that Orthodoxy now exists in the Church.”
Athanasius of Alexandria (and many others) was in the Church before the Ecumenical Councils. He was Orthodox. Therefore Orthodoxy existed in the Church before the Ecumenical Councils.
That there were various heresies in the Church before the Councils
does not affect the truth of my previous statement.
Brendan, I’m not sure I understand your question, because Saint Athanasius of Alexandria is acknowledged as a champion of Orthodoxy at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea.
Are the Ante-Nicene Fathers considered Orthodox? I believe yes, except for Origen who was later anathematized at the 5th Ecumenical Council some 300 years after his death. I suppose before he was anathematized his writings were considered by some to belong to the Church.
Joseph: Joseph: “…it was through the joint work of God and man in the Ecumenical Councils that Orthodoxy now exists in the Church.”
No, Joseph. You have this completely back-to-front. It was:
“…through the joint work of God and man in the Ecumenical Councils
that [certain heresies were removed from] the Church.”
Orthodoxy has always existed in the Church from its inception.
I chose Athanasius of Alexandria as a counter-example which disproves your argument as he was Orthodox before the First Ecumenical Council opened in 325 AD. As Einstein observed, to disprove a general statement, one counter-example is sufficient. However, since you do not seem to grasp what has happened to your argument, I will offer another counter-example: Irenaeus of Lyons. He was Orthodox before the First Ecumenical Council opened in 325 AD. He was in the Church. Ergo, Orthodoxy existed in the Church before the Ecumenical Councils.
Brendan,
Yes, good example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons was an Ante-Nicene Father and a great champion of Orthodoxy. He defended the Church against Gnostic heresy, defended the teaching of the Holy Trinity, and also defended the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He lived before the First Ecumenical Council, yet the content of his writings are later affirmed as Orthodox by the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, whereas Origen is later pronounced a heretic. Thus, it is because of the Ecumenical Councils that St. Irenaeus is universally recognized as Orthodox today.
The “rubber stamp” of Orthodoxy comes out of the Ecumenical Councils. Before the Ecumenical Councils, there was no such “rubber stamp”. Perhaps the next closest thing, as St. Irenaeus argued, was the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Joseph,___“The “rubber stamp” of Orthodoxy comes out of the Ecumenical Councils. Before the Ecumenical Councils, there was no such “rubber stamp”. Perhaps the next closest thing, as St. Irenaeus argued, was the primacy of the bishop of Rome.”
Orthodoxy was “born” in the time of the Prophets and was with us until the 3rd century AD, long before “the rubber stamp” had approved the self-evident name “Correct thinking and glorifying”.
The “rubber” stamp is the Rule, Canon, Canonic Law and has great value for all the Faithful especially the spiritually-illiterate. Next to that, there is the real faith and real love of God, and that ,so to speak, does not need the “rubber stamp”, in the sense that it knows the truth even before the “rubber stamp” has been put.
A very good example of this is the case of Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis who was persecuted by jealous Patriarch Sofronios (=prudent!)of Alexandria (also known as 13th “Apostle and Judge of Ecumene” (thus higher than EP?).
Many people saw the miracles from the very FIRST day of his death 1920(!) and said Nektarios is a Saint. The official Church (say the “rubber stamp”) refused his canonization.
He was canonized by the very wise EP, 41(!) years later in 1961.
EP did not particularly like Nektarios because he criticized the Pope, but he had to canonize Nektarios as there were even Church buildings in his name!
The even wiser “13th Apostle and Judge of the Ecumene” patriarch of Alexandria admitted almost 70 years later (1989) that Nektarios was a Saint and asked for his forgiveness.
So much for the realistic appraisal and accuracy of the “rubber stamp”.
Another example of the “rubber stamp” was the pseudo-Council of Crete: Hierotheos criticized its flaws until he was visited by Pyatt a few years later!
Joseph you have already written about the value of Primacy etc to achieve order. That surely applies to atheists/pagans not to us baptized in the Holy Trinity. You value the Primacy of the Pope to achieve that.
You are forgetting that this Papal Primacy was one of the MAIN reasons for the big Schism.
Now, triggered by Elpidoforos (and here seconded by yourself) that bad Primacy has become a good thing and EP must surely profit from it!
Lord, please save us!
Ioannis, that’s not to say Church Councils can’t be wrong. They sometime are. Yet, the Church has universally identified at least seven of the Ecumenical Councils as the canonical basis for Orthodoxy and our ecclesiology. There are also other councils, like the Hesychast councils, that are considered to be Orthodox, yet are not considered “Ecumenical” apparently because of the schism with Rome. God willing someday that schism will be overcome and a universally acknowledged Eighth Ecumenical Council will convene.
Joseph,___”Ioannis, that’s not to say Church Councils can’t be wrong. They sometime are”.
The meaning of my msg was to show that the devout members of the Church know and do what is right even before the “rubber stamp” is put.
We have seen above a delay of the “rubber stamp” for almost 70 years!!!! (in Alexandria)
EP was a bit faster: 41 years!!!!
That’s the value of real “supremacy” and titles and hope for us for the future. Carry on.
