Toddler’s Creed

 

Comments

  1. Charlie Patseas says

    Their lordie prayer is really a witches brew: “Butter lemon on the horizon against dominance, alter the fasolia sou, general tomatoes, eastern horizons, obtuse geese, does the mean simmering, tuna tuna is monitors in pussing, coffee serve offering man, eastern offer toffee latte, alter geese, obtuse boners” Greek Altar Boy Crib Sheet: The most common incantation in the Greek Liturgy is “Gyro Lays On” which is to bless the slapping of meat on gyros a shadow set of altar boys are making in the basement. The next most common is “Docks apartheid, go carts for nobody” to bless the racial segreagation of Greek ships, which were the primary vehicle for bringing slaves to America. They also say “To rhapsody the duckies, shoot them, shoot them some more” and “Socks on we must go that not just egg nog sold by garlic Louie” The Holy Father gone to Turkey to redeem and consecrate the Greeks, so don’t need no more soviet temples. Don’t need no gyro blimpie Bart when got a regular Pope without the diner attitude. My pop kept hitting momma with a skillet on the head. Friends ended up in the hospital after their pop beat them. Pops got drunk and ruined my first car. Killed two cats and a dog, thrown out the window. Neighbor drowned the canaries in ouzo, lit, ate them. Ma overdid whip so she could give less pie. All our stuff came pilfered, with logos. Greeks overcook all meat so no one knows is bad. Another banned tenants flushing toilet paper. Waiters inpune sanitation because “dirty is natural and healthy.” Priests just answered “behave, respect, tradition!” Now priest comes “no intercommunion!” Where was he when we needed him to protect us from our crazy parents? Don’t sell me “educated Greeks” because we know all them Trojan Horse cheated on the exams. Besides it’s just TV repair school. Remember all those jailed old disco Greeks, tax cheats to “protest” Jerome Ford stopping the Trojan Horse in Chyprious? We can’t get good jobs because no one trusts Greeks, because of Trojan Horse. They always faked reading Greek. That’s why we borrowed regular Catholic books instead of read Greek. Sure, we sacrifice to Greek myths three times a year to please yiayia, and she’s nun the wiser when we go to regular Catholic Mass on Sundays when she bummed from bouzaki dances. Ain’t need no more Bart, just the regular Pope. That’s why we all married regular Catholic when we grew up. So they can trust us.

  2. George Michalopulos says

    I don’t know what’s sadder: the ahistorical assertions or the arrogance in which they are uttered.

    It doesn’t take an academic to pierce this bubble. All one needs is the New Testament, the writings of the ante- and post-Nicene, books like The Great Church in Captivity, Norwich’s trilogy on Byzantium, Papadakis’ The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, would be a good start.

  3. So why all the ecumenism and Syncretism such as when the Phanar bishops signed into the North American Dialogues recognizing Latin sacraments as equal to Orthodox mysteries with them being one and the same?

    This here is another heretical statement by the Phanar. So if anyone reading this dare to challenge me that the Phanar are not only acting schismatically but also Heretically in dogma. The statement above is Exhibit A.
    Exhibit B is the neobaptismal theology.
    Exhibit C is the neo- papalistic ecclesiology of first without equals.

  4. Hilber Nelson says

    Blah, blah, blah.

  5. https://youtu.be/vsQrKZcYtqg?si=enqgF7ncJTRX_LGe

    It’s Instanbul not Constanstinople

  6. Joseph Lipper says

    The significance of the Church of Constantinople has been challenged many, many times over millenia and centuries. It really shouldn’t be surprising anymore that even today, Constantinople’s significance is still challenged, and not just by Turks.

    The Church of Constantinople is the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils didn’t happen in a vacuum. They were constructed miraculously by both God and man, by the Church in the Roman Empire that was centered in Constantinople. Through God’s providence, the Church of Constantinople has given us the canonical order of the Orthodox Church. It is the reason why we refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians, not just as Christians.

