• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Antiochians are at it again.

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
podkarpatska said:
Both the approaches of the west AND the east seem to me however to have failed the Church
This. Even a cursory glance over western church history shows the papacy has never been this unchallenged source of authority and unity. The Western Schism, Council of Constance, Council of Florence vs Council of Basel, Old Catholic schism, SSPX, etc.

Both have failed, and using the other's failures in polemics is generally just dishonest no matter how tempting. It started to immediately happen in the comments of that article, even.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
podkarpatska said:
Basil 320 said:
You're right, "almost," the situation in Reply No. 75 is the fruits of Orthodox Church governance, i.e. "Church Order," of today; "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

Try explaining this stuff to, non-Orthodox, educated people.
Good blog post yesterday from First Things on this subject and the Asian silly business.

'The Chambésy process is the worst form of Orthodox church government for the 21st century, except for all the others. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has the power to bring bishops together, but he cannot force them to accept an unwelcome edict. When disputes arise, they must be resolved honestly by brother bishops and their flocks, even if the solutions are slow to come.'
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/11/eastern-orthodox-unity

By the way, the only process intellectualized in the first millenium to accelerate the process of solving these issues, was that of the Romans which of course led to the Great Schism, and as I said in #75 the behavior of our Church leaders today is almost enough to lend credence to Rome's approach. Both the approaches of the west AND the east seem to me however to have failed the Church and hampered the Great Commission thereby allowing the spread of additional heresies through Protestantism and apostasies as spread by Islam and Secularism.
Right my friend!  In the 50's and 60's, Fr. Schmemann had written about the de facto importance of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  Of course, this was before +Athenagoras told him to go to his "mother Church."  Well, the OCA did as they were instructed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  And the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes them as a legitimate jurisdiction (although not the autocephaly, which canonically would put every other jurisdiction in uncanonical status). 

But you are right on the "almost."  The Orthodox Church does not have "homosexual-friendly liturgies."  The Vatican does.  Our Patriarchates with the current system have more power to combat moral decline than the Vatican does.  Our Ecumenical Patriarch denounces homosexual marriage and the entire Church rejoices.  The last 5 popes have done the same, and one was murdered, another attempted, and still we have the Detroit RCC having "private homosexual masses." 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Michał Kalina said:
Aristobolus said:
The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was given two months simply to reply; if no response is given then communion ceases and participation in the general episcopal assemblies is suspended.  To simply ask for some kind of response in two months is hardly an overreaction.  Notice all they are asking for is real dialogue; the message is that if the Patriarch of Constantinople wants to facilitate curing abiding canonical anomalies then he and his supporters must prevent a fresh anomaly from taking root.
"Johny stole my toy so I hit Jimmy back".

Yeah, perfectly logical.
"as you have been judging, so you will be judged, and with your measure will it be measured to you"
Matthew 7:2

Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
ialmisry said:
Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,286
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
69
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
Michał Kalina said:
ialmisry said:
Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
The Patriarchate of Antioch gave the Patriarchate of Jerusalem 30 days for its Head, Patriarch Theophilos, to come to its see and rightly, address the matter of its having established an archdiocese on the territory of the Antiochian Patriarchate.

In the event of Jerusalem's failure to reconcile the matter of its presence upon Antiochian territory, it would direct its eparchies in the diaspora to suspend, or cease, their participation in the various Episcopal Assemblies.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
69
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
Samn! said:
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
Which it is not.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
Michał Kalina said:
ialmisry said:
Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
I agree with Michal.  This is harming the whole rest of the Church on the basis of one small parish in Qatar.  Both sides should recognize that legitimately "Arabia beyond Jordan" does refer to the Arabian peninsula, but that Antioch has had care for such parishes "of the Orient" previously.  But really, the action is to suspend the EA participation because of the small parish in Qatar?  Nonsense.  Complete nonsense.  I have no problem with Antioch taking action, but this harms the whole Church. 
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
69
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
It's aggressive, but I think that's why they're taking such action, attempting to get the attention of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the other Holy Orthodox Churches to take them seriously, and the cause of the Church of Antioch is absolutely well founded. I haven't read anything that can justify the Church of Jerusalem's actions, having the audacity to establish an archdiocese for a single small community in Qatar, the same church that was so disturbed by the Romanian Patriarchate's church on their territory, not that long ago.