Ioannis, we can’t trust in our own devotion and piety. For example, in Greece there is the Old Calendar schism, and in Russia there is the Old Believer schism. In both cases, people’s devotion and piety became an obstacle for them, and they went into schism. Although both groups of schismatics had completely valid and correct points, it was still wrong for them to go into schism.
Joseph,___”we can’t trust in our own devotion and piety. For example, in Greece there is the Old Calendar schism, and in Russia there is the Old Believer schism”.
I am not suggesting to trust in our own devotion/piety. I am implying/suggesting to trust in what we have received from the time of the Prophets, the bible, all the way down to the Church Fathers.
This trust, should not be substituted by Not only EP but even an angel from heaven if they preach different things. You know that Joseph.
You want me to remind you what the “13th Apostle and Judge of Ecumene” said a few weeks ago about the Quran etc?
What took him almost 70 years to accept St.Nektarios (30 years after EP did)?
Are you suggesting that we should trust in people like him, Yes or No, Joseph?
,
Please do not open still another thread about Old C.
Just a quick reply will suffice: Metallinos said they are a good ‘brake” for us of the New Cal. Period.
It used to be thought that Orthodoxy is that which the Church has always and everywhere believed. Now however, in the New Theology of yourself (Joseph Lipper), neither this nor anything else can be Orthodox until it possesses ‘the “rubber stamp” of Orthodoxy [which] comes out of the Ecumenical Councils’. You confuse the Certificate of Orthodoxy with the ding-an-sich of Orthodoxy.
In short, you are a Rubber-Stampist who would refuse to accept that an egg is fresh (even if the hen had laid it in front of your eyes not five minutes previously) unless it bore the Rubber Stamp of ‘Fresh’ applied by the appropriate regulatory authority. This is a new doctrine which will require an Ecumenical Council to consider if it is deserving of the ‘Rubber Stamp’.
Brendan,
There are always many who claim to be Orthodox. How many schismatic “Orthodox” groups exist today who claim to be “True Orthodox”, “Genuine Orthodox”, or possibly even “Uber Orthodox”?
Perhaps this has been a problem since the time of the Apostles, however the Early Church was mostly cleansed by persecutions and martyrdom. Without this threat, it was necessary for the Church to establish an explicit “rubber stamp” of Orthodoxy. Yes, Orthodoxy refers to what God and His Church have always been, going back to the creation of the angels, and even before time began.
Joseph Lipper: “There are always many who claim to be Orthodox.”
Right.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
1 John 2:19
Sadly, this is nothing new.
Mr. Lipper,
The primacy of (or, more accurately, the deference given to) the bishop of Rome by Irenaeus and countless others in the earlier centuries of the Church was due precisely to his orthodoxy. When, in later centuries, the orthodoxy of the bishop of Rome was seriously – and accurately – called into question this deference was also questioned, ultimately acknowledged with great reluctance and pain, and finally ceased altogether.
Rather than testifying to the Orthodox faith and upholding it as a shining example to others, as the bishops of Rome had always done, they gradually came to view themselves in their own persons as the sole, anointed arbiter of the Faith and monarchical ruler of the Church invested with powers that the ecumenical councils never gave them (Do you hear echoes of Emmanuel of Gaul?).
It is notable that when the eastern Churches objected only to some of the pretensions of the bishop of Rome, his reply to them was sweeping in its scope, claiming the right not only to do the specific things to which they objected, but also his right to appoint or remove anyone he chooses anywhere in the Churches (among many other claims of universal jurisdiction).
Sadly, history is repeating itself.
Brian, at least there was an actual dogmatic justification for the Great Schism, that is the Pope of Rome’s addition of “filioque” to the Nicene Creed. By contrast, I still have not heard any Orthodox bishop come up with any legitimate accusation of heresy against Patriarch Bartholomew. I’m sure if there was something, then it would have come up already. Sure, many don’t agree with what he’s doing, but that itself doesn’t justify schism.
Joseph,
There is infinitely more to fidelity to the Church and the faith of our Fathers than dogma.
You might consider the fact that not even those who argue for homosexual marriage, female clergy, or any other number of other sick innovations can be accused (in the strict sense) of preaching against Christian dogma.
Your persistence in asserting that no heresy is involved is narrow in the extreme. And quite frankly, I think you are beginning to realize it yourself (for you are, I believe, an honest and sincere man), and that you will one day acknowledge it “with great reluctance and pain.”
I think you are also more than cognizant of the fact that the filioque was, though not unimportant, a relatively minor factor (when compared to claims of supremacy) in the Schism of 1054. It only became a central issue in the polemics that followed. And as then, so now a very real controversy that could have been settled by a council was allowed to fester and cause lasting schism for the sake of maintaining power and a fictional ‘tradition’ of universal jurisdiction that had been allowed – and even encouraged – to develop over time.
Yes. History is repeating itself.
Brian, in 1054 the Roman Papacy was dominated by Henry III, the “Holy Roman Emperor”, and I would surmise that a rivalry with Constantinople was the actual basis of the Great Schism. There were two different empires both making claim to the same moniker, both claiming to be the “Holy Roman Empire”. The supremacy the Pope of Rome was claiming was not based upon proper ecclesial order, but rather it was based upon this rivalry. By going into schism against Constantinople, the Pope of Rome was effectively justifying not only his own supremacy, but also Henry III’s “Holy Roman Empire”.