    Yet Christians began challenging the significance of Constantinople almost from the very beginning. Many of the heresies that were anathematized by the Ecumenical Councils were actually political challenges, such as with the Non-Chalcedonian Monophysites in North Africa and the Middle East, who primarily resented the Roman Empire. Constantinople’s significance was also challenged by the Bulgarian empires, the Serbian empire, and of course the second and false “Rome” of Charlemagne’s so-called “Holy Roman Empire”. The significance of the Church of Constantinople was even challenged by Greece, with Greek independence in 1821. Russian Tsar Ivan III challenged Constantinople in 1460 by refusing to submit to an Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, and the resulting “Moscow as Third Rome” idea that he developed still continues to challenge Constantinople’s significance today.

    Perhaps what some people find extremely offensive about Patriarch Bartholomew’s sermon, is that Constantinople almost doesn’t even exist. The EP’s presence in modern day Turkey is beyond tiny: there’s the Phanar, plus about 100 churches, and maybe a few thousand Orthodox Christians. How can such a diminutive body represent “the Great Church of Constantinople” and the center of Christianity? Indeed, there is a huge temptation for Christians to completely dismiss Constantinople’s significance.

    Yet quite miraculously, and in great weakness, yes, the “Great Church of Constantinople” does exist, by God’s providence and against all odds. While it no longer represents a political empire of any sort, it is still the Church that gave birth to the Ecumenical Councils and the canonical order of the Orthodox Church. This is what Patriarch Bartholomew defends.

    • If what you say holds true, about how that a certain historical trend of presumptuous hierarchs pushing various political schemes via heterodox innovation, merely disguised as orthodox theology and ecclesiology through appeals to the temporal canonical power of their self same office, has historically indicated apostasy and an attack on whatever Holy Orthodoxy remains in Constantinople, then it appears that triumphalism is not the order of the day but rather we ought humble ourselves and set to mourn and pray with fasting and great heartfelt concern and lamentation for the residue of Holy Orthodoxy yet found in the Church of Constantinople now more than ever before, with her hierarchy and clergy leading the way in doing penance and asking everywhere that prayers be offered on her behalf.

    • Joseph, while you make excellent points, I must take issue with your assertion that Cpole “was the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils”. (As if it were the only one.)

      First of all, Cpole was not a patriarchate before the 7 Councils. It was actually given patriarchal status by the universal Councils. (The Second one if memory serves.)

      Second, all local Churches were “Churches of the 7 ECs.”

      • Exactly George. In the council of Nicea, Constantinople was not even the capital and played no role in Nicea, it became the capital in 330 AD .
        It was elevated to the second place but without jurisdiction at the second council, where Meletios of Antioch was originally president but died during the proceedings. It was then that St. Gregory Nazianzen presided who resigned as others at the council told the emperor they only recognize him as a bishop of the outpostt t he was originally elected to, so his successor was immediately ordained as bishop of Constantinople and presided.
        At the third council in Ephesus, Constantinople played no role as the whole point of the council was to despose Nestorios. Cyril of Alexandria along with papal legates of Celestine presided over the council. In the other councils both Constantinople and Rome co-presided. By the 5th council Justinian codified the Pentarchy and officially gave these 5 sees the title of Patriarchates. This was enshrined in Roman law in Novella 131 that the 4 Ecumenical councils are sacred that Rome holds first in rank, Constantinople second and the rest follow the ranks as those councils determined.

        • These are mere details.
          In The Grand Scheme of Things
          Joseph don’t do detail.

        • Joseph Lipper says

          Kosta, it’s an important detail that the City of Constantinople, or “New Rome” as St. Constantine called it, was founded in 324. It took a few years for the city’s infrastructure to be built up before it could become the new capital in 330. I don’t believe there even was a bishop of the New Rome in 325 at the time of the First Council.

          The First Ecumenical Council was called by St. Constantine himself. It was called at Nicea, about 56 miles away from Constantinople, in view of St. Constantine’s already planned move of his capital to “New Rome”. In this way, the Council of Nicea was purposely meant to signify and establish the City of Constantinople as the new capital of the Roman Empire.

