I'm only referring to its anti-abortion laws, which in my mind somewhat makes up for whatever corruption it may be facing.
This is kind of getting into Politics, so I am hesitant to answer. Abortion isn't the only moral issue for states, and I doubt that Texas is alone in its position on the issue.
Most religious people are more or less against abortion. It’s what you do with that feeling that matters. If you compassionately and personally extend help to frightened pregnant women who may be tempted to terminate their pregnancy, you make a very good case. But just punishing women and doctors with vigilantism to skirt the law is repugnant and not the least bit Christian. Reminds me of a certain novel by Margaret Atwood…
The title was around in the late 6th century. It was a point of contention between Pope St. Gregory and St. John the Faster.
Ecumenical refers to the Empire, not the entire world, in jurisdiction. When you understand that false claims of universality evaporate.
I never said that it meant anything else. That was in fact part of the basis for the dispute. Pope St. Gregory interpreted ecumenical patriarch to mean universal patriarch, whereas in Constantinople, the title was understood as an imperial title.
It’s too lengthy to be recited In multiple languages. Unless you live in Boston there are few who really understand Greek and early none who understand it exclusive of English. My parish says the Lord’s Prayer in several languages representing the diversity of our community. Greek goes first, then Romanian, then Spanish, Arabic and Slavonic (recently added because of a few new Slavic congregants). Lastly English which we all share.
Well, currently there is no empire based in Istanbul.... just a patriarchate based there claiming "universal jurisdiction" like the medieval Popes did over the East.
I am aware of how the Phanar tries to invent reasons we should defer to its competence as first among equals, through such adventures as the creation of competing jurisdictions in Estonia, Ukraine and a threatened one in Czechia but it’s a stretch to say that calling them by their official and non-controversial title Ecumenical will bring about some new disaster. As with bishops consecrated to underwater and long-dead sees (someone show me how Sourozh relates to Great Britain), there are innumerable item of our ecclesiastical culture that don’t make transparent sense but persist for traditional reasons.
I don't agree with this part.
I would be interested to see if someone has a rebuttal to Tzimis' repeated claims that currently all patriarchs would have to trace their apostolic succession through Constantinople. The way that he presents it, Byzantium had an apostolic see, like from St Andrew. Then at some point, all other patriarchs either
Based on what Fulk wrote, Georgia might have a line of apostolic succession that doesn't run through Constantinople, depending on whether that line remained distinct during the time when the Georgian Church belonged to the Russian Church.
Russian Orthodoxy has its roots in the mission activity done by South Slavs from the autochthonous Bulgarian Church, that existed outside the Roman Empire, previous to the establishment of Kievan Rus, after which Greek hierarchs took over all church leadership and suppressed the record of previous Bulgarian efforts. After the final collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1427, there was absolutely no way Greek churchmen were able to operate in Russia. The lines of communication broke down and Muscovite church was de facto independent and autocephalous. This situation did not change significantly for over 100 years. There is also the Union of Florence-Ferrara when the Phanar ceased even to be Orthodox, preferring to be a Latin appanage. The grant of a Tomos was an opportunity for the strapped Phanar to receive some funds from wealthy independent Moscow who aptly found a way both patriarchates could be benefited since Moscow was already long used to running its own church affairs with no input from the new capital of the Turkish empire. In later centuries several Autocephalous churches were freed from Phanariot overlordship when the Ottoman Porte began its own eclipse, taking their autocephaly perforce from the EP again in no position to do anything about it. Their refusal to recognize Bulgarian independence was particularly harsh and showed some of the same slavophobic hellenosupremacism as we see today regarding Moscow and Ukraine. The Tomoi allotted to Eastern European churches of the former Soviet Bloc outline a progressive hollowing out of the concept of autocephaly to the point where it defines permanent servitude of the ‘Daughter’ church and enjoins ecclesiastical colonialization of any other church who recognize it. Each of these grants has occurred in such a way as to give less and take more, and compete with Moscow, as in setting up parallel a jurisdiction in Estonia.
You must be making this up as you go.
Fulk,
If C'ple had at some point appointed someone to Patriarchate, it would not change the Dyptichs nor their meaning, nor imply some permanent role in appointments. Any suggestion that is does is entirely novel and contrary to the consensus of the canons and witness of church history. The Orthodox Church does not rely on the EP for any meaningful leadership and it's been abundantly clear for generations if not centuries that the EP is incapable of unifying anything except the Greek homogeneia. To the contrary, the role of the EP these days is to divide the churches through various means, and when called upon to exercise a unifying or adjudicating role, falls down on the job. This is why Antioch boycotted Crete in 2016, because the Phanar responded not at all to Antioch's request to help it sort out the problem with ecclesiastical incursion by Jerusalem in Qatar.
Please explain. Reference is obscure to me.
At a very basic level, one difference is that whereas by nature political parties compete for votes, the Churches should try to achieve orthodoxy and communion, ie. common union. In politics, US political parties actually do agree on lots of things and aim to have the best politics for the nation, but there is still an inherent competition for votes. In fact, the competition can be healthy and motivate the parties to have more appealing policies and actions. In the Church model, we are looking for cooperation and common understanding and agreement. InterChurch relations are not a zero sum game.
It is like two beloved and respected uncles who have a disagreement and are having quite an argument about it. There is nothing rational that you can say. For saying anything will hurt the other. All you can do is pray that it ends soon. Particularly, you remember the good times together and that they truly love each other.
It is sad.
...who hasn't a clue about what she is talking about. And it seems she isn't the only one.
quessing you have not heard of what happened to their mission.
Where did he make such a goofy claim?
I took Tzimis to be referring to instances when at some point another patriarchal see became vacant and the CP had to send them a patriarch. So for instance at one point the see of Antioch became vacant centuries ago, perhaps due to Islamic conquest and the CP appointed a patriarch for the then-vacant See of Anttime? Maybe thos new replacement was first ordained by a CP bishop. As a result, Tzimis would be implying that Antioch's line succession had to run through Constantinople. I also guess that he could be referring to ordination, and not just the issue of whether a local Church hierarchy selected or approved its patriarch.
And:
He said about Rome:
So much tendentious mythology, like a doggerel version of historical poetry or a Phanariot pamphlet composed and distributed by the Order of St. Andrew. Not remotely true.
I meant Antioch, not Anttime.