Rivalries among superpowers still exist today, and the Russian Federation is a military superpower and a rival of both the U.S. and China. The Moscow Patriarchate is also heavily intertwined with the Russian military and especially with it’s nuclear arsenal. We now have the current phenomena of a “Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy” where Russian nuclear weapons are held to protect Orthodoxy, and the Russian Orthodox Church protects and sanctifies the Russian military’s nuclear weapons. On a certain level this might sound nice. We all want to protect Orthodoxy. Yet as Americans, we are apparently on the wrong side of these weapon’s appointed trajectory.
With Russia in a one-way schism with Constantinople, Alexandria, Greece, and Ukraine, the seed is now planted to justify a Russian Orthodox supremacy and even papacy. It appears that Russia, as a type of Third Rome, is now following in the same footsteps as Henry III’s “Holy Roman Empire”. Yes, it does appear that history is repeating itself.
Joseph: “With Russia in a one-way schism with…Ukraine”.
Russia is not in schism with Ukraine – not with the canonical Church and not with the vast majority of believers in Ukraine.
Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. You can’t have one without the other.
Joseph,
As is often the case when all defenses fail, you change the subject and frame it in a way that attempts to defend the indefensible.
I am not concerned with rivalries between superpowers, either past or present; nor should the Church be.
It would appear that schism with Rome is defensible and even laudable in your eyes because…
“The supremacy the Pope of Rome was claiming was not based upon proper ecclesial order.”
Yet you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the same in the CP which likewise fails to discourage the steady stream of sycophantic claims of his supremacy, uses every possible forum to affirm it, and steadfastly refuses to assemble – unless, that is, he is satisfied that he alone has control of the outcome.
Why is he so reticent (or simply afraid?) to assemble with his brethren, which is, after all, the meaning of the Ecclesia, the “called out [plural] assembly,” the Church)? How can one be a primate among the Churches apart from assembling with them? And how can one call himself a “servant of the Church/Assembly” unless there IS an assembly?
Is Russia to blame for this? Russia may be powerful, you may even believe ‘Russia’ is sinful, but no one has the power to force anyone to sin against the Church. Moreover, Russia is willing to assemble and try to resolve the schism while Bartholomew is not. Every plea or plan even for a meeting (let alone a real council) to help to resolve the schism is ignored and considered beneath the “competency” of any party ‘below’ him. This is not the attitude of a primate; it is the attitude of a supreme pontiff.
And please don’t say Bartholomew is “serving the canons.” First of all, the canons are not the Church. And secondly, he, like many others, “picks and chooses” (the very definition of heresy) which canons please him, which are supposedly ‘unchangeable’ and which are not, which ones he can ignore, and which ones he can wield as weapons against those who oppose…not his office, but his exceeding of his rightful authority.
And finally, though I am no fan of any “third Rome” theories, ‘prophecies,’ or whatever one chooses to call the idea, the fact remains that if an ecumenical council determines that it serves the Church to alter the primacy of the CP and either abolish or replace it (as they did with the first Rome), it would be the act of the Church catholic and fully legitimate – every bit as much as that which transferred this honor from Rome to Constantinople. It is not likely, but it is possible. Such temporal matters are not unchangeable, as some popes and patriarchs would have us believe. This, I believe, is what your patriarch and others who benefit from his power fear most.
Whatever happened to trusting the Holy Spirit – and what possible profit can come of resisting Him?
Brian Van Sickle,
very wisely put!
Joseph,___please consider:
but, Joseph, just one day earlier you wrote:
to that I replied to you:
So now, you have discovered:
So, that explains the secular assistance to the masons Meletios Metaxakis and Athenagoras to EP, and it also explains the current contacts between Bartholomew, Pompeo and Pyatt.
Obviously without knowing, you are now supporting the group that you criticized 3 years ago:
(all emphases mine).
Ioannis,
It’s like the schism of the non-Chalcedonians. The justification for the schism was theological, a rejection of the two natures of Christ. However, I think most historians agree that the actual basis of the schism was a rejection of the Holy Roman Empire based in Constantinople. As a result, the non-Chalcedonians in their stubborness were left with their own form of papacy.
Joseph: “I think most historians agree that the actual basis of the schism was a rejection of the Holy Roman Empire based in Constantinople.”
I think not. I think most historians from Gibbon to Runciman, Norwich and Toynbee agreed that the Holy Roman Empire (a.k.a. Heiliges Römisches Reich; an entity which was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire) was not the same body as the Roman (or Byzantine, or East Roman) Empire.
Brendan, yes, I admittedly added the word “Holy” to the Roman Empire based in Constantinople, whereas that was not it’s designation. The misnomer of “Holy Roman Empire” belonged to the schismatic Frankish kingdom.
Yes, Joseph – we know you added it.
But why did you add it? Pray tell.
Was it to enhance the EP’s claim of supreme holiness
and his claim to supreme power in the Orthodox Church?
Joseph,___“Brian, at least there was an actual dogmatic justification for the Great Schism, that is the Pope of Rome’s addition of “filioque” to the Nicene Creed. By contrast, I still have not heard any Orthodox bishop come up with any legitimate accusation of heresy against Patriarch Bartholomew.