          • Joseph Lipper says

            It turns out there was a bishop of “New Rome” present at Nicea:

            “Our father among the saints Alexander of Constantinople was the first bishop of Constantinople having been the bishop of the city of Byzantium when the name of the city was changed to Constantinople. Alexander participated in the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea and fought against the Arian heresy. His feast day is August 30.”
            https://orthodoxwiki.org/Alexander_of_Constantinople

      • Joseph Lipper says

        George, the Church of Constantinople was created by St. Constantine. He was the one who created the city as the empire’s capitol, and he was the one who called the first Ecumenical Council.

        All the accepted and subsequent Ecumenical Councils were called by Roman Emperors of Constantinople also. Interestingly enough, no Pope of Rome ever attended any of the Ecumenical Councils, sending Papal legates instead.

        Yes, the primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople was developed through the Ecumenical Councils and affirmed by the whole church. So, even though there is no longer a ruling emperor or empire of Constantinople, the primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople as Ecumenical Patriarch remains. This has been the traditionally accepted hierarchy of the Orthodox Church, although it certainly has been challenged in the past and continues to be challenged.

        Perhaps the best example of the EP being challenged is the disastrous creation of the “Holy Roman Empire” by Charlemagne. We all know how that turned out. God forbid that something similar happens again. Yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if it does.

    • The witness of the Church of Constantinople would be so much stronger if it were led by someone humbler and more spiritually inclined. The late Patriarch Dimitrios probably came closer to serving as an illustration of that than any other Patriarch in the last Century, at least.

      Instead, driven by ego and striving for “prestige,” not to mention cultivating ties to worldly entities, such as the State Department, and being cultivated by such entities, are what many people object to. Some people, and I think Dimitrios was one of them, elevated the institution of the Patriarchy. Others have soiled it and thus diminished it as a source of inspiration.

    • Whatever “challenge to the significance of Constantinople” there may be is primarily in its own mind and the result of it’s own sense of insecurity that is manifesting itself through its increasingly outlandish claims. No one, not even the MP, challenges its true canonical status, only its outlandish claims. And the degree to which its practical influence has steadily decreased is a function of its steadfast refusal to fulfill its canonical role as first among equals, prefering the exercise of raw power over the Christian concept of authority that comes only through humility and service to all.

      • That’s what I was trying to say, but you said it much better. And the last part of what you wrote, “prefering the exercise of raw power over the Christian concept of authority that comes only through humility and service to all,” is a brilliant way of explaining the difference between, say, Bartholomew and Dimitrios.

    • clarification needed says

      The Orthodox Church is the church of the ecumenical councils…. This includes all of the canonical autocephalous and autonomous churches.

      The Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the leadership of the saintly Met. Onuphriy, the Albanian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, etc….. are as much churches of the ecumenical councils as the Patriarchate of C’ple is.

      We have no authoritarian hierarchy of who’s more important than the rest!

  7. The problem with the modern claims of the EP is that….it’s 2024

    Old Rome benefited from forgeries to prop up it’s claims. Since the internet didn’t exist back then only very few people could have disputed it.

    I guess the EP isn’t aware of the internet and that it’s not the year 800 anymore. No one is buying their claims no matter how much they shriek like middle school girls in a fight because those claims are very easily proven as false.

    Much like our politicians, they are so desperately out of touch it would be hilarious if it wasn’t causing so much damage. Such is the case when you live in your own echo chamber…

  8. On the morning of the second day of the Battle of Bannockburn,
    as the entire Scottish Army fell on their knees during the Mass,
    King Edward II of England excitedly said to those around him:
    “Look, these men are kneeling to beg for mercy!”
    To which Sir Ingram de Umfraville (back with the English) said:
    “Yes, my Lord; but not from you.”

  9. Nobody challenges The Patriarchate of Constantinople’s significance. What is being challenged is its claims to primacy. The only reason that Constantinople was elevated to second behind Rome was because it was a capital city of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire to my knowledge no longer exists. Nor does the Byzantine empire.The Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Antochian Patriarchate have stronger claims to being the Mother of all the Churches. Antioch is where we were first called Christians and Jerusalem is where it all started. The Moscow Patriarchate was the third Rome due to the fall of Constantinople because it was still a Christian empire. When Russia fell to the communists it no longer can be considered the third Rome. I’ve said it many times but Constantinople as a city no longer exists just as the city of New Amsterdam in America no longer exists, it’s New York now. The Church does not exist because of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Cause is Christ! In my humble opinion, you cannot follow Christ if you live in the past. What you follow is mostly in front of you, so to follow Christ you must move forward not backward.

