Mount Athos vs. The Patriarch of Constantinople

[Kaste]

Greetings everyone,

The monks of Mt. Athos sent 2 letters to Patriarch Bartholomew condemning what they believe is Orthodox concessions to Roman Catholic heresy.  The monks spoke out in 1993 and then in 1999. 

1) Has the Patriarch replied? 
2) What is the opinion of the Russian and Jerusalem Patriarchs? 
3) Has Mount Athos ever found itself on the wrong side of a theological debate (Robber Council in 449, or in 754...)

Thank you,
-K

 

[sheenj]

Greetings everyone,

The monks of Mt. Athos sent 2 letters to Patriarch Bartholomew condemning what they believe is Orthodox concessions to Roman Catholic heresy.  The monks spoke out in 1993 and then in 1999. 

1) Has the Patriarch replied? 
2) What is the opinion of the Russian and Jerusalem Patriarchs?   
3) Has Mount Athos ever found itself on the wrong side of a theological debate (Robber Council in 449, or in 754...)

Thank you,
-K

What do these letters say? Which heresies has the EP allegedly commited?

P.S. I kinda feel calling councils "Robber Councils" is unnecessarily polemic, especially Ephesus 449. Maybe just call them by the place and year. E.G Ephesus 449 or Hieria 754.
Thanks.

 

[pensateomnia]

Greetings everyone,

The monks of Mt. Athos sent 2 letters to Patriarch Bartholomew condemning what they believe is Orthodox concessions to Roman Catholic heresy.  The monks spoke out in 1993 and then in 1999. 

1) Has the Patriarch replied? 
2) What is the opinion of the Russian and Jerusalem Patriarchs?   
3) Has Mount Athos ever found itself on the wrong side of a theological debate (Robber Council in 449, or in 754...)

Thank you,
-K

Regarding 1: Yes, the Patriachate replied, first through personal visits of representatives and then through the encyclical on Zealotism.

Regarding 3: Yes, monks on Mt Athos actually started the Name-Worshipping heresy.

Naturally, people tell stories about monks defending the faith, but thousands have also have been defenders of heresy and schism, even to the point of initiating violence.

 

[Kaste]

Pen,

Always good to read your input.  That "name worshipping heresy" was not the whole community of Mt. Athos, though.  Just a few monks in the Russian section. 

Both letters written to the EP, 1993 and 1999, were representative of the Athos community writ large, and therefore official guidance. 

It's important because this official guidance is claiming to be the soul of Orthodoxy.  If Athos official guidance has been wrong before, we can dismiss the monks as being simple zealots.  But if not, then Orthodox need to sit up straight and pay close attention to what they are warning against, and in fact, side with them.

To everyone: Are there Orthodox who believe after Rome was separated, Athos more or less took her place as an entity that needs to "sign off" in the Orthodox decision making process?  (I am aware there are also Orthodox who believe that only after time/reception can we know if a doctrine is true, i.e. 1848 Patriarchal Encyclical). 

-K

 

[Asteriktos]

It's important because this official guidance is claiming to be the soul of Orthodoxy.  If Athos official guidance has been wrong before, we can dismiss the monks as being simple zealots.  But if not, then Orthodox need to sit up straight and pay close attention to what they are warning against, and in fact, side with them.

To everyone: Are there Orthodox who believe after Rome was separated, Athos more or less took her place as an entity that needs to "sign off" in the Orthodox decision making process?  (I am aware there are also Orthodox who believe that only after time/reception can we know if a doctrine is true, i.e. 1848 Patriarchal Encyclical). 

I think you answer your first paragraph here with the second. There is no "they were never wrong so we MUST listen to them" stuff in Orthodoxy. No group or person is infallible just because they are who they are. Even if every monk on Mount Athos for it's entire history was right about every matter they ever spoke about, we still wouldn't be obligated to assume that they would always be right. In fact, it would be heresy to say that they were to be regarded in such a way. The monks on Mount Athos (excepting Esphigmenou perhaps) have continued commemorating the Pat. of Constantinople, and continued under his leadership/guidance. It's bee 20 years later and they have not seen fit to rebel (again, excepting esphigmenou). The activities of the Pat. of Constantinople do seem rather fringish at times, but everyone except the old calendarists/traditionalists still consider him Orthodox.

