Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing the dialogue with RCC?

Is Metr. Zlizious responsible for derailing dialogue with RCC?

  • Yes, and he should resign from co-chairmanship of the commission immediately

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Yes, and he should resign from co-chairmanship of the commission in a due time with a convenient exc

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm still not sure

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • It's beyond my competencies

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • I have an opinion, but I will not say it

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • No, he did not derail the talks.

    Votes: 13 54.2%

  • Total voters
    24

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
orthodoxlurker said:
And just to add:

I don't give a d*rn wjat Zlizious is saying, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. I'll stick with St. Vincent of Lerins.
His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...

At the moment I'm speculating the actions I can undertake to contribute to the efforts Serbian Orthodox Church never participates again in any commission co-chaired by Mrt. Zlizious. Not much I can do, of course, but a small grain of resistance won't hurt.
Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
greekischristian said:
Of course, Constantinople isn't inventng anything, it's simply objectively looking at the history of the Church, these perogatives claimed have traditionally been held by Constantinople since the Synod of Chalcedon.
No, she's not inventing anything, but even an apparently objective look at Church history can be flawed and subjective.  That's why I customarily do not accept any prerogatives of primacy claimed by the primate himself.  What primacy all the Orthodox churches around the world grant to Constantinople, this I recognize and to this I willingly submit, but anything the EP claims beyond this I reject.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
greekischristian said:
His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...
Let's not allow this discussion to digress into petty nationalisms. :police:
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
greekischristian said:
Well in my readings of His Eminence Met. John, I have found ideas about hermits and monasticism that relate much more to what George was saying; perhaps you have a reference from one of his works that suggests otherwise?
Actually, I was speaking of the reaction to Metropolitan John's theological opinions in the "Italia Ortodossa" article Fr. Ambrose posted and ozgeorge's comments on a paragraph of the article.  So, in a way, you ended up just vindicating my statement.
 

orthodoxlurker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...
Perhaps that will surprise you, because it probably isn't in compliance with the belief you falsely presents as Orthodox Faith, but I'll go with whomever Orthodox Christian, regardless a Frenchmen, an Escimo, a Nigerian, a Gipsy, a Serb or a Greek, than with any heterodox opinion.

And Ravenna statement is at least the lausy scolarship under the auspicies of Metr. Zlizious.

I don't have time to comment on his theology now, it's not the topic of the thread.

greekischristian said:
Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.
Nobody is against the dialogue. But wait and see how many of us is about the pathetic lausy definitions of Ravenna statement. And you'll see how Russians "are getting isolated", so possibly Ecumenical Patriarchate will assign someone whom knows how to behave for future co-chairmanship. If H.H. Bartholomew holds the primacy of EP so dear, he should remember the last time you were so ecumenical MP got autocephalia. Now, continue down that path announced by Mrt. Zlizious, perhaps the Third Rome will get the primacy too.

And I'm tolerant, too. You are free to continue professing heterodoxy and open heresies, I'm too weak to help you. But just keep in mind that's not the Orthodox Faith.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
Then why should we prefer Constantinople over Old Rome?  What's the reason?  None: all the Ecumenical Councils name Rome as the Head, not Constantinople.
Old Rome has the right of honour in liturgical precedence and as such maintains the right to be the first to sign any ecclesiastical documnet. New Rome is the Oecumenical Patriarch, the president of any General or Imperial Synod, she is the administrative head of the Church, whereas Old Rome is the liturgical head. I have no problem placing Rome first in the dyptics, allowing her to speak first in Synods after the address by the president (the Oecumenical Patriarch), allowing her to first sign agreements, allowing her to lead liturgies where she is present, etc. But on the other side of things, she should respect the role of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods. And both sees have the canonical right of an ultimate Sees of appeal, but Constantinople alone, as the Imperial See, has right to give her rulings with Imperial Authority making them binding both temporally and spiritually.

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, unity at all costs, submission without question, then we have no need to sepearate ourselves from Rome, and should start commemorating Benedict XVI, and not Bartholomew.
One only commemorates their Bishop and the Patriarchates commemorate all the other Patriarchs, the argument is not over who to commemorate but in what order they are commemorated; and I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Rome should be denied her ancient honour of being listed first in the dyptics of the Church.