    • It strikes me that Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council actually subverted any claim to primacy by any of the churches of the Pentarchy. By according Constantinople the same privileges as Rome, it explicitly denied the increasing Roman claims to primacy. By according two churches imperial privileges, it implicitly denies that any one church can exercise imperial authority over the others. Just as there is no hierarchy in the Trinity, there is no hierarchy among the churches.

      • It is precisely because there was a hierarchy among cities,
        for purely secular reasons, that imperial cities ranked first
        and Constantinople was raised to equal first with Rome.
        However, this had no effect on the religious standing
        of the bishops as equal successors to the Apostles.

        • Brendan precisely. This nonsense also promoted in Orthodox circles about Rome (or the canon of Nicea gave privelege because apostles preached there or died there) is nonsense.
          The entire pentarchy is based on the prestige of the cities. Jerusalem ranked last because it was a nothingburger to Rome playing second fiddle to Ceasaria. As Christianity spread it became a destination pilgrimage site and was built up with churches and migration and monasteries ,for the emerging Christian majority and entered the 5th rank demoting Caesaria. Likewise canon 28 gave jurisdiction to Constantinople (demoting Ephesus) and taking the jurisdiction of Asia Minor.
          The canon makes clear that Constantinople is New Rome and Italian Rome is henceforth is elder Rome meaning new Rome is second in due to being the junior to the Senior. but equal in all privileges. This also is made clear in Novella 131 where it claims Rome is first of the pontiffs (in the plural, for Greek -patriarchs) and Constantinople second and both have precedence over the other three (in accordance with the decrees of the 4 Ecumenical councils). Now privileges were also granted to others Alexandria sword of the Universe calculated Pascha, Cyprus signed in a special ink and wore a robe only allowed to the emperor, jurisdiction was taken away from Rome and created Justinians Prima (later bishop of Ohrid) and was given special privileges being the native home of Justinian, Jerusalem was bestowed with the title of “Mother of all the Churches”, etc.

  10. The Toddler’s Creed … continued
    (Read the following out loud in baby talk)

    My world’s a special world
    In my world I’m a brave knight
    Riding on my winged steed and wielding Excalibur
    Under a neon purple sky
    As I roam the countryside rescuing fair maidens from peril

  11. https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2020/12/st-andrew-the-apostle-founder-of-the-church-of-constantinople

    I’ve never heard that Constantine started the Church of Constantinople anywhere. It’s always seemed to be common knowledge that the Church of Constantinople was founded by St Andrew. It would stand to reason that since there was a Church already there in Byzantium before St Constantine decided to rename it Nova Roma and make it his capitol. I believe it was renamed Constantinople later. It would also stand to reason that there was a Bishop of the Church of Byzantium before the city was renamed. Yes the Internet is a marvelous thing.

    • The See of Constantinople actually lessens itself with just affirming the St. Andrew tradition. Instead it should take up the mantle as the inheritor of the whole of the Asia Minor churches. Ephesus was the supreme See in Asia Minor and then it passed to Smyrna and finally to Constantinople where canon 28 gave it jurisdiction over Asia Minor.
      It’s not that Andrew finding a church in Byzantium is farfetched, the evidence better supports it than going to the Scythians. Why? Because the gospel of John was written for the Asia Minor community when John resided in Ephesus. And what is unique about this gospel is that Andrew, Phillip and John himself play a superior role to Peter in that gospel. Andrew is named first and Peter second a rare occurrence in the ranking of the disciples (Jn 1:44). Andrew and Phillip played a pivotal role in the feeding of the 5000 (John 6:5-9). It was Andrew and Phillip that interceeded on behalf of the Greeks who wanted to meet with Christ (Jn 12:20-22). We also see how John had a preeminent role over Peter in the Gospel of John (examples Jn 20:2-4, Jn 21:22).
      The reason for this is these apostles were heroes to the Asia Minor community. It’s obvious they resided there for some time and the Christians had fond memories of these luminaries. It’s even verified by Polycrates of Smyrna in 190 AD who said how Phillip and his three daughters who were prophetess are all buried in the cities of Asia Minor, how the Apostle John wore a breastplate in Ephesus to signify he was considered a high priest even though never officially the bishop of Ephesus etc.