 

[pensateomnia]

Pen,

Always good to read your input.  That "name worshipping heresy" was not the whole community of Mt. Athos, though.  Just a few monks in the Russian section. 

Both letters written to the EP, 1993 and 1999, were representative of the Athos community writ large, and therefore official guidance. 

It's important because this official guidance is claiming to be the soul of Orthodoxy.  If Athos official guidance has been wrong before, we can dismiss the monks as being simple zealots.  But if not, then Orthodox need to sit up straight and pay close attention to what they are warning against, and in fact, side with them.

To everyone: Are there Orthodox who believe after Rome was separated, Athos more or less took her place as an entity that needs to "sign off" in the Orthodox decision making process?  (I am aware there are also Orthodox who believe that only after time/reception can we know if a doctrine is true, i.e. 1848 Patriarchal Encyclical). 

-K

It's impossible for Athos to give "official guidance." The idea makes no sense, ecclesiologically or otherwise. And it's actually uncanonical for monks of any locale to claim or perform a public teaching role of any kind. But you don't see monks paying attention to those canons!!

 

[pensateomnia]

Regarding the Name Worshippers in particular: Partisans were largely Russians (including *hundreds* of monks on Mt Athos), but the ideas spread throughout the Orthodox world, precisely because some people thought it had to be holy if it came from Mt Athos. In the grand scheme of things, it was a small movement, but it did require the Russian Imperial navy to erradicate.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

Greetings everyone,

The monks of Mt. Athos sent 2 letters to Patriarch Bartholomew condemning what they believe is Orthodox concessions to Roman Catholic heresy.  The monks spoke out in 1993 and then in 1999. 

1) Has the Patriarch replied? 
2) What is the opinion of the Russian and Jerusalem Patriarchs?   
3) Has Mount Athos ever found itself on the wrong side of a theological debate (Robber Council in 449, or in 754...)

Thank you,
-K

Yes he replied and tried to boot the monks out of esphigmenou monastery.  Even some were physically attacked.  Even the 90 year old monks were facing eviction who just wanted to live out their lives and pray.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pen,

Always good to read your input.  That "name worshipping heresy" was not the whole community of Mt. Athos, though.  Just a few monks in the Russian section. 

Both letters written to the EP, 1993 and 1999, were representative of the Athos community writ large, and therefore official guidance. 

It's important because this official guidance is claiming to be the soul of Orthodoxy.  If Athos official guidance has been wrong before, we can dismiss the monks as being simple zealots.  But if not, then Orthodox need to sit up straight and pay close attention to what they are warning against, and in fact, side with them.

To everyone: Are there Orthodox who believe after Rome was separated, Athos more or less took her place as an entity that needs to "sign off" in the Orthodox decision making process?  (I am aware there are also Orthodox who believe that only after time/reception can we know if a doctrine is true, i.e. 1848 Patriarchal Encyclical). 

-K

No.

 

[Kaste]

We need to take this more seriously.  Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong. 

On one hand, we have in 1993 Mount Athos collectively asking the Patriarch of Constantinople straightforward questions such as:
"We would like to put these questions to the Orthodox who signed this document [Balamand Agreement]:

1) Do the Filioque, [Papal] primacy and infallibility, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and created grace constitute an apostolic confession? Despite all of this, is it possible for us as Orthodox to recognize as apostolic, the faith and confession of the Roman Catholics?

2) Do these serious theological deviations of Rome amount to heresies or not?

3) If they are, as they have been described by Orthodox Councils and Fathers, do they not result in the invalidity of the mysteries and the apostolic succession of heterodox and cacodox of this kind?

4) Is it possible for the fullness of grace to exist where there is not the fullness of truth?"
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_bal.aspx

Pen, I assume the Patriarch's response you refer to is his 2010 encyclical?  If so, aside from it being 17 years late, the Patriarch was slack in his duty to provide answers to any of the above critical and legitimate questions:
http://www.gsinai.com/rw/articles/articles_home_files/100221RedHerring.php

K

 

[Severian]

Could someone fully explain to me the name-worshiping heresy and why it is considered as such?