The fact that you suggest that the EP appoint a number of bishops to lock out the voice of the Russians, if the Russians have to be seen only as an appendage to Constantinople, shows that it is just an issue of power, not piety, theology or Faith.  Luke 22:24-7.
It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.

Leo VI the Wise: wasn't this the same emperor, that when the EP refused to set aside the canons and recognize his fourth marriage, secured recognition from the Pope of Rome? (Ah, Henry VIII eat your heart out).
He was a great Emperor and Lawgiver, respected in both Secular and Ecclesiastical circles; his decrees on everything from marriage to synodal order have formed the basis for Orthodox customs to this very day.

Balsamon: is this the same absentee Patriarch of Antioch, who, never setting foot in his patriarchate, received a delegation from Antioch, and, upon seeing their celebration of the Divine Liturgy accoring to the Apostolic rites of Antioch, issued a decree to suppress said rites, and ordered the immediate adoption of the recent rites of Constantinople?  (And we thought the Tridentine mass was the only one imposed by force).
Patriarchs of the conquered lands living in Constantinople were quite common at the time, I believe there was a span of over 200 years where the Patriarch of Antioch lived in Constantinople. Of course, the canons specifically protect Bishops that were incapable of going to their Sees because of the barbarian invasions. Balsamon was a great Patriarch and Canonists, his interpretations of the Canons of the Orthodox Church remain to this day the standard and traditional interpretations; to defy the interpretations of Balsamon is no less serious than defying the canons proper, for, indeed, in the view of our Canon Law the two are inseparable.

Zonaras: this is the same private secretary of the Emperor Alexis I.  Do you have any info on his role in Alexis' role in welcoming the Crusades?'
Another great canonist and lawyer. I am not sure what role Zonaras played in welcoming the Crusades, but after asking the west for help against the mohammedan scourge for centuries the military aid was long overdue, Europe had, at that point, lived in relative peace and been kept safe for centuries by the blood of the Roman Legions. That they betrayed us is unfortunate, but the inital goals were noble and right.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
orthodoxlurker said:
And I'm tolerant, too. You are free to continue professing heterodoxy and open heresies, I'm to weak to help you. But just keep in mind that's not the Orthodox Faith.
No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
 

orthodoxlurker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
Excellent points, but a quick question, was the article in question written by a Bishop? I only saw it signed as 'The editorial staff of the Magazine "Italia Ortodossa"'.
What difference would it make?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
greekischristian said:
No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
And I will take the teachings of the Faith of the whole Orthodox Church as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond the personal opinions of the Oecumenical Throne. ;)
 

orthodoxlurker

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
0
Points
0
greekischristian said:
No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
No offence, indeed!

You and me do profess different Faiths and are not brothers!

I'll stick with that Frenchman, St. Vincent of Lerins - the teaching of the Church, and you are free to stick with Nestorius and others.
 

JoeS

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
79
Location
Abington, PA USA
greekischristian said:
His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...

Fortunately the Patriarchate of Serbia, though traditional in many positive aspects, seems more open to dialogue and more tolerant that the mindset you are presenting.
Please dont take this as a personal insult but from your bio you list Christian as a faith.  So, I need to ask this of you, and you of course can decline, but are you an Orthodox Christian?

No offense intended,

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
PeterTheAleut said:
But, on the flip side, this difficult-to-read statement (source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Primacy_and_Unity_in_Orthodox_Ecclesiology) could also be read legitimately to mean that the EP's failure to act in a way in keeping with the honor due his position also brings disorder to the Church.  "... if the head does not maintain its activity in good health ..." = "if the head (the EP) does not act in a healthy manner" then the body (the Church) becomes sick and disordered.
Exactly the problem.  Greekichristian would have us believe that we must be lead by the nose to wherever the EP wants to lead, including it would appear heresy.  That's the ecclesiology of Vatican I.  We Orthodox were not at Vatican I.