When the former American Ambassador to Qatar approached the Church of Jerusalem about sending a priest to serve the fledgling community, they should have told him to go to Antioch.  Ambassador Theros is now in charge of some American-Qatari business association.  I'm sure there is money involved in this mess, establishing an archdiocese for a small parish community, on the territory of a sister Church.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
351
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Father H said:
Both sides should recognize that legitimately "Arabia beyond Jordan" does refer to the Arabian peninsula, but that Antioch has had care for such parishes "of the Orient" previously. 
Father,

Are you arguing that "Arabia beyond the Jordan" has always referred to the entire Arabian peninsula and that Antioch has merely been "babysitting" all this time, or that the lines should be re-drawn to reflect current or proposed ideal conditions? 

AFAIK the Arabian peninsula has always been considered part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, both for the Greeks (EO) and for the Syrians (OO), especially if the jurisdictional bounds of the ancient Church of the East are taken out of consideration.  Even if part of the peninsula falls under "Beyond the Jordan", certainly Qatar is too far beyond to be included under Jerusalem.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
Both sides should recognize that legitimately "Arabia beyond Jordan" does refer to the Arabian peninsula, but that Antioch has had care for such parishes "of the Orient" previously. 
Father,

Are you arguing that "Arabia beyond the Jordan" has always referred to the entire Arabian peninsula and that Antioch has merely been "babysitting" all this time, or that the lines should be re-drawn to reflect current or proposed ideal conditions? 

AFAIK the Arabian peninsula has always been considered part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, both for the Greeks (EO) and for the Syrians (OO), especially if the jurisdictional bounds of the ancient Church of the East are taken out of consideration.  Even if part of the peninsula falls under "Beyond the Jordan", certainly Qatar is too far beyond to be included under Jerusalem.
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?  I am ok with Antioch laying claim based on (to use an analogy) a lawnmower clause.  However, I am not for them removing the bishops and clergy throughout the world from the EA for this. 
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Michał Kalina said:
ialmisry said:
Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
The tomb worshippers join themselves at the hip to the rest of the Phanariot church, all branches of which are entangled with their head's EA scheme.

Antioch hasn't forgotten the lesson Jerusalem was taught by Russia in Moldavia.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Samn! said:
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
Exactly.

Memory Eternal to Porfiri Uspenski!
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Basil 320 said:
Samn! said:
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
Which it is not.
It's the local office of the Phanariots.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Father H said:
Michał Kalina said:
ialmisry said:
Antioch is merely holding Jerusalem to the standard the latter set with Romania earlier.
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
I agree with Michal.  This is harming the whole rest of the Church on the basis of one small parish in Qatar.  Both sides should recognize that legitimately "Arabia beyond Jordan" does refer to the Arabian peninsula, but that Antioch has had care for such parishes "of the Orient" previously.  But really, the action is to suspend the EA participation because of the small parish in Qatar?  Nonsense.  Complete nonsense.  I have no problem with Antioch taking action, but this harms the whole Church. 
So does the Phanariots' cult of tomb worshippers, the impressment of Orthodoxy into the service of Hellenism, and the Ultramarism of the Greek church, Father.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
351
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?   
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
351
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
ialmisry said:
Antioch hasn't forgotten the lesson Jerusalem was taught by Russia in Moldavia.
What lesson?  I'm unaware of this history, but it sounds hellish.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?   
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
That is what I am saying.  No one disputes Russia's claims in the north in the Russian lands.  No one claims that Antioch evangelized China.  But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?  East (and then south) to India, yes.  South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction. 
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
ialmisry said:
Basil 320 said:
Samn! said:
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
Which it is not.
It's the local office of the Phanariots.
That is ridiculous and you need to prove such a claim.  Also the "tomb worshippers" are your brethren in Christ. 
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
351
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
Father H said:
But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?   East (and then south) to India, yes.
Not quite, but let's leave that one alone. 

South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction.   
So your contention is that the Eastern Orthodox have always included the Arabian peninsula within the jurisdiction of Jerusalem and not Antioch, longtime pastoral care notwithstanding?  And if so, what source can I consult that will verify this and educate me further? 
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,286
Reaction score
532
Points
113
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
In terms of "long-term pastoral care", the last time before very recently that there were Orthodox churches in the Persian Gulf region, which was before the Mongols, they were under the Orthodox Catholicos of Baghdad, who was under the Patriarch of Antioch. Jerusalem has pretty much no history of activity outside modern Palestine and Jordan prior to this Qatari adventure. Part of the controversy here is that Jerusalem's "Archbishop of Qatar" claims Kuwait, where there is an Antiochian parish and where the Antiochian metropolitan of Baghdad often resides.