EDIT: Thank you

 

[pensateomnia]

Could someone fully explain to me the name-worshiping heresy and why it is considered as such? In our own Coptic OO Liturgy we address the Lord saying that we "serve thy Holy Name."

It's complicated, but, basically, the idea came from an intense devotion to the Jesus Prayer, to the point that it was believed that the Name itself, Jesus, is divine.

 

[dzheremi]

I can't explain it, but I can link to the Wikipedia page about it. I don't think it's anything like what we say in the liturgy, unless there's some point in the liturgy where we equate the name (as in the phonological sounds that make up the name) with God Himself...

...which would just be silly!

 

[Asteriktos]

We need to take this more seriously.

I already took it seriously. Like a decade ago. Nothing new here for many of us.

Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong. 

Let's say they're right. They're still in communion with the Pat. of Constantinople. So... where does that leave you? Getting riled up about something that you can't do anything about and shouldn't do anything about?

 

[pensateomnia]

We need to take this more seriously.  Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong. 

It's hard to see it that way, as Athos has remained in communion with Orthodox churches that receive Latin priests through vesting -- and have done so for centuries. Clearly it's not an either/or thing, even for them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

We need to take this more seriously.  Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong. 

On one hand, we have in 1993 Mount Athos collectively asking the Patriarch of Constantinople straightforward questions such as:
"We would like to put these questions to the Orthodox who signed this document [Balamand Agreement]:

1) Do the Filioque, [Papal] primacy and infallibility, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and created grace constitute an apostolic confession? Despite all of this, is it possible for us as Orthodox to recognize as apostolic, the faith and confession of the Roman Catholics?

2) Do these serious theological deviations of Rome amount to heresies or not?

3) If they are, as they have been described by Orthodox Councils and Fathers, do they not result in the invalidity of the mysteries and the apostolic succession of heterodox and cacodox of this kind?

4) Is it possible for the fullness of grace to exist where there is not the fullness of truth?"
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/athos_bal.aspx

Pen, I assume the Patriarch's response you refer to is his 2010 encyclical?  If so, aside from it being 17 years late, the Patriarch was slack in his duty to provide answers to any of the above critical and legitimate questions:
http://www.gsinai.com/rw/articles/articles_home_files/100221RedHerring.php

K

The Patriarch's response is in not being in communion with Rome. If he truly believed those silly positions, he would have left Orthodoxy long ago for a nice cozy position as a cardinal in Rome, I am sure.

 

[Seth84]

We need to take this more seriously.  Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong. 

I'm sure the Athonite Community is right about some things and wrong about some things.  I'm sure the Ecumenical Patriarchate is right about some things and wrong about some things.  I'm sure there are some things that both agree on and are wrong about.  Bishops and monks have been fighting each other for centuries, sometimes to the point of violence.  It is nothing new. 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

We need to take this more seriously.

Why?

Either Athos is right about Orthodoxy or it is wrong.

Kinduva line in the sand, don't you think? Not a very nuanced line in the sand, either.

Pen, I assume the Patriarch's response you refer to is his 2010 encyclical?  If so, aside from it being 17 years late, the Patriarch was slack in his duty to provide answers to any of the above critical and legitimate questions:

Duty? Does the EP have an intrinsic duty to satisfy you?

 

[JamesRottnek]

Why are people expending so much effort to answer a "member of the invisible church," when he appears to be engaging in troll-like activity?

 

[Kaste]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

K

 

[FatherHLL]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

K

But I distinctly remember watching Benedict's visit to the Phanar a few years back on EWTN.  HAH Pat. Bartholomew expressly listed several things on which Rome differs from us and then remarked that we cannot but view these things as HERESY and that heresy must be abandoned before union is possible.  The EWTN commentators (Ray Arroyo was one) then commented on their disappointment as to what he said. 

 

[podkarpatska]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

K

But I distinctly remember watching Benedict's visit to the Phanar a few years back on EWTN.  HAH Pat. Bartholomew expressly listed several things on which Rome differs from us and then remarked that we cannot but view these things as HERESY and that heresy must be abandoned before union is possible.  The EWTN commentators (Ray Arroyo was one) then commented on their disappointment as to what he said. 