      • I hope you write books for a living. This is fascinating.

        • Most of the information is already there, we just don’t want to put it together. Philip actually had four daughters. The most famous is St. Hermione the prophetess and Martyr of Ephesus. The hagiography is pretty much accurate. The apostle Phillip and his daughters were obviously well known in Asia Minor and most scholars realize the way Andrew and Phillip are grouped together in the gospel of John they were the “hometown” stars of the intended audience of that gospel. The quote of Polycrates is fascinating in that it names Melito of Sardis as also having the gift of prophesy of whom we have a treatise on Pascha and fragments of other writings from him. It also mentions how John wore the breastplate (some English translations say wore a mitre) most likely signifying some kind of suffragan bishop/elder role for all of the Asia Minor churches.

          Likewise with Rome’s propaganda of Peter first Pope of Rome (25 year episcopacy) we just take their word for it. Yet we know when the epistle of the Romans was first written no apostle had yet to visit the church in Rome (Rome 1:10-15) likewise the book of Acts implies the same that Paul was the first to lay the apostolic foundations of the church in Rome. We actually do know where Peter resided for awhile before he went to Rome in the early 60’s. He was in Corinth and that’s why there was a faction devoted to him in Corinth (1 Cor 1:12, 3:22). Paul reminds the Corinthians while Cephas was the first to see the risen Christ, many witnessed it and that he too saw him being the last (1 Cor 15:5). We also see how Peter was in Corinth with his entire family (1Cor 9:2-5). And finally there is St. Dionysios of Corinth in 170 AD in his epistle to the Roman church verifying the matter:
          …”Therefore you also have by such admonition joined in close union the churches that were planted by Peter and Paul, that of the Romans and that of the Corinthians: for both of them went to our Corinth, and taught us in the same way as they taught you when they went to Italy; and having taught you, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.”..

          • George Michalopulos says

            Kosta, thanks for this wealth of information. I think the time has come for us here at Monomakhos to properly, judiciously and charitably discuss the entire papal narrative.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Kosta, thanks for fleshing out this info about Philip and Andrew. I believe that both were first disciples of St John the Baptist and it was he who pointed out Jesus to them.

        Anyway, you’re spot on about the Church in Asia Minor. Lest we forget, it was only those seven churches which were singled out for mention in the Apocalypse. At the very least, this fact should cause us to revisit our presuppositions about the ancient Church, specifically how Asia Minor was its backbone.

        As to why Jerusalem –the true Mother Church–is not singled out, I believe this was because Jerusalem was almost completely destroyed in AD 70 and the Apocalypse was written sometime around AD 85-90.

    • Joseph Lipper says

      Dcn John,

      The concept of the Ecumenical Council stems directly from the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital of Rome in 324. The Ecumenical Council was the “Church of the Churches” of the ecumene, and all of the seven accepted Ecumenical Councils were called by a Roman Emperor of “Nova Roma”. The primacy of Constantinople within that “Church of the Churches”, and that developed eventually as Ecumenical Patriarch, did not come from the apostolic foundations of St. Andrew in Asia Minor, but rather it came from the very foundation laid by the Roman Emperor St. Constantine.

      Even though the bishop of Constantinople had no primacy at the First Ecumenical Council in 325, the foundations were still being laid even then. For example, the idea of territorial primacy, or a hierarchy of hierarchs, is shown in Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council:

      “Let the ancient customs prevail; that is to say those in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, which give the Bishop in Alexandria power over all these areas, since the same is also customary for the Bishop in Rome. In the same way in Antioch, and in the other provinces, the prerogatives are to be preserved for the Churches.”
      https://www.goarch.org/-/the-primacy-of-the-see-of-constantinople-in-theory-and-practice-#:~:text=A%20primacy%20of%20honor%20(presveia,by%20the%20Bishop%20of%20Alexandria.