"Arabia" in the Patriarch of Jerusalem's title refers to the Roman Province of Arabia, just like "the East" in Antioch's title refers to the Province of Oriens.

Here, for example, though, is an account of the extent of the Patriarchate of Antioch by the 18th century historian Mikhail Breik: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.fr/2009/06/patriarchate-of-antioch-according-to.html

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Father H said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?   
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
That is what I am saying.  No one disputes Russia's claims in the north in the Russian lands.  No one claims that Antioch evangelized China.  But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?   East (and then south) to India, yes.  South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction.   
Uh, no Father: the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was carved out of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and it didn't include any area outside of the Palestines:

Juvenal the most sacred bishop of the city of Jerusalem said: ‘I too have decided that the holy [church of the] Resurrection of Christ should have the three Palestines, and the see of Antioch the two Phoenices and Arabia.  And I ask that this be confirmed by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon-Session VII.
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf

That was the judgement "which will last for all time" on the matter.  When the Patriarchate of Jerusalem got its organic statute in 1875, Qatar wasn't included in it.

The said Damianos Effendi is Patriarch in accordance with the ancient custom over the Roman sect dwelling in Jerusalem, and in the Holy Sepulchre and in the regions subject thereto and over their religious affairs.
. The Metropolitans, Bishops, Monks, and Nuns who are in the District subject to his Patriarchate, Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, Gaza, Ramleh, Jebel Ajlun, Acre, Safed, and the Districts subject thereto, and the Monks who dwell in the Monasteries of the Georgians, the Abyssinians, the Syrians, and the Copts and all the remainder of the 'Roman' Sects, great and small, shall acknowledge the said Damianos as their Patriarch. In the same way as those who were Patriarchs before him held he shall also hold and administer.
http://books.google.com/books?ei=_5p8UoftC62yygGmioHQCA&output=text&id=BDkAAAAAMAAJ&dq=REport+Orthodox+Patriarchate+Jerusalem&jtp=239
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Father H said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?   
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
That is what I am saying.  No one disputes Russia's claims in the north in the Russian lands.  No one claims that Antioch evangelized China.  But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?   East (and then south) to India, yes.  South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction.   
And yes, Father, the Phanar has disputed Russsia's claims in the north, e.g. Alaska.  Not to mention Estonia and Finland.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Father H said:
ialmisry said:
Basil 320 said:
Samn! said:
Michał Kalina said:
Antioch did nothing to Jerusalem. They reacted against EAs that Jerusalem has no connection at all.
Here you're assuming that Jerusalem somehow isn't just an appendage of Constantinople.
Which it is not.
It's the local office of the Phanariots.
That is ridiculous and you need to prove such a claim.  Also the "tomb worshippers" are your brethren in Christ. 
Not if they reject His brothers to idolize His empty Tomb.

Anyone who has been there has seen the proof, Father.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
ialmisry said:
Antioch hasn't forgotten the lesson Jerusalem was taught by Russia in Moldavia.
What lesson?  I'm unaware of this history, but it sounds hellish.
Only for the tomb worshippers. For the neglected Arab Orthodox Faithful, it came as justice.
 

Mor Ephrem

Hypatos
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
36,453
Reaction score
351
Points
83
Age
41
Location
New York!
Website
www.orthodoxchristianity.net
Faith
Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction
Texas Feminist Coptic
ialmisry said:
Only for the tomb worshippers. For the neglected Arab Orthodox Faithful, it came as justice.
Maybe so, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.  :)
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
I pray that Father's comment #  82 is correct regarding overreaction. Reading the frenzied, tired and repetitive polemic of some posters regarding these topics is almost enough to make even the stalwart either throw their hands in the air or look elsewhere.