It is quite sad to see the present state of Constantinople, on the one hand being ground down on by the Turk, on the other acting like an overbearing mother who refuses to acknowledge that her children have grown.  In Egypt we say, "When your son has grown, treat him as a brother."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
His Eminence is too Latinized in your opinion, so you're going to side with a Frenchman over him? ...OK, that makes sense...
....yes, as the Frenchman (actually Gallic Roman would be more correct) espoused Orthodoxy.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
Old Rome has the right of honour in liturgical precedence and as such maintains the right to be the first to sign any ecclesiastical documnet. New Rome is the Oecumenical Patriarch, the president of any General or Imperial Synod, she is the administrative head of the Church, whereas Old Rome is the liturgical head. I have no problem placing Rome first in the dyptics, allowing her to speak first in Synods after the address by the president (the Oecumenical Patriarch), allowing her to first sign agreements, allowing her to lead liturgies where she is present, etc. But on the other side of things, she should respect the role of the Oecumenical Patriarchate, the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods. And both sees have the canonical right of an ultimate Sees of appeal, but Constantinople alone, as the Imperial See, has right to give her rulings with Imperial Authority making them binding both temporally and spiritually.
Sooo, that authority would be the President of Turkey now, no?

I've been to Constantinople several times (my baptismal cross was blessed at the Patriarchal cathadral).  The emperor has not been there for some time.

The revisionism running around the Phanar now, relegating the pope of Rome a primacy of honor as the Orthodox say while arrogating (I chose the word carefully) to herself a primacy as those on the other side of the schism of 1054 have ascribed to Rome, has no basis in history.  It is arising out of the vulnerability of the Patriarchate.

What canon gives the EP "the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods"? (Lumen Gentium couldn't have said it better).  The EP didn't exist to open the First Ecumenical Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was opened by St. Meletios of Antioch.  Pope Cyril of Alexandria led the Third Council (the apologist in Rome keep insisting he was acting as the legatee of Rome, but perhaps you want to say he was acting as legatee of the EP.  Oopps! That was Nestorius. Just a little problematic for your "power to dismiss synods.").

I think I've made my point.

One only commemorates their Bishop and the Patriarchates commemorate all the other Patriarchs, the argument is not over who to commemorate but in what order they are commemorated; and I don't believe that anyone has suggested that Rome should be denied her ancient honour of being listed first in the dyptics of the Church.
The point is Old Rome is not in the diptychs for a reason, and the EP (again!) can put himself in a similar position.

It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.
How would a overabudance of Russian bishops constitute a "sack?"

That City has been quite good in inflicting suffering, as the Churches in the Middle East and Balkans can attest.

He was a great Emperor and Lawgiver, respected in both Secular and Ecclesiastical circles; his decrees on everything from marriage to synodal order have formed the basis for Orthodox customs to this very day.
Sorry, I hail from a part of the Orthodox world that wasn't under his rule, and had deeper roots.

Evidently not all his decrees: a fourth marriage is still forbidden.

Patriarchs of the conquered lands living in Constantinople were quite common at the time, I believe there was a span of over 200 years where the Patriarch of Antioch lived in Constantinople. Of course, the canons specifically protect Bishops that were incapable of going to their Sees because of the barbarian invasions. Balsamon was a great Patriarch and Canonists, his interpretations of the Canons of the Orthodox Church remain to this day the standard and traditional interpretations; to defy the interpretations of Balsamon is no less serious than defying the canons proper, for, indeed, in the view of our Canon Law the two are inseparable.
Canons protect Bishops from what, their flock?

Sorry, I don't ascribe infallibility to any patriarch, be it Rome, Constantinople or Antioch (including my present patriarch Ignatios, who actually has been to his See, despite the barbarians.  I've been there and seen the conditions).

Balsamon's supression of the rites of Antioch were without warrant, and we can't complain of forced Latinizations if Balsamon is our model.