      This canon shows us that the Church was normally organized according to the secular importance of cities, or according to “ancient custom”. We can easily observe today how autocephalous Orthodox Churches normally have the bishop’s throne in the capital city, such as with the Patriarch of Moscow or the Archbishop of Athens. In the cases where the original city is no longer capital, the bishop often still resides in a territorial capital, such as the with Patriarch of Alexandria living in Cairo, or the Patriarch of Antioch in Damascus or Beirut.

      We might ask, should the primacy of the Patriarch of Antioch be abolished because Antioch no longer exists as a regional capital city, or because it is now called Antakya in modern day Turkey?

      No, of course not. The importance and primacy of the Patriarch of Antioch within that territory still remains, as accepted by tradition, and even though it may now be headquartered in Damascus or Beirut. Similarily, the importance and primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople as Ecumenical Patriarch still remains as accepted by tradition, and even though there is no ruling emperor.

      • https://www.goarch.org/-/ecumenical-patriarchate-history-and-role-today

        The Ecumenical Patriarchate is also known as the Patriarchate of Constantinople or the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople. Its creation goes back to the year 38, the year in which the Church was founded in the ancient city of Byzantium by Saint Andrew, the “First-called among the Apostles”.

        I guess GOARCH got it wrong.
        Maybe you can contact them and explain it to them. Thanks for setting us all straight that it was Constantine that the started Church of Constantinople.

        • Touche! I have to admit that I’m with Joseph here. There is no convincing evidence that the Church in Byzantium was founded in AD 38 or that St Andrew was anywhere near that area. Byzantium was a backwater at best, a trading post.

          • I agree, although it’s not farfetched that no apostle passed through Byzantium. Just looking at the maps it’s likely apostles crossed the Bosporous straits to get to all those places mentioned in the bible.
            Part of the problem are Orthodox bishops themselves that refused to nip in the bud the pseudo teaching of Rome invented by Pope Damasus in 382 AD known as the Petrine theory as soon as it arise, and still don’t. Originally till 632 AD Rome taught the Seed of Rome, Alexandrian and Antioch were all found by Peter hence the canon of Nicea. This was invented by Pope Damasus and is known as the Pope Damasus decree. From Pope Leo to Pope Gregory this was the standard argument as to why Constantinople and to a lesser extent Jerusalem should not be elevated to patriarchates as Nicea was set in concrete. ( I can give you the quotes and epistles where this Petrine theory is mentioned by these popes). Hence Constantinople made up it’s own theory; just as the first of the apostles found Rome, the first called Apostle found Constantinople.
            Yet we know fully without any reasonable shadow of a doubt these cities are ranked soley basis upon the prestige and importance of the city to the empire.. it’s made clear by canon 28 of Chalcedon! But even Irenaeus teaches the importance of metropolitan bishoprics (when you use correct translation) Irenaeus says Rome is the preeminent Church because all “convene” in Rome. He then gives the example of Polycarp having come to Rome for secular reasons preached in Rome and laid down the tradition of the Asia Minor churches in Rome turning many heretics back to orthodoxy. Since all roads lead to Rome or should we say transportation to and infrastructure are found in the largest cities that’s where patriarchates are located. This is codified in canon 9 of the council of Antioch of 341 ad:
            Canon 9
            It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank,….

            Even patriarchates such as Antioch moved to Damascus has failed to explain the “Spirit” of the canon. That the patriarchates have to do not with apostolic lineage whatsoever (or else Jerusalem would be first from the beginning and Antioch second and Ephesus third).

            • Speaking of Rome, its petrine foundation is as fanciful as Cpole’s foundation-myth.

              While it is true that St Peter died in Rome, that city already had a Christian community; that’s why both Peter and Paul went their, to preach to the Romans. In fact, that community was so well established that St Paul felt compelled to address an epistle to them, i.e. Romans.

              Since we’re on this trajectory, had that see been founded by Peter who was its actual first bishop, then Paul wouldn’t have felt the need to address an epistle to them.