We can " tut tut" and harumph  all we want and put our heads in the sand while we pride ourselves in our general liturgical order, but turning a blind eye to centuries of ancient territorial disputes going back to the Dark Ages while allowing them to fester and layering them with human jealousy and "protocol" disputations hardly seems the path to the third millennium. God's Church deserves better behavior.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Nea Roma
ialmisry said:
Father H said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?    
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
That is what I am saying.  No one disputes Russia's claims in the north in the Russian lands.  No one claims that Antioch evangelized China.  But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?   East (and then south) to India, yes.  South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction.  
Uh, no Father: the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was carved out of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and it didn't include any area outside of the Palestines:

Juvenal the most sacred bishop of the city of Jerusalem said: ‘I too have decided that the holy [church of the] Resurrection of Christ should have the three Palestines, and the see of Antioch the two Phoenices and Arabia.  And I ask that this be confirmed by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon-Session VII.
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf

That was the judgement "which will last for all time" on the matter.  When the Patriarchate of Jerusalem got its organic statute in 1875, Qatar wasn't included in it.

The said Damianos Effendi is Patriarch in accordance with the ancient custom over the Roman sect dwelling in Jerusalem, and in the Holy Sepulchre and in the regions subject thereto and over their religious affairs.
. The Metropolitans, Bishops, Monks, and Nuns who are in the District subject to his Patriarchate, Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, Gaza, Ramleh, Jebel Ajlun, Acre, Safed, and the Districts subject thereto, and the Monks who dwell in the Monasteries of the Georgians, the Abyssinians, the Syrians, and the Copts and all the remainder of the 'Roman' Sects, great and small, shall acknowledge the said Damianos as their Patriarch. In the same way as those who were Patriarchs before him held he shall also hold and administer.
http://books.google.com/books?ei=_5p8UoftC62yygGmioHQCA&output=text&id=BDkAAAAAMAAJ&dq=REport+Orthodox+Patriarchate+Jerusalem&jtp=239
No, no, no.

I am very well aware of the decision at Chalcedon and that Antioch references that decision in their decision on removing from the EA due to Jerusalem in Qatar.

However, at the time of the 4th and 5th Ecumenical Councils, the limits of Antioch’s territory went south to the Ma’an-Aqabah regional border (southeast of Petra but northeast of Al Aqabah on the east edge of the mount range), and cuts east before the Arabian peninsula is reached.  It was limited to the “Arabian Desert” (Arabia Deserta) which was north of the peninsula, and did not include Rub Al Khali.  The Arabian Peninsula wasn’t even in play at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Council:  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/1800_Wilkinson_Map_of_the_4_Eastern_Churches_rectified.jpg

Thus, neither Jerusalem nor Antioch can claim the eastern Arabian Peninsula based on the 4th Ecumenical Council agreement, as Jerusalem’s jurisdiction when south to what is now the port of Al Aqabah, but Antioch’s jurisdiction cut east before this.  It is very clear from this map that the boundaries of both Jerusalem and Antioch end before the green of the Arabian peninsula.  

That being said, at its greatest breadth, Third Palestine did go onto the Arabian Peninsula, but I must admit that it did not extend to modern day Qatar.  I mean, for Jerusalem to claim the whole Arabian peninsula because it had jurisdiction over a small part of it would be as silly as Russia claiming all of North America because it had jurisdiction in a small part of it.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Father H said:
ialmisry said:
Father H said:
Mor Ephrem said:
Father H said:
What exactly does "too far beyond" mean.  We could easily and rightly replace the word "Jerusalem" in your last sentence with the word "Antioch."  For the OO Syrians, the claim would be more solid, since there is no Patriarch of Jerusalem.  I think that I made clear in my post that Antioch has cared for many of these regions and that does mean a lot.  But your "too far beyond Jordan" claim is based on what?    
While we have no Patriarchate of Jerusalem, we do have Antioch as well as the Orthodox Church of the East, which claims, at least in theory, the same territorial bounds as the Assyrian Church of the East.  The latter jurisdiction, AFAIK, included at least Bahrain and Qatar (St Isaac of Nineveh, Dadisho Qatraya, and others belonged to the Church of the East and lived or were from this area), if not other parts of the Arabian peninsula.  For practical purposes, this region has been overseen by Antioch for a long time, but technically it's a bit more complicated.  