Joseph, I am surprised that you are hiding part of the truth:
It is tiring, but it is important to repeat it to you:
The Great Schism took place for a number of important points. Filioque was one of them. Another one was Primacy of the Pope. Now there are bishops who are accusing Bartholomew about that one. You say, Joseph, “I want to see the rubber stamp“.
Judging from from the canonization of St.Nektarios, it may take the “rubber stamp” anything e.g. up to 70 years to officially say that the de-facto Primacy of Bartholomew was wrong.
Michael:
“Joseph, you have it backwards: The Council is the product of the faith described in the text. It pre-existed the Council”.
I have told our brother Joseph.
Understandably, both he and “his hero” are desperately looking for a helping branch of a tree, yes even a straw, even a thorn and then they hurt their own hands, like now.
God save our Church
and have mercy on me a sinner.
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Analysis: This is how History Is Written
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 10, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285174/analysis-this-is-how-history-is-written/
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Faith Endowment Donates 20 Million Dollars for the Completion of St. Nicholas Shrine
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 12, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285710/faith-endowment-donates-20-million-dollars-for-the-completion-of-st-nicholas-shrine/
I have a question for all u good people as my stupid brain can’t get it. GEORGE CAN U HELP??. If the pews and chairs are empty,and judging by That video it looked pretty desparate, well, where does the money come from.?
Is it that the wealthy have formed a useful club AKA greek cypriot communities and their uk churches, to launder their cash and avoid tax and a useful bank for themselves and sometimes for the Church? Have I got it right? They actually do not need the faithful really, just their yearly cash.
Seems to me this archdiocese organization is like a leech sucking the life blood, but hey that is how the Phanar has always worked.
I have a question, which I offer for consideration (particularly clerical consideration): If a bishop becomes schismatic by concelebrating with schismatics, does this mean his whole diocese (and specifically outying parishes and lay members thereof) thereby becomes schismatic?
And if so, does it happen instantaneously, or only at the speed of light (or the speed of horseback as in former centuries)?
And does anybody have to know, or is it automatic?
Below please find an article from yesterday in The National Herald. Unfortunately, the article is locked and doesn’t appear in its entirety. I will continue to be on the lookout for the article in its entirety, and if found, I will post.
Catsimatidis Will Take Legal Action Against Slanderous Bloggers
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 13, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285829/catsimatidis-will-take-legal-action-against-slanderous-bloggers/
Below please find the above article which as of this posting, has been unlocked by The National Herald.
Catsimatidis Will Take Legal Action Against Slanderous Bloggers
By Theodore Kalmoukos
February 14, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/285829/catsimatidis-will-take-legal-action-against-slanderous-bloggers/
Poland, Serbia and Romania to take part in Amman Synaxis.
See: https://spzh.news/en
Brendan,
please allow me, the least expert in the matter, to utter a few simple thoughts, worth less than $0.02:
The bishop isn’t the owner of the Church, it belongs to Christ alone.
The bishop in his enthronement has promised to do certain things.We expect atheist/pagan politicians to keep their promises, let alone holy, most-holy and All-most-holy bishops.
If we agree with the schismatic bishop then naturally we are also schismatics.
If we clearly say that we do not agree and we do not follow/practice his ways, then we are not schismatics.
By way of analogy, if the bishop commits adultery, we have not automatically committed the sin with him. We remain with our own wife.
If the General of the army becomes a traitor, the soldiers are not automatically traitors unless they do what the traitor General says. They remain patriotic soldiers of their country.
Thank you for your reply, Ioanni. There is much to think on there and, be assured, I am thinking on it. However, I know many Orthodox clerics read this site. Perhaps some of them would like to offer an opinion or two?
Below please find an article from today on the Orthodox Times website.
Home > Archdiocese of America
Donation of 25,000 dollars to St. Nicholas Church in New York
Feb 17, 2020 | 09:19
https://orthodoxtimes.com/donation-of-25000-dollars-to-st-nicholas-church-in-new-york/
Below please find an article from today in The National Herald.
Work Resumes on St. Nicholas at the World Trade Center
By TNH Staff
February 18, 2020
https://www.thenationalherald.com/286569/work-resumes-on-st-nicholas-at-the-world-trade-center/
Below please find an article from Saturday in the New York Post.
METRO
Work resumes on Greek church at Ground Zero
By Melissa Klein
February 15, 2020 | 4:25pm
https://nypost.com/2020/02/15/work-resumes-on-greek-church-at-ground-zero/
The Ukrainian Experiment of the Vatican and the Phanar as a Step Towards Uniting Orthodoxy with Papism
Professor Kyriakos Kyriazopoulos
https://orthochristian.com/128636.html
This is an excellent study comparing what Papa Bart hopes to achieve
with what will actually result from his machinations.
Surprised but happily so re Romania.!
Joseph,___here is my reply with delay due to many duties:
As opposed to “actual basis”, you use “justification” as a sort of “excuse” but not the real reason.
And you say: “It’s like”, so you imply, the same thing is happening now:
In other words,
“theological, a rejection of the two natures of Christ” is not important enough for a schism,
Papal Primacy, and today’s attempted “EP is first without equals” is not important enough for a schism.