Another great canonist and lawyer. I am not sure what role Zonaras played in welcoming the Crusades, but after asking the west for help against the mohammedan scourge for centuries the military aid was long overdue, Europe had, at that point, lived in relative peace and been kept safe for centuries by the blood of the Roman Legions. That they betrayed us is unfortunate, but the inital goals were noble and right.
And perhaps the EP might consider this history with his present actions in mind.

greekischristian said:
No offence intended, but I will take the teachings of the Oecumenical Throne as the standard of Orthodoxy, above and beyond your personal opinions.
Only when he speaks ex cathedra. ::)
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
greekischristian said:
I believe you are misunderstanding the quote, in which there is some complexity in grammar (though it is perfectly gramatically correct), perhaps this minor change in punctuation would make it clearer:

'Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member (who occupies the position of head) is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner.'

(I separated the second nested dependent clause using parentheses)

Basically, His Excellency is saying that if the Head of the Church (i.e. the Oecumenical Patriarch) is not maintained or held in proper honour by the Body of the Curch (including the other Patriarchates), the Church functions in a disorderly and faulty manner; this is exactly what I was saying, the lack of obedience and loyality to Constantinople has caused the Church to become disfunctional and is threatening to tear it apart.
*
Yes, that is precisely its meaning and that is precisely the situation we see in the modern world.

The Church of the Ecumenicial Patriarchate, which exists in America, in Australia and in Western Europe, does not hold its Patriarch in honour.  I shall not debate whether their reasons are justified or not.

As a result of this disrespect from the Church of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Constantinople has, as Zonaras writes, become unable to function healthily and he is making decisions which damage not just his Church but also other Orthodox Churches.

So Zonaras is proved correct from the empirical evidence - the head of the Church and the body of the Church are mutually inter-dependent and if one is ailing the other becomes ailing.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
greekischristian said:
It would be a shame to see a City that has suffered so much to be again sacked, this time by the Rus.
Actually, there seems to be a popular prophesy in Greece that this is precisely what will happen and will be the means by which the City will be returned to the Romans.
 

Starlight

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston
cleveland said:
I'm not going to fill out your poll, because you don't have a "No" option up there.  I won't answer "yes" because the dialogue has not been "derailed."  Only the MP thinks it has.  I'm not going to answer "unsure," because I am sure.  I'm not going to answer "it's beyond my competencies," because it most certainly is within them.  And I want to state my opinion, which is why I won't pick the last option.

No, the Metropolitan is not responsible for some supposed "derailing" of the talks; if the MP representative is unhappy, then he's the only one who took himself out of the talks.  If he hadn't left, then he would have been there to discuss the text he was referring to, and more clearly voice his objections.  So personally I think there is a lot of propaganda in his statement, which is really not helpful.
Cleveland, excellent post! Great explanation. I absolutely agree with every word you wrote!
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
Sooo, that authority would be the President of Turkey now, no?
The Sultan had a claim of sorts and had he converted to Christianity he would have had an indisputable right to the Imperial Office, but it would be a stretch for a president to claim Imperial Authority.

I've been to Constantinople several times (my baptismal cross was blessed at the Patriarchal cathadral).  The emperor has not been there for some time.
And thus the Patriarch acts in his stead, as he has since the fall of the City.

The revisionism running around the Phanar now, relegating the pope of Rome a primacy of honor as the Orthodox say while arrogating (I chose the word carefully) to herself a primacy as those on the other side of the schism of 1054 have ascribed to Rome, has no basis in history.  It is arising out of the vulnerability of the Patriarchate.
No basis? Despite the fact that for centuries several other Patriarchs were elected by and served on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, despite the fact that the Endimousa Synods of Constantinople have weilded the authority of Imperial Synods, despite the fact that the Authority of Constantinople as the ultimate See of Appeal is so well respected even today that the Russians still do not dare deny it, though they may fight rulings on technicalities?

What canon gives the EP "the right to summon, preside over, and dismiss synods"? (Lumen Gentium couldn't have said it better).  The EP didn't exist to open the First Ecumenical Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was opened by St. Meletios of Antioch.  Pope Cyril of Alexandria led the Third Council (the apologist in Rome keep insisting he was acting as the legatee of Rome, but perhaps you want to say he was acting as legatee of the EP.  Oopps! That was Nestorius. Just a little problematic for your "power to dismiss synods.").