          • I agree although it’s farfetched that no apostle passed through. Just looking at the maps it’s likely they crossed the Bosporous straits to get to all those places mentioned in the bible.
            Part of the problem are Orthodox bishops themselves that refused to nip in the bud the pseudo teaching of Rome invented by Pope Damasus in 382 AD known as the Petrine theory. Originally till 632 AD Rome taught the Seed of Rome, Alexandrian and Antioch were all found by Peter hence the canon of Nicea. This was invented by Pope Damasus and is known as the Pope Damasus decree. From Pope Leo to Pope Gregory this was the standard argument as to why Constantinople and to a lesser extent Jerusalem should not be elevated to patriarchates. ( I can give you the quotes and epistles where this Petrine theory is mentioned by these popes). Hence Constantinople made up it’s own, as the first of the apostles found Rome, the first called Apostle found Constantinople.
            Yet we know fully without any reasonable shadow of a doubt these cities are solely ranked by the prestige and importance of the city to the empire.. it’s made clear by canon 28 of Chalcedon! But even Irenaeus says this (when you use correct translation) Irenaeus says Rome is the preeminent Church because all “convene” in Rome. He then gives the example of Polycarp having come to Rome for secular reasons preached in Rome and laid down the tradition of the Asia Minor churches in Rome turning many heretics back to orthodoxy. This is codified in canon 9 of the council of Antioch of 341 ad:
            Canon 9
            It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank,….

        • From the same article:

          “The Patriarch of Constantinople is considered as
          the highest authority of the Orthodox Church.”

          If that were so, Nestorios would not have been condemned.

    • Antiochene Son says

      Lol, right after the special on Ancient Faith thoroughly took apart any chance of deaconesses ever happening. Elpi must be so mad at Met. Saba.

      • I was wondering how Met.Saba would handle this.

        • Same here. Good to know he’s on the side of Orthodoxy. Now if he would just shut down the Eagle River Institute which is just Fordham 2.0

      • Elpi is at odds with almost the entirety of Orthodoxy. Luckily he has no sway over the entire Archdiocese, only his geographical diocese.

      • Antiochene Son says

        What disturbs me about the whole deaconess thing, as well as the Finland cremation thing, is that everyone has become a crypto-Protestant.

        Protestants believe either everything is prohibited unless there is scriptural permission, or everything is permitted unless there is a scriptural prohibition. But regardless of which strain of Protestantism you follow, neither has a place for tradition.

        Meanwhile, the permitting of cremation and the blessing of deaconesses completely ignores the fact that WE SIMPLY DON’T DO THOSE THINGS. There doesn’t have to be a biblical or philisophical justification. The tradition speaks for itself! Tradition is self-justifying!

        As Presvytera Jeannie Constantinou said in the AF special on deaconesses: not everything has been deeply studied, but it doesn’t matter if it’s pushing an innovation.

        If this generation ceases to uphold the Orthodox traditions it received, it ceases to be Orthodox. Period!

    • Just a dad says

      I have no association at all with the GOA and am as harshly critical of Elpi and Black Bart as anyone. Having said that, I have to be honest and say that there is not a word in this short article that I take issue with. My wife and daughter are as involved as they can be in our church (singing, cooking, baking prosfora, etc) – but I see and hear the frustration that they experience in the “second-class” treatment of women. (For example; I recently suggested a book as part of the library for catechumens and was told “the young men won’t read that, it is written by a woman”).

      Many women (young and old) don’t want to be altar servers or deaconesses, but “expanding the presence and visibility of the women in the church” doesn’t have to be viewed as a slippery slope to women in the altar. (Not that I understand why they are forbidden to even go in the altar on Saturday’s to help clean, etc.)

      “….a discussion on expanding the role of young girls and women in the Church…..underscored the significance of engaging girls and women in the Church’s life. ..to continue to involve girls and women in liturgical processions and work to expand the presence and visibility of women in the church.”

  12. https://orthodoxtimes.com/chora-monastery-prepares-for-first-islamic-prayer-following-completion-of-its-conversion-into-mosque/

    First Hagia Sophia, now Chora..Halki still closed. Really seems like Bart cuddling up to politicians has done nothing

Speak Your Mind

*