I don't know how the EO have historically or currently defined the bounds of the patriarchates, which is why mine was more of a question than a claim (I took for granted that your Antioch looked like our Antioch, but your assertion calls that into question).  Where does "beyond the Jordan" end and "all the East" begin?  How far East does "all the East" extend before it becomes the Ecumenical Patriarchate ("barbarian lands") or the Church of Russia or some other jurisdiction?  
That is what I am saying.  No one disputes Russia's claims in the north in the Russian lands.  No one claims that Antioch evangelized China.  But Russia's claim is north, Antioch's is east--but is it south?   East (and then south) to India, yes.  South to the Arabian peninsula, we can only look at longtime pastoral care as a counter-claim to Jerusalem's jurisdiction.  
Uh, no Father: the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was carved out of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and it didn't include any area outside of the Palestines:

Juvenal the most sacred bishop of the city of Jerusalem said: ‘I too have decided that the holy [church of the] Resurrection of Christ should have the three Palestines, and the see of Antioch the two Phoenices and Arabia.  And I ask that this be confirmed by a judgement of your magnificence and of the holy council.
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon-Session VII.
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf

That was the judgement "which will last for all time" on the matter.  When the Patriarchate of Jerusalem got its organic statute in 1875, Qatar wasn't included in it.

The said Damianos Effendi is Patriarch in accordance with the ancient custom over the Roman sect dwelling in Jerusalem, and in the Holy Sepulchre and in the regions subject thereto and over their religious affairs.
. The Metropolitans, Bishops, Monks, and Nuns who are in the District subject to his Patriarchate, Jerusalem, Mount Sinai, Gaza, Ramleh, Jebel Ajlun, Acre, Safed, and the Districts subject thereto, and the Monks who dwell in the Monasteries of the Georgians, the Abyssinians, the Syrians, and the Copts and all the remainder of the 'Roman' Sects, great and small, shall acknowledge the said Damianos as their Patriarch. In the same way as those who were Patriarchs before him held he shall also hold and administer.
http://books.google.com/books?ei=_5p8UoftC62yygGmioHQCA&output=text&id=BDkAAAAAMAAJ&dq=REport+Orthodox+Patriarchate+Jerusalem&jtp=239
No, no, no.

I am very well aware of the decision at Chalcedon and that Antioch references that decision in their decision on removing from the EA due to Jerusalem in Qatar.

However, at the time of the 4th and 5th Ecumenical Councils, the limits of Antioch’s territory went south to the Ma’an-Aqabah regional border (southeast of Petra but northeast of Al Aqabah on the east edge of the mount range), and cuts east before the Arabian peninsula is reached.  It was limited to the “Arabian Desert” (Arabia Deserta) which was north of the peninsula, and did not include Rub Al Khali.  The Arabian Peninsula wasn’t even in play at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Council:  

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/1800_Wilkinson_Map_of_the_4_Eastern_Churches_rectified.jpg

Thus, neither Jerusalem nor Antioch can claim the eastern Arabian Peninsula based on the 4th Ecumenical Council agreement, as Jerusalem’s jurisdiction when south to what is now the port of Al Aqabah, but Antioch’s jurisdiction cut east before this.  It is very clear from this map that the boundaries of both Jerusalem and Antioch end before the green of the Arabian peninsula.  

That being said, at its greatest breadth, Third Palestine did go onto the Arabian Peninsula, but I must admit that it did not extend to modern day Qatar.  I mean, for Jerusalem to claim the whole Arabian peninsula because it had jurisdiction over a small part of it would be as silly as Russia claiming all of North America because it had jurisdiction in a small part of it.
All of this highlights the urgent need for a Council of the Orthodox to once and for the next five hundred years chart a way out of the past.  Not doctrine, not liturgical ... but basic Church organization and evangelism in a world which bears NO RESEMBLANCE to that model which served humanity since the heyday of the Roman Empires.

Perhaps the bishops, patriarchs and their advisors should enter into a locked conference room, provide them with food, watt...the basics. Ban them from using the internet, cell phones etc... and don't let them out until the Holy Spirit prevails. Maybe not that dramatic, but something has to change.

 

Agabus

The user formerly known as Agabus
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,333
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Faith
Magnificat
Jurisdiction
La Virgen de Caridad del Cobre
podkarpatska said:
All of this highlights the urgent need for a Council of the Orthodox to once and for the next five hundred years chart a way out of the past.  Not doctrine, not liturgical ... but basic Church organization and evangelism in a world which bears NO RESEMBLANCE to that model which served humanity since the heyday of the Roman Empires.
This is right, especially the all-caps part.