I think I've made my point.
I don't think you have, the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was held by several Sees in the past, prior to Chalcedon, but since Chalcedon (with Constantinople's final victory over Alexandria) it has been the undisputed right of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Imperial legislation as well as 1500 years of custom establish this as the role of the Oecumenical Throne within the Christian Church.

The point is Old Rome is not in the diptychs for a reason, and the EP (again!) can put himself in a similar position.
Dyptics that exclude the Oecumenical Throne are utterly meaningless, they would be the dyptics of a schismatic church.

Sorry, I hail from a part of the Orthodox world that wasn't under his rule, and had deeper roots.
To quote Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople (1395), 'The Basileus is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the Emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him...'

Evidently not all his decrees: a fourth marriage is still forbidden.
Actually it was his decree that established the limit of three marriages, which was given after his fourth marriage; this is just one example the decrees of Leo the Wise that to this day have force amongst the Orthodox.

Canons protect Bishops from what, their flock?
Or from the barbarians.

Balsamon's supression of the rites of Antioch were without warrant, and we can't complain of forced Latinizations if Balsamon is our model.
He was the Patriarch of Antioch, it was perfectly within his rights to regulate and define the liturgical activities of his See.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
greekischristian said:
The Sultan had a claim of sorts and had he converted to Christianity he would have had an indisputable right to the Imperial Office, but it would be a stretch for a president to claim Imperial Authority.
Why not?  The holders of the Imperial Office from Augustus to Numerian did so in, offiically, a republic: Res Publica [hence Republic] Romana.

Btw, the courts of Europe did accord the Sultan imperial authority.  The king of Poland explicitely, for example, refused to recognize the title of Czar that the Duke of Moscow had assumed on the basis that only the so called Holy Roman Emperor and the Sultan had the title.

And the sultan did claim to be Keisar-i Rum.  As for the need for his converting, wasn't the slogan "better the Turkish turban than the Latin mitre?"

Was the Latin emperor at Constantinople legitimate?

Btw, as you probably know, the last fall of the old empire wasn't at Constantinople but Trebizond, on August 15, 1461.  By one of those ironies of history, because the emperor (of the same line as the Komnene dynasty of Constantinople) tried to stave off the Turks with other Turks, he married his daughter off to the Ottoman's rivals the Ak Koyunlu, who in turn became the matriarch of the Safavids, the dynasty that turned Iran Shi'ite and ruled to 1722.  The Western travelogues play up this "Christian" connection to the dynasty.

And thus the Patriarch acts in his stead, as he has since the fall of the City.
And if the emperor was the head of the Church, you might have a point.  But we're not Anglicans.

Render unto Caesar....., isn't the problems of the pope of Old Rome assuming the imperial mantle at the source, in part, of the claims he makes that are the reasons why he is not in communion with us now?

No basis? Despite the fact that for centuries several other Patriarchs were elected by and served on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, despite the fact that the Endimousa Synods of Constantinople have weilded the authority of Imperial Synods, despite the fact that the Authority of Constantinople as the ultimate See of Appeal is so well respected even today that the Russians still do not dare deny it, though they may fight rulings on technicalities?
In your last sentence, are you refering to the present dispute on the renegade bishop in Britain?

Yes, for centuries after the Muslim sultan ordained the EP ethnarch of his Christian dhimmis, the Phanar did the Ottomans bidding in centralizing appointments to please the Sublime Porte rather than the flocks they were to shepherd. From Central Europe to the Middle East, all Orthodox know what Phanariot rule meant.

And before that, after the problems of Chalcedon and the rise of the caliphate, a great number of the patriarchs preferred to stay courtiers at the court of Constantinople rather than go out and shephard their flock.

You leave out the fact that the imperial authority (Roman, Latin and Ottoman) backed (and often determined) the decrees of the Endimousa Synods (btw the English is Resident Synod).  And you also leave out that other Sees had other such important synods, like the one that Patrirach Dositheus held in Jerusalem, to denounce the Calvinism of the confession of the EP Cyril, which synod's authority that was recognized WITHOUT any imperial backing.  It did have wide support: bishops as far as Russia attended and signed its decrees.

As for well respected court of appeal, one need look at the history of the autocephalacy of the various Churches (not only the OCA) to see how well the recent EP have managed that, and the role of the EP in holding back the independence of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem (for reasons I've yet to fathom, Alexandria escaped these problems).