“in their stubbornness were left with their own form of papacy”:
So now EP cannot admit that MP has more Orthodox population than his miniscule one, he wants to play the “First without equals” like an Eastern Pope and it seems that sooner than later he will be as you say,
“left with his own form of papacy”.
Ioannis, yes, exactly. Schisms need some theological justification, but the actual reason why schisms happen is often political. That was the case with the non-Chalcedonians, with the “Holy Roman Empire”, and now we’ll see what comes out of Jordan. It sounds like the Russian bishops are trying to present a dogmatic justification for their schism. Yet the actual basis for the schism in Ukraine remains purely political.
JOSEPH wrong
Is the OCU schismatic? Yes.
Is Dumenko a bishop? No.
Is he a priest? No.
The Russians have ample justification.
Joseph,___“the actual reason why schisms happen is often political”.
So you do understand the influence of Pompeo’s visit to Bartholomew.
You are very mistaken on several points here, Mr Lipper.
The schism between the non-Chalcednians and The Church took place several centuries before the Holy Roman Empire ever existed.
Your consistent confusion in the facts of history is perhaps one of the reasons for which you cannot see that the current trouble among Orthodox Christians is being caused by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.
Ecclesial schisms are almost never based on theological issues, but on politics and personalities. The heretical monophysitism of the non-Chalcedonians is an exception to this general pattern, although the location of those heretical Christians beyond the limits of the Roman Empire — with which their countries were technically at war — cannot be ignored.
Monk James,
I’m referencing three different schisms: the non-Chalcedonians (monophysites), the Great Schism (of the “Holy Roman Empire”), and the current schism of Moscow in Ukraine.
As you point out, the monophysites were “beyond the limits of the Roman Empire – with which their countries were technically at war”. If the monophysites had been better disposed towards the Roman Empire, then they probably wouldn’t have clung to their heresy. The monophysites deeply resented the politics of Constantinople. By rejecting the Council of Chalcedon by means of theological monophysitism, they were thus able to declare Constantinople in “heresy” and establish their own papacy.
Similarly, the western “Holy Roman Empire” also resented the politics of Constantinople and sought theological justification for schism. The western papacy was born out of a resentment for Constantinople.
Now this time we have the Moscow Patriarchate deeply resenting the politics of Constantinople for “interfering” in Ukraine. So will Moscow follow the same path as the other two examples and establish it’s own papacy? The Moscow Patriarchate already has a world-wide presence that out-numbers everyone else, along with the backing of one of the world’s best militaries. If the current trajectory continues, then it won’t be long before Moscow tells the other Orthodox churches: it’s either my way, or it’s the highway.
“The western papacy was born out of a resentment for Constantinople.”
The western papacy was born out of a lust for power.
Brendan,
–
“The western papacy was born out of a lust for power”.
–
Just like the eastern papacy in our lifetime.
With luck and goodwill and God’s help,
the eastern papacy may yet be scotched…
Joseph, the flaw in your argument is that it is Moscow which is perpetrating a heresy, thereby leading to a schism. While we could all have some disagreements with Moscow, the fact remains that it is not Moscow which is formulating novel theories about ecclesiology. Or repudiating the historical record. (Especially regarding Jerusalem’s ability to call a council, which they have several times in the past.)
Monk James, when you say:
You could not state a better case against Symphonia.
Mr Bauman, please be assured that this wasn’t my intention.
On the whole, the theory of symphonia is wonderful, but it is always and quickly corrupted by human weakness and vice.
As a result, I think that an honest and mutually respectful but absolutely discrete administration of civil and spiritual responsibilities, perhaps similar to what we recognize as ‘separation of church and state’, is the best course for statesmanship and churchmanship, even in a theoretically Christian country.
Monk James, Michael Bauman, it seems to be futile (to me at least) to argue against one theory of governance (in this case symphonia) by stipulating that another is better (pure separation of church and state). Especially by stating that human weakness will militate against the former. Clearly, human fallenness is eradicating the separation between church and state as we speak as it is clear that we here in America are on the verge of having the church be subsumed to the state.
For that matter we are very close to the overthrow of the constitutional principles/civic virtues which upheld our republic for over 200 years.
George, there can be no “separation of Church and state”. That form of government is a nightmare.
Mr Bauman, when our Lord Jesus Christ says (LK 10:25) ‘Return to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s, isn’t He suggesting that The Church and the State are to be acknowledged as separate entities?
And when He responds (JN 19:11) to Pilatus, reminding him that ‘You would have no authority over Me unless it had been given you from above’, He is explicitly acknowledging the divine origin of the state’s authority , seeing the state as an institution distinct and apart from The Church. This same theme is articulated by St Paul at several points in his letters, and I’m sure that you can locate them without help from me.
Altogether, ‘separation of church and state’ seems to be a very easily attestable model offered in the New Testament.
Monk James, That does not mean that we should honor the state, especially the modern state, much less try to emulate it or seek state like worldly glory.
When they come for us, we acknowledge their power/authority to kill the body–nothing more. That is also why we pay taxes even serve in the military.