 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
podkarpatska said:
Perhaps the bishops, patriarchs and their advisors should enter into a locked conference room, provide them with food, watt...the basics. Ban them from using the internet, cell phones etc... and don't let them out until the Holy Spirit prevails. Maybe not that dramatic, but something has to change.
Conclave?
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
^A little different.  No smoke signals. :) Big lay people would block the doors , maybe we could get American football player Troy Polomahu to organize this with a couple of Russian, Ukrainian and Canadian Orthodox hockey players ;).
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
ialmisry said:
Only for the tomb worshippers. For the neglected Arab Orthodox Faithful, it came as justice.
Maybe so, but I still have no idea what you're talking about.  :)
In the 1870s, the Bulgarians were trying to get rid of the Phanariot hierarchy (which ran Bulgaria by and for the Greeks of the Phanar), and the Phanar responded by calling a Council.  Only the Greek hierarchs in the Ottoman Empire were in attendance.  They condemned the Bulgarians as schismatic for wanting their own running their Church, which they called phylletism.  Somehow Greeks running the Church of others for Greeks was OK-which is why I often refer to it as the Pot calling the Kettle Council.  They didn't manage though to have it unanimous, because Patriarch Cyril of Jerusalem refused to go along and left.  The tomb worshipper cartel (officially known as the "Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre", which claims that the Church of Jerusalem does not exist for pastoring a flock but only to act as custodians of the Holy Places in trust of the Greek nation for Orthodoxy) promptly claimed to depose him.  The Arab Orthodox, i.e the Faithful of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, took common cause with the Bulgarians, and refused to accept the deposition, and the Russians supported both the Bulgarians and the Arabs.
A large part of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem's income came from Romania-the Phanariots who ruled it for the Ottomans helped themselves to land grants for the various branches of their church, at one time income from a third of the Romanian countries was being drained and sent off to Phanar.  By the 1870's, the Czar had control over much of the estates, located in Bessarabia.  So as the tomb worshipper cartel passed itself off as a "Holy Synod" and refused to acknowledge the support of the Faithful for the Patriarchate and elected another, the Czar helped His Imperial Self to a fifth of the revenue of the estates for the cost of managing them, took another chunk out for charities in the Russian Empire, and put the rest in trust for the rightful Patriarchate of Jerusalem acceptable to the Faithful.  The result was the organic statute for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and a recognition (if not resolution) of the Arab Faithful's rightful demands.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
podkarpatska said:
^A little different.  No smoke signals. :) Big lay people would block the doors , maybe we could get American football player Troy Polomahu to organize this with a couple of Russian, Ukrainian and Canadian Orthodox hockey players ;).
And Klichkos with Valuyev.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,980
Reaction score
197
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Mor Ephrem said:
Map throwdown!  :)
Father H said:
No, no, no.
Unfortunately, Father, you are wrong on all counts.

Father H said:
I am very well aware of the decision at Chalcedon and that Antioch references that decision in their decision on removing from the EA due to Jerusalem in Qatar.
That being the delineation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and All Palestine's jurisdiction by the whole Church, of course it is referenced as dispostive.
Father H said:
However, at the time of the 4th and 5th Ecumenical Councils, the limits of Antioch’s territory went south to the Ma’an-Aqabah regional border (southeast of Petra but northeast of Al Aqabah on the east edge of the mount range), and cuts east before the Arabian peninsula is reached.  It was limited to the “Arabian Desert” (Arabia Deserta) which was north of the peninsula, and did not include Rub Al Khali.
 
As Qatar is not in the the al-Rub' al-Khali (by definition-it means "Empty Quarter), not relevant.

As to the rest of Arabia at the time of the 5th Ecumenical Council (unfortunately, I don't know how to crop an image and post it).

the Kingdoms of the Ghassanids, Lakhmids and Himyar were Christian by then (more on that below), and under Antioch, along with the Christians of the rest of the Sassanid Persian Empire.  Including Qatar-which had a bishop from at least 225-and its Arabs.
Father H said:
The Arabian Peninsula wasn’t even in play at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Council:
 