I don't think you have, the title of Oecumenical Patriarch was held by several Sees in the past, prior to Chalcedon, but since Chalcedon (with Constantinople's final victory over Alexandria) it has been the undisputed right of the Patriarch of Constantinople; Imperial legislation as well as 1500 years of custom establish this as the role of the Oecumenical Throne within the Christian Church.
The title Ecumenical Patriarch was held by no Sees in the past and was not awarded to Constantinople at Chalcedon.

The title came about over a century after Chalcedon, when the Imperial chancelary decided that ecumenical was the synomyn for imperial, and everything associated with the emperor had to have it, including the ecumenical barber.

Pope St. Gregory denounced it as an innovation, which it was.  While Rome was still with us, she refused to recognize the title.

The Church of Christ is not bound by imperial legislation, no matter the empire.

Constantinople's final vicotry over Alexandria?  Mark 9:33-4.  What game do you think we are playing?  Btw, the archbishop of Alexandria is still POPE (the original) and Patriarch of Alexandria.

Dyptics that exclude the Oecumenical Throne are utterly meaningless, they would be the dyptics of a schismatic church.
Your fondness for Florence is showing.  Would we commemarate a heretical EP?  Or are you now claiming infallibility for New Rome?  Old Rome beat you to it, and has a better, more logical, less convoluted record to back their claims (which are nonetheless, also false).

The unity of the Orthodox Church does not subsist in the EP.

To quote Patriarch Anthony of Constantinople (1395), 'The Basileus is anointed with the great myrrh and is appointed Basileus and Autokrator of the Romans, and indeed of all Christians. Everywhere the name of the Emperor is commemorated by all patriarchs and metropolitans and bishops wherever men are called Christians, [a thing] which no other ruler or governor ever received. Indeed he enjoys such great authority over all that even the Latins themselves, who are not in communion with our church, render him the same honor and submission which they did in the old days when they were united with us. So much more do Orthodox Christians owe such recognition to him...'
The reference to anointing is interesting: if I remember correctly, its a borrowing from the Latin stay in the East (the anointing of kings had developed there on OT models.  It wasn't at New Rome).

I'm afraid I don't know much about EP Anthony. Isn't he the same one who, when the Duke of Moscow said that there was now no emperor, replied "there can be no Church without the emperor"?  There's no emperor, not least since the March 15, 1917. Yet the Church remains.

I'm venturing to guess that EP Anthony didn't get out much, to test how true his words "everywhere" were.

If the Latins were so respectful, they wouldn't have sacked the capital, nor would the emperor had to go around groveling (the reason perhaps for the Duke's comment) for aid at the time EP Anthony wrote these words.  At the time, the capital was in the midst of a prolonged seige.

Actually it was his decree that established the limit of three marriages, which was given after his fourth marriage; this is just one example the decrees of Leo the Wise that to this day have force amongst the Orthodox.
So do as I say, not as I do?

The fact that the EP refused to recognize his fourth marriage belies your claim that Leo initiated the limitation.  It is found in the Fathers long before, one (St. Basil?) stating that a third marriage makes one resemble a pig.

Or from the barbarians.
Away in the safety behind the walls of Constantinople these absentee patriarchs didn't need canons to protect them from the "barbarians."

He was the Patriarch of Antioch, it was perfectly within his rights to regulate and define the liturgical activities of his See.
So the EP Michael Celarios was quite wrong in denouncing Pope Leo IX abolitioning the DL of Ss John and Basil in South Italy, forcing the Faithful there to recite the filioque and forcing them to use unleavened bread?  My, I'm going to have to rethink 1054 all over.  All this time I thought we Orthodox were in the right. :p


"Patriarch" Balsamon might have more credibility if he acted as a patriarch, I mean, actually going to his See, rather than acting as an appendage to the EP, as he did.
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I haven't read the thread, but the answer to the question is no.  The dialog was derailed because Constantinople and Moscow are locked in a feud which has basically paralyzed the Orthodox Church's ability to do anything in a unified fashion as a whole.
 
Top