When the rulers seek to usurp God or worse, Bishops seek to emulate worldly rulers–no.
In modern parlance, “separation Church and state” means that the Church is wholly subject to the state and must do what the state says.
Mr Bauman, it impossible to reconcile the last paragraph of this post with the realities at work in our time, especially in the United States, which is bound by the terms of its constitution.
For easy reference, here is the text of the nationally accepted first amendment to that document:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’
Do you have some examples in mind which would illustrate violations of this amendment in the United States, which jealously preserves a separation between church and state?
Symphonia; haven’t had it for centuries; won’t have it again for centuries…..
It may have something to do with the Orthodox Christian faith, but not as much as it’s made out to have.
Looking ever backward…is this Orthodoxy? If so, then let’s not look to Symphonia; let’s look back before then…..
If so, then let’s not look to Symphonia; let’s look back before then…..
Well said, Tim.
Tim R. My point exactly. Unfortunately a nostalgia for the idea of Symphonia undergirds much of the EP/GOA insanity including why they pony up to politicians who are diametrically opposed to all of the teachings of the faith. So, no matter if we have not had it for a long time, it is still with us like the phantom pain of an amputated limb.
Historically, no matter how good a theory, in practice it has always been an instrument of harm to the Church.
What went before? A confederation of tribes each led by elders who worked together under the Law and commandments of God. Both church and polis, but in an organic way. Hierarchically but not tyrannical. Small in scale.
The Orthodox Church polity is still reflective of that — we just try to make it something it is not out of fear, cowardice, vanity, greed and lust of power.
The modern idea of the nation state is antithetical to the fraternal relations within the Church. With a monarchy/empire, that was not as evident, but did in fact cause serious problems. Christians in the outlying areas of the Empire actually threw open the gates to the Islamic armies because of their antipathy (justified) toward the Emperor.
We cannot serve two masters. There is no such thing as a secular state to which we must be loyal. That is becoming very clear as the modern idea of “the state” attempts to replace God altogether no matter the ideology of the governing elites.
Strong central governments do three things well: Levy taxes, raise armies and oppress their citizens. All order becomes a matter of “law” rather than an organic order founded upon a shared ethos and a common devotion to God led by those called out to do so.
I think it is impossible to have a multi-cultural polity of shared authority and responsibility. Islam understands that. Jews understand that.
Secularism was created as an attempt to ignore that fundamental reality. The destruction of any attempt to develop a real Christendom was allowed and encouraged for the semblance of peace in an earthly sense.
Since there was no real foundation to these secular states, war still followed. When the miasmic and demonic ideologies of the 18th & 19th centuries were propagated and accepted by ruling elites, the mass destruction of the 20th century followed including our collective brain washing into global consumerism, egalitarianism and the myth of progress–all given to us by “The State”. We are still allowed to “worship as we see fit”(until we are not) we just have to give a pinch of incense to what is actually important.
The Church will continue no matter how we are governed in the world, it will always be up to me which master I serve both generally and specifically and how I serve Him in communion with my brothers and sisters. Bearing one another’s burdens. The rest is beyond my control.
It is the crux of life and death. Anything else is fantasy and wishful thinking. There will be no earthly glory–which the EP/GOA seek. Their fantasy idea of symphonia is a big part of that. So, it is not dead and gone. Whatever value it once had, it has become idolatry and even heresy.
Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.
Michael: “Strong central governments do three things well:
Levy taxes, raise armies and oppress their citizens.”
1 Kings [Samuel] 8: 10-22
“10 And Samuel spoke every word of the Lord to the people who asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall rule over you: he shall take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and among his horsemen, and running before his chariots, 12 and his manner shall be to make them to himself captains of hundreds and captains of thousands; and to reap his harvest, and gather his vintage, and prepare his instruments of war, and the implements of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your good oliveyards, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tithe of your seeds and your vineyards, and give it to his eunuchs, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your servants, and your handmaids, and your good herds and your asses, and will take the tenth of them for his works. 17 And he will tithe your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye have chosen to yourselves, and the Lord shall not hear you in those days, because ye have chosen to yourselves a king. 19 But the people would not hearken to Samuel; and they said to him, Nay, but there shall be a king over us. 20 An we also will be like all the nations; and our king shall judge us, and shall go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and spoke them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken to their voice, and appoint them a king. And Samuel said to the men of Israel, Let each man depart to his city.” [LXX, Brenton]
Moral? We should all be careful what we ask for.
We might get it.
Brendan, the Scotts should know. I have taken great inspiration in my approach to government from that Scripture.
No matter what form of government we construct they all fail for the same reason: lack of virtue on our part, each of us.
That is why John Adams wrote shortly after the ratification of the US Constitution that the government formed was only suitable to a Christian people and was wholly inadequate for any other.
Michael,
Wikipedia says:
”
Religion in the United States (2016)
Protestantism (48.9%)
Catholicism (23.0%)
Mormonism (1.8%)
No religion (18.2%)
Judaism (2.1%)
Islam (0.8%)
Other non-Abrahamic religion (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism) (2.5%)
No response given/Unknown (2.7%)”
–
So all Christians in the US are about 73% of the total population.
So 73% of the people are two things at the same time:
(1) they are US citizens AND
(2) they are Christians, ie they believe in Christ.