Thank you Father!

It seems that while everyone here is entitled to an opinion, some seem to think that they are entitled to their own set of facts as well.  There is a haven for those who feel so strongly about some of these issues and it is, at least as perceived by those of us belonging to  the Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates and Moscow, a place separated by its own free will and choice from the canonical Church.

 

[Second Chance]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

K

But I distinctly remember watching Benedict's visit to the Phanar a few years back on EWTN.  HAH Pat. Bartholomew expressly listed several things on which Rome differs from us and then remarked that we cannot but view these things as HERESY and that heresy must be abandoned before union is possible.  The EWTN commentators (Ray Arroyo was one) then commented on their disappointment as to what he said. 

Thank you Father!

It seems that while everyone here is entitled to an opinion, some seem to think that they are entitled to their own set of facts as well.  There is a haven for those who feel so strongly about some of these issues and it is, at least as perceived by those of us belonging to  the Churches in communion with the ancient Patriarchates and Moscow, a place separated by its own free will and choice from the canonical Church.

Your's is a hard saying, but it is so true. Prayers all around.

 

[ialmisry]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

ah, the invisible church reappears.

There is no such thing as Bekkos Orthodoxy.  So it can't be right.

Of course, EP St. Photius is a pillar of Orthodoxy.  So it can't be wrong.

And the Vatican is heretical, but Rome

is not.

 

[podkarpatska]

Pen and Ast:

Just because the Athos monks are still in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not mean they should cease proclaiming what they believe to be heresy.  In fact they are duty bound to do so right up until they are ex-communicated. 

In other words, their communion with Orthodox leadership searching for an answer does not change the fact that the monks may be right.  And if Athos is right, they should be followed.  Is Rome heretical or not?, as the monks asked the Patriarch to answer.  Athos believes Rome is heretical.  The Orthodox Patriarchs used to know what they believed as their 1895 Encyclical states. 

By the way, the Athos monks aren't against "dialogue" as the Patriarch tried to make it sound in order to deflect from having to provide an answer to the monks.  They simply wanted reassurance that the Patriarch is not allowing ecumenicism to change what was already settled. 

Cav,
I disagree.  the EP called Athos' concerns "unfounded" and "unacceptable".  He is clearly searching for the easiest way to unite with Rome.  Maybe they like eating chocolate cake in Ravenna or drinking sparkling wine in Cyprus, or maybe these Orthodox bishops really do believe Orthodoxy had it wrong all this time about Rome.  One must take a side (yes, even while still in communion with the EP) if one desires to live in and protect Orthodoxy.  The line is already drawn. 

Which Orthodoxy is right: Photian Orthodoxy or Bekkos Orthodoxy. 

ah, the invisible church reappears.

There is no such thing as Bekkos Orthodoxy.  So it can't be right.

Of course, EP St. Photius is a pillar of Orthodoxy.  So it can't be wrong.

And the Vatican is heretical, but Rome

is not.

We haven't seen His Grace lately, was wondering how he is doing! lol

 

[Kaste]

Fr. HLL,

The most recent EP encyclicals from 2007 on up paint the Athos monks as bigots.  Please do provide a transcript of the EP stating Rome is in heresy. 

Pod,

Oh for the love of Pete, don't go insinuating that those reminding the EP Rome in heresy are going to hell, afterall, that wouldn't bode well for Ialmisery. 

This is nothing less than a fight for the soul of Orthodoxy.  If you agree with the Green EP's unwise statement that Athos' concern is unfounded, you should become Catholic.  Go read the 1848 and 1895 enclyclicals, then read Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters.  Then read the EP's humanist encyclicals.  There is one that even extolls the Roman deity Janus.  Shameful, but indicative of where his mind is.  The Archbishop of Cantebury is similar.  Needless to say the EP fawned over Rowan's visit to Phanar. 

If Athos is wrong then Orthodox going back to Photius were wrong. 

K

 

[pensateomnia]

Fr. HLL,

The most recent EP encyclicals from 2007 on up paint the Athos monks as bigots.  Please do provide a transcript of the EP stating Rome is in heresy.