It had already been "played in 410," before the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Father:
...following a peace treaty with Constantinople in AD 410, the Christians convened in their first major synod [in the Sassanid Empire] at which the Roman ambassador, Bishop Marut of Maipherqat [i.e. Martyropolis, at the time under the Patriarchate of Antioch], was present...Under the presidency of its primate, Izhaq, the synod adopted the creeds and canons of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381)...and this brought them into line with the Church at large.  At this synod some six provinces, each with its own metropolitan, and 26 bishops were recognized, 10 of the bishops being in areas outside metropolitan oversight. Some of these last ten were the far-flung dioceses of Qatar the Islands and Rai.  In addition a number of practices, concerning e.g. one bishop per diocese and liturgical seasonal Observances, were brought into line with those of the Churches of the Roman Empire.
Christians in Asia Before 1500
By Ian Gilman, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit
http://books.google.com/books?
id=zBusulnvG4kC&pg=PA112&dq=%22AD+410,+the+Christians+convened+in+their+first+major+synod%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7Dl9UtLLC-2GyQGUvoGYDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22AD%20410%2C%20the%20Christians%20convened%20in%20their%20first%20major%20synod%22&f=false
The Canons Ascribed to Mārūtā of Maipherqat and Related Sources
http://books.google.com/books?id=z3owAAAAYAAJ&q=Maipherqat&dq=Maipherqat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VDp9Us_VHISdyQHimYGoCw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg
Bp. St. Marut's successor Bp. Zebbenus attended and signed the Acts of Chalcedon with the rest of the bishops of Mesopotamia, under their Patriarch, of Antioch.

At the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea I, in the entourage of the Bishop of Antioch was attending Bp. Pamphilos of the Tayy, a nomadic Arabian tribe shown here:

which would become increasing involved in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Antioch.  Their chief urban center Dumah (labeled "Jawf," in the middle of North Arabia here)

became a Christian center of Arabia.  The name of Tayy itself would become the usual term in Syriac and Pahlavi (Middle Persian) for "Arabs."

Just after the Ecumenical Council of Nicea I, we have in Nimreh

the tombstone of the son and heir of the founder of the Lakhmid Kingdom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namara_inscription
This is the funerary monument of Imru' al-Qays, son of 'Amr, king of the Arabs, and (?) his title of honour was Master of Asad and Madhhij.
And he subdued the Asadis and they were overwhelmed together with their kings, and he put to flight Madhhij thereafter, and came
driving them to the gates of Najran, the city of Shammar, and he subdued Ma'add, and the dealt gently with the nobles
of the tribes, and appointed them viceroys, and they became phylarchs for the Romans. And no king has equalled his achievements.
Thereafter he died in the year 223 on the 7th day of Kaslul. Oh the good fortune of those who were his friends!
the date-December 7, 328 A.D.-is according to the Era of the Metropolitanate of Bosrah, a suffragan of the Patriarch of Antioch, then and now.
It is the epitaph of a recently deceased Arab king of the Lakhmids, Imru' al-Qays ibn 'Amr, and dated securely to AD 328. Imru' al-Qays followed his father 'Amr ibn Adi in using a large army and navy to conquered much of Iraq and the Arabian peninsula from their capital at al-Hirah. At this time, they were vassals of the Persian Sassanids. Raids on Iran triggered a campaign by Sassanid emperor Shapur II which conquered the Iraqi lands, and Imru' al-Qays retreated to Bahrain. He moved to Syria to seek help from the Roman emperor Constantine. Imru' al-Qays converted to Christianity before his death in Syria and was entombed in the Syrian desert. His conversion is mentioned in the Arab history of Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi, but not mentioned in the inscription itself; equally there is no mention of any pagan belief.
Madhij and Najran are in South West Arabia, Ma'add are the North Arabian tribles, the capital al-Haria (also an episcopal see under Antioch) in southern Iraq

increased in importance as a Christian center.
Father H said:
Thus, neither Jerusalem nor Antioch can claim the eastern Arabian Peninsula based on the 4th Ecumenical Council agreement, as Jerusalem’s jurisdiction when south to what is now the port of Al Aqabah, but Antioch’s jurisdiction cut east before this.  It is very clear from this map that the boundaries of both Jerusalem and Antioch end before the green of the Arabian peninsula.
If only maps from 19th century English churchmen were dispositive in the 5th century. Or in the 19th century.  The Ancient maps and canons, and the Ottoman maps and berats, however, tell a different tale.