These people have rights and obligations.Some examples:
As US citizens they have the right e.g. to vote, and the obligation e.g. to be conscripted.
As Christians they have the right e.g. to receive communion, and an obligation e.g. to do love each other like themselves.
–
The US having 73% Christians cannot have laws against these Christians, e.g. prohibit the Bible, etc.
If they do have such laws, it means that either they are not Christians or they are governed by an anti-Christian Government nor proportionally based on the 73% of the population.
–
–
The “name” of the System and its “purpose” must be based on the above facts.
Does the name and/or system ““separation of Church and state” agree with the above facts?
I am not too sure.
What Adams meant that Christianity allowed and encouraged people to practice virtue and to seek freedom.
A good bit of those who say they are Christians have no clue what the Nicean Creed is and would reject much in it if you read it to them.
My son, when asked what he believed used to recite the Creed. Quite often when he got to the part about Mary, he tells me, many would turn away.
So—not Christian. Then there is the whole abortion/queer transhuman stuff that many support.
Lest we forget, Russia before the revolution was 90% Christian with more than a few saints running around. The Marxists took over anyway.
That is the modern way of progress don’t you know.
Does Jerusalem have the right to call a Council?
Well, it has in the past, when necessary to correct
an Ecumenical Patriarch who has gone off the rails.
See:https://orthochristian.com/128741.html
https://spzh.news/en/news/68983-sovet-predstojatelej-v-ammane-onlajn-translyacija
Primates Council up and running. No doubt the Patriarch of Jerusalem has a right to call a council as per Brendan’s post above. This has happened several times. In fact, no Patriarch of Constantinople has ever called an ecumenical council. The seven of the first millenium were called by emperors, as were the two in this millenium. This is not purported to be a full blown Great and Holy Synod, only a synaxis or minor council of primates.
* * *
“The author of many works, a Professor of Theology, and later, the Archbishop of Athens, Chrysostomos (Papadopoulos), in his work ‘The Church of Jerusalem’ writes:
Whenever the Church felt the need to confront heretics, the Patriarchs of Jerusalem—either chairing the Holy Synod or personally—convened Church Councils. When in the seventeenth century, the whole East and West were confused by the teachings of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris, four Patriarchs of Jerusalem: Theophanes, Paisios, Nectarios and Dositheus, took an active part in the urgent convocation of a Council, which then defended the Holy Orthodox Church…
Consequently, the current actions of the Jerusalem Patriarch Theophilus, mandated by a sense of responsibility for the Church, from the canonical point of view, corresponds to our historical heritage.” – https://orthochristian.com/128741.html?fbclid=IwAR3eYaDX2eKzZyn5O7f3_nJEZXFJ5FXcWFpHz1SxQjKxiVD2z9xdRD_ADD8
* * *
The article goes on to describe the councils called by the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1642 and 1672, the last of which resulted in a reaffirmation of Holy Tradition known as the Confession of Dositheus.
It appears from the conversations in Amman that Antioch is absent only pursuant to the Qatar question and that many Bulgarian bishops were not even informed of the council in a timely fashion and were denied the opportunity to discuss it in synod:
“It turns out that in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Theophilos’s initiative was not even brought to the attention of the members of the Holy Synod. A member of the BOC Synod, Metropolitan Gabriel (Dinev) of Lovech, told the Bulgarian National Radio that they even learned about the date of the meeting from the media. Four metropolitans tried to get the issue of participation of the Bulgarian delegation to be considered at a meeting of the Synod, but this did not happen.” – https://spzh.news/en/news/68983-sovet-predstojatelej-v-ammane-onlajn-translyacija
What you are witnessing is a parallel operation of the Keystone Kops of the Phanar to that of the DNC in America. They can’t shoot straight and they’re leaving tells left and right regarding their machinations. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I did some quick math and calculate that about 2/3 of Orthodoxy is represented at Amman. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy_by_country
The consensus seems to be that this is merely the first of such meetings and signals only the beginning of calls for a greater council to settle all matters extant.
This is the beginning of the end for Bartholomew.
“This is the beginning of the end for Bartholomew… .”
We can only hope and pray Misha! But he (Bartholomew) is like a scorpion, which as you may know, can survive the deadly radiation from nuclear blasts. I’m sure that whatever happens, he’ll just crawl out from under his little rock and continue his reckless machinations.
I actually did ‘laugh out loud’, or rather snickered. Great imagery – Bart the irradiated, tenacious scorpion, wriggling out from under the radioactive ruins of St. George’s ready to inflict further suffering on any other survivors of the blast. I should think the sting of a radioactive scorpion would be doubly bad.
I actually did ‘laugh out loud’, or rather snickered. Great imagery – Bart the irradiated, tenacious scorpion, wriggling out from under the radioactive ruins of St. George’s ready to inflict further suffering on any other survivors of the blast. I should think the sting of a radioactive scorpion would be doubly bad.
From the final “communique” of the Synaxis:
“The delegations agreed that they should gather as brothers, preferably before the end of this year, to strengthen the bonds of fellowship through prayer and dialogue. The participants hope that His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew with his known seniority of honour (πρεσβεια τιμήs) will join this dialogue along with his brother Primates.