The encyclical was directed toward Zealots, not Mt Athos in general.

It's clear you get your history and "facts" from internetdoxy. A very foolish thing.

 

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

So... where does that leave you? Getting riled up about something that you can't do anything can only pray about and shouldn't do anything should only pray about?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

 

[Asteriktos]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

So... where does that leave you? Getting riled up about something that you can't do anything can only pray about and shouldn't do anything should only pray about?

Nah. I stand by what I said.

 

[Second Chance]

Fr. HLL,

The most recent EP encyclicals from 2007 on up paint the Athos monks as bigots.  Please do provide a transcript of the EP stating Rome is in heresy. 

Pod,

Oh for the love of Pete, don't go insinuating that those reminding the EP Rome in heresy are going to hell, afterall, that wouldn't bode well for Ialmisery. 

This is nothing less than a fight for the soul of Orthodoxy.  If you agree with the Green EP's unwise statement that Athos' concern is unfounded, you should become Catholic.   Go read the 1848 and 1895 enclyclicals, then read Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters.  Then read the EP's humanist encyclicals.  There is one that even extolls the Roman deity Janus.  Shameful, but indicative of where his mind is.  The Archbishop of Cantebury is similar.  Needless to say the EP fawned over Rowan's visit to Phanar. 

If Athos is wrong then Orthodox going back to Photius were wrong. 

K

Kaste--It is one thing to express concerns about intra-Orthodox matters , it is another matter to set up yourself as the supreme authority on such matters. There is a thing called prelest in Russian and is wonderfully described below:

"Even a pious person is not immune to spiritual sickness if he does not have a wise guide -- either a living person or a spiritual writer. This sickness is called  prelest, or spiritual delusion, imagining oneself to be near to God and to the realm of the divine and supernatural. Even zealous ascetics in monasteries are sometimes subject to this delusion, but of course, laymen who are zealous in external struggles (podvigi) undergo it much more frequently. Surpassing their acquaintances in struggles of prayer and fasting, they imagine that they are seers of divine visions, or at least of dreams inspired by grace. In every event of their lives, they see special intentional directions from God or their guardian angel. And then they start imagining that they are God's elect, and often try to foretell the future. The Holy Fathers armed themselves against nothing so fiercely as against this sickness -- prelest. - Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky" http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-is-prelest.html

 

[FatherHLL]

Fr. HLL,

The most recent EP encyclicals from 2007 on up paint the Athos monks as bigots.  Please do provide a transcript of the EP stating Rome is in heresy. 

Pod,

Oh for the love of Pete, don't go insinuating that those reminding the EP Rome in heresy are going to hell, afterall, that wouldn't bode well for Ialmisery. 

This is nothing less than a fight for the soul of Orthodoxy.  If you agree with the Green EP's unwise statement that Athos' concern is unfounded, you should become Catholic.   Go read the 1848 and 1895 enclyclicals, then read Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters.  Then read the EP's humanist encyclicals.  There is one that even extolls the Roman deity Janus.  Shameful, but indicative of where his mind is.  The Archbishop of Cantebury is similar.  Needless to say the EP fawned over Rowan's visit to Phanar. 

If Athos is wrong then Orthodox going back to Photius were wrong. 

K

There is no transcript.  I will see if I can find youtube video

 

[Asteriktos]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

So... where does that leave you? Getting riled up about something that you can't do anything can only pray about and shouldn't do anything should only pray about?

Nah. I stand by what I said.

After further thought I realise this was the wrong reaction, and that you are correct.

 

[ialmisry]

Fr. HLL,

The most recent EP encyclicals from 2007 on up paint the Athos monks as bigots.  Please do provide a transcript of the EP stating Rome is in heresy.  

Pod,

Oh for the love of Pete, don't go insinuating that those reminding the EP Rome in heresy are going to hell, afterall, that wouldn't bode well for Ialmisery.  