Btw:
The first See and the first patriarchate is of Jerusalem, James, the brother of God and apostle and eyewitness, and minister of the word and secrets of secrets and hidden mysteries, contains the whole Palestine a country until Arabia.
The second See is of the Apostle Peter from Rome to the limits of mountains and French, Spain and France, and Illyricum, until Gadiron and the Pillars of Hercules and Ocean at the west end of the sun as are dead waters and properties as wooded the island as the edge of oceans populated areas. Christians ever crowd until Ravenna, Lombardy, and Thessalonika, Slavic, and Scythians, and Avars until Danube river, the ecclesiastical border, and Sardinia, Megara, Carthage, and part of Balearic Islands, and part of Sicily and Calabria, where the winds blow nasty, from the north, from the south, from the west-south, and from the east-south.
The third See is of Constantinople, founded by Andreas and the John Theologos and Evangelist, containing almost certainly the power of the Roman kingdom, Europe and up the West Asian and Cycladic islands until Pontus, Cherson, and Abassid Chaldea, and Khazars, Cappadocia, Armenia, and until to the endless north areas.
The fourth See of Alexandria, of Mark apostle and evangelist, son of Peter the apostle, who took control over India and Ethiopia, throne of Apostle Thomas, until Africa and Tripoli and over all country of Egypt until the limits of Palestine, the south container.
The fifth See of Antioch of Peter, containing the area until to the East, the way of seven months, until to the Georgia and Armenia and Azerbaijan, and until to the internal desert of Persians, Medes, Chaldeans, until the Arab leadership, and Parthia and Mesopotamia Elamiton, and from the wind of sun rising, where the sun rises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_the_Five_Patriarchates
it is also interesting as pre-schism testimony to the founding of Constantinople-or rather, at the time, Byzantium-'s see by St. Andrew, something we know from pre-Constantine sources, but which is claimed by the Ultramontanists to be a post 1204 myth.

Father H said:
That being said, at its greatest breadth, Third Palestine did go onto the Arabian Peninsula
it went down to Mada'in SaliH, "Medain Salih" on the trade route map above, btw.
Father H said:
but I must admit that it did not extend to modern day Qatar.  I mean, for Jerusalem to claim the whole Arabian peninsula because it had jurisdiction over a small part of it would be as silly as Russia claiming all of North America because it had jurisdiction in a small part of it.
Epic fail in Church History, Father: particularly in American.

The jurisdiction of Jerusalem was carved out of another jurisdiction, namely Antioch's, and hence it's jurisdiction by that nature was limited.  What the Patriarch of the Tomb is doing here would be like the Church of Greece claiming jurisdiction over Kosovo because Constantinople once had jurisdiction over Ohrid and some Greeks moved to Pristina.
Russia established her Archdiocese of North America over a continent that no other Church had evangelized nor had nor exercised jurisdiction over. IOW, claiming all of North America because it had jurisdiction in a vacuum over unclaimed territory.

Russia was pastoring and evangelizing North America on both of its coasts, from the Aleutians to Virginia (or rather, in the opposite order) over a century before any other pastor set foot on the continent, and was pastoring and evangelizing the whole of it long before any other Church came and decades before any other Church even made a claim, complete with a Holy Synod constituted by jurisdiction act according to Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, consecrating in North America its own bishops in their own Cathedral, a decade before any bishop of any other jurisdiction set foot on the continent to assert jurisdiction.

Per canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem would be fully within its rights "to claim the whole Arabian peninsula because it had jurisdiction over a small part of it" if no one was exercising jurisdiction before, including episcopal oversight.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
It is November, the month in which Americans celebrate Thanksgiving. In the spirit of the season, I am thankful that most believers know nothing of stuff like this which we obsess about online, and really - most could care less about the behavior and intrigues of popes, patriarchs, boundaries, maps, historical wrongs and small parishes for foreigners living in Muslim lands like Qatar. I am thankful that most care mostly about their own salvation, the health and spiritual well being of their families, their parishes and the actions of their pastor, local monks and their bishop

That appreciation of the local rather than the global is at the center of the genius behind our ecclesiology when contrasted to that of the Romans.
 

Nephi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
32
Faith
Deist
Jurisdiction
N/A
podkarpatska said:
All of this highlights the urgent need for a Council of the Orthodox to once and for the next five hundred years chart a way out of the past.  Not doctrine, not liturgical ... but basic Church organization and evangelism in a world which bears NO RESEMBLANCE to that model which served humanity since the heyday of the Roman Empires.
Agreed. I hope that if the Great and Holy Synod ever comes it only deals with those issues, and leaves theology/liturgy at the door. Last thing we want is a Vatican II style council (or worse) and response to it.

Perhaps the bishops, patriarchs and their advisors should enter into a locked conference room, provide them with food, watt...the basics. Ban them from using the internet, cell phones etc... and don't let them out until the Holy Spirit prevails. Maybe not that dramatic, but something has to change.
Wasn't there a papal conclave where they did something similar? Better leave them without food, else they'll still take forever.
 
Top