The delegations embraced the call of their brother Patriarch Theophilos III to hold a prayer for the world, for an end to war, sickness and suffering, and for all the Christians as well as for the unity of the Orthodox Church. This prayer is to be held in the Mother Church, the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre) in Jerusalem, before the Holy Tomb of Christ, from which He rose and proclaims peace to the world.” – https://spzh.news/…/69028-v-seti-opublikovali-itogovoje-kom…
One should note the terminology employed: “seniority of honour”, “brother Primates”, “Mother Church, the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre) in Jerusalem”. This is all in direct contradiction to the verbiage coming out of Constantinople regarding its Patriarch being “first without equals” and it being the “Mother Church” of all Orthodoxy to whom obedience is owed. They are politely telling Bartholomew that his exalted views of his primacy are a non-starter.
It would not surprise me if Bartholomew severs communion with them.
In addition, by stating things this way, Jerusalem is making it sound as if Bartholomew elected not to get together to pray for “for an end to war, sickness and suffering, and for all the Christians.” This is Bartholomew’s brand! Bartholomew would not want to be perceived as the Orthodox leader who is unwilling to meet to pray for these things. Pope Francis wouldn’t like it either! They are the team that wants to be known by the world as the compassionate, loving ones in 2025. I bet he is on the phone with Bartholomew as we speak.
Jerusalem, like Antioch, HAS to get beyond Qatar. They need to make whatever concessions are necessary to Antioch for the greater good of the Church. If they don’t, they won’t have the momentum they need to fix this. – I do applaud them for trying, though, and I am really disappointed in Antioch for not being there. In a family, you have disagreements but you put them aside when your family is under attack.
“It would not surprise me if Bartholomew severs communion with them,” writes Misha.
I might agree with you if I believed that Bartholomew believed he is fighting a true theological/ecclesiological battle. But I don’t believe that at all. He maintains the illusion of power precisely through maintaining ‘communion.’ After all, he hasn’t even severed communion with the MP.
If he severed communion with those in attendance in Jordan the illusion would be shattered, and he would be known only as “Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople and spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians of Turkey, Greece, Alexandria, Albania, part of the Ukraine, and the Greek communities in the diaspora.”
It just doesn’t roll off the tongue or sound nearly as prestigious. as, “Ecumenical Patriarch…of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide.”
He may be mad (in all senses of the word), but he’s not stupid.
Interesting point, Brian. He probably won’t sever communion with anybody. He hasn’t even done it with Russia, whom he fears and loathes. The rest of what Misha says is compelling, however.
Yes. It is in the sense that it shows they don’t buy the propaganda and refuse to play by his contrived ‘rules.’ Good for them, at least in that sense.
Without any doubt, the meeting in Jordan will backfire. It was a mistake to begin with, and mark my words, no good virtue will come out of it.
Patriarch Bartholomew refuses to convene a meeting on Ukraine without the inclusion of the OCU, because there really can’t be a dialogue on Ukraine without both Metropolitan Epiphany and Metropolitan Onufrey. Without the OCU, any “fraternal” meeting on Ukraine is conspiratorial rather than conciliar.
It appears what Moscow is now trying to achieve through this meeting’s “innocent dialogue” is to persuade other Local Churches to join in severing communion with the EP. However, I agree that Patriarch Bartholomew won’t sever communion over this meeting’s sin.
MP (“conspiratorial”): We agree to meet together with our brethren, including Patriarch Bartholomew, in order to resolve this dispute.
CP (“conciliar”): There can be no meeting unless I convene it and the very core of the dispute is first conceded.
It was a “good virtue” that the Hierarchs who assembled represented 80% of all Orthodox Christians! With more meetings to follow!
Next time(s) maybe we’ll get 85, 90, 95% representation?
It was both good and virtuous that the loud crowings of the Bartholomew-Elpidophoros axis for the past few months about “isolate-isolated-isolation” of Moscow were proved to be just wishful spite.
Look at our blessed Metroplitan Onuphry standing strong like a tall candle, a lighthouse, an icon of Christ and now marching with our fighting Orthodox brethren in Montenegro!
Joseph if you had said: “no good virtue will come out of it for my Elpidophoros and Bartholomew,” I would have agreed with you.
Joseph,___”the meeting in Jordan … no good virtue will come out of it”
–
What good virtue came out of Bartholomew’s new church in Ukraine?
Joseph,___”If the current trajectory continues,”
Can’t you see another stronger trajectory:
The Pope of Rome became Supreme and infallible, and Constantinople (anno 1050) did not agree with him:
Very similarly Bartholomew is de-facto like the Pope, his dear brother. His disciple Elp. has launched the last part: “First without equals”.
Joseph can you really NOT see the same trend, or trajectory:
Moscow now, like Constantinople in 1050, do not agree with the new de-facto Pope of the East!
Symphonia? Monarchy? Theocracy? Democracy? Bureaucracy?
Tyranny? Aristocracy? Plutocracy? Methyocracy ? [qv: Yeltsin] Etc…
All of these forms of government are as good or bad,
as capable or incapable, as the Persons that run them;
and the Persons that let themselves be run by them.