This is nothing less than a fight for the soul of Orthodoxy.  If you agree with the Green EP's unwise statement that Athos' concern is unfounded, you should become Catholic.   Go read the 1848 and 1895 enclyclicals, then read Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters.  Then read the EP's humanist encyclicals.  There is one that even extolls the Roman deity Janus.  Shameful, but indicative of where his mind is.  The Archbishop of Cantebury is similar.  Needless to say the EP fawned over Rowan's visit to Phanar.  

If Athos is wrong then Orthodox going back to SAINTPhotius were wrong.  

K

Fixed that for you.

Why all this interest in the "invisible church" for Christ's Visible Church.  Btw, Catholic=Orthodox.

EP St. Photios the Pillar of Orthodoxy was, rather is, correct.

His grace Bp. Siluan of Rome and myself are in good hands, safe from heresy.  Thanks for the concern.

 

[mike]

His grace Bp. Siluan of Rome

He's not "of Rome" but "at Rome".

 

[Kaste]

Pen,

I fear you are not being entirely upfront.  You stated yourself the Patriarch did reply to Athos.  I submit to the members of this thread, the Patriarch's own letter: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/patriarchal-and-synodal-encyclical-on-the-sunday-of-orthodoxy 
If you take issue with this link, provide one of your own that corresponds to what you said was the Patriarch's reply.  And remember, Athos being in communion with other Orthodox that accept Latin priests via vesting only shows charity to misguided Orthodox and does not mean Athos is any less adamant Rome is in heresy, least of all commune with Rome directly. 

After reading Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters to the Patriarch, any diligent and reasonable reader of this thread will infer the Patriarch means to intimidate Athos and those like her, into submission.  Further the EP's tone unmasks his scorn for being questioned by critics like Athos.  I doubt the Patriarch of Moscow would have acted so rashly against critics of reunion. 

Members of this forum, ask yourselves why the Patriarch has not manfully answered Athos' questions.  Perhaps he knows that everything in their letters bears constant with Orthodox past.  Then ask what you would do if, without Rome changing anything except to fund more lavish ecumenical meetings, the EP decides that Catholics and Orthodox just misunderstood one another all this time and really are one Church and that you can start communing: would you follow the EP or Athos? 

For a Church that hails SS. Photius and Mark of Ephesus as proud defenders of Orthodoxy against Latin innovations, and whose identity to a large extent stems from these pillars, I am surprised that more Orthodox are not supporting Athos. 

K

 

[JamesRottnek]

Pen,

I fear you are not being entirely upfront.  You stated yourself the Patriarch did reply to Athos.  I submit to the members of this thread, the Patriarch's own letter: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/patriarchal-and-synodal-encyclical-on-the-sunday-of-orthodoxy   
If you take issue with this link, provide one of your own that corresponds to what you said was the Patriarch's reply.  And remember, Athos being in communion with other Orthodox that accept Latin priests via vesting only shows charity to misguided Orthodox and does not mean Athos is any less adamant Rome is in heresy, least of all commune with Rome directly. 

After reading Athos' 1993 and 1999 letters to the Patriarch, any diligent and reasonable reader of this thread will infer the Patriarch means to intimidate Athos and those like her, into submission.  Further the EP's tone unmasks his scorn for being questioned by critics like Athos.  I doubt the Patriarch of Moscow would have acted so rashly against critics of reunion. 

Members of this forum, ask yourselves why the Patriarch has not manfully answered Athos' questions.  Perhaps he knows that everything in their letters bears constant with Orthodox past.  Then ask what you would do if, without Rome changing anything except to fund more lavish ecumenical meetings, the EP decides that Catholics and Orthodox just misunderstood one another all this time and really are one Church and that you can start communing: would you follow the EP or Athos? 

For a Church that hails SS. Photius and Mark of Ephesus as proud defenders of Orthodoxy against Latin innovations, and whose identity to a large extent stems from these pillars, I am surprised that more Orthodox are not supporting Athos. 

K

Why are, a member of "The Invisible Church" trying to dictate to the Body of Christ how they are supposed to operate and relate with one another?

 

[ialmisry]

Members of this forum, ask yourselves why the Patriarch has not manfully answered Athos' questions. 

A better question has been asked:

Why are, a member of "The Invisible Church" trying to dictate to the Body of Christ how they are supposed to operate and relate with one another?