Problem with the upcoming "ecumenical" do in Jerusalem?

[Second Chance]

I found this You Tube video on Facebook and the GOARCH site, where Archimandrite Dr. Symeonides discusses the Apostolic Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, May 24-26, 2014. Interesting approach, but he lost me when he referred to it as ""the meeting between two great men of THE church..." I had thought that there is one Church (ours) and not a Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that also contained the Roman Catholic Church. What gives here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NBEdB3E5_0&feature=youtu.be

Here is what a Google search gave me:

"On September 16, 2013, Archbishop Demetrios of America appointed the Very Rev. Archimandrite Dr. Nathanael Symeonides to the position of Director of the Office of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations. Fr. Nathanael was born in Thessaloniki, Greece, and is a 2000 Graduate of Hellenic College and a 2003 Graduate of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. He holds a ThD in Bioethics from Boston University, and a MS from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. He was ordained a Deacon by His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios in 2003 and a Presbyter by the Archbishop in 2010. He served as the Deacon to the Archbishop from 2006-2010 and as the pastor of the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church, NYC since 2010."
http://www.goarch.org/news/symeonides-09302013

 

[Nephi]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions. 

 

[Nephi]

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions.

Agreed. The lack of clarity of the EP's position on the RCC plays itself out repeatedly in the comments every time the GOARCH Facebook makes one of those posts. Needless to say it causes no small amount of confusion and possibly scandal.

 

[vasily]

Lack of clarity?  It is pretty obvious.I think it is quite clear the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch concerning the Vatican. There have been many meetings between the two in the past years. GOARCH website and newspaper have taken a "middle of the road" approach, instead of a more tradition Orthodox stance. I have personally been vehemently against the Patriarch's actions, on their website and paper. My opinions have never been addressed in their op section and I have yet to get any type of response.

 

[primuspilus]

The lack of clarity of the EP's position on the RCC

The lack of clarity says volumes.

PP

 

[ialmisry]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions. 

Exactly.
In the interest of full disclosure, if the Phanar was really all it claimed, I'd cancel the meeting as a rebuff to the Patriarch of Jerusalem for his antics in the Patriarchate of Antioch.  But since the Phanar is really an ethnarchy, proceed.

 

[ialmisry]

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions.

Agreed. The lack of clarity of the EP's position on the RCC plays itself out repeatedly in the comments every time the GOARCH Facebook makes one of those posts. Needless to say it causes no small amount of confusion and possibly scandal.

I posted this on the GOARCH FB:

 

[Antonis]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions. 

A somewhat recent publication of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate had a picture of HAH Bartholomew and Pope Francis together with the very large caption of "the two lungs of the Church."

 

[ialmisry]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions. 

A somewhat recent publication of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate had a picture of HAH Bartholomew and Pope Francis together with the very large caption of "the two lungs of the Church."

that church (not capitalized) has emphysema.

 

[Antonis]

Everything coming out of GOARCH sources lately is like this. It's pretty much all near-explicitly affirming that the RCC is equally the Church, alongside the constantly repeated idea that this "Apostolic Pilgrimage" is a coming together of two equal "spiritual leaders" striving to reunite the "divided Church." They're likewise blowing up Facebook about all this, including the championing of their beloved "Reconciliation Icon," and the widely-publicized RC-EP ecumenical services, etc.

As ecumenical as I can be at times, even I find a lot of their language and behavior disconcerting.

It would be interesting to see if the official position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (and those Churches usually "aligned" with her) towards the Roman Catholic Church is more or less the position of the RCC re: the Orthodox Church as laid out in Dominus Iesus.  If that is how they see it, I think they should come out and say so (arguably, such a case could be made).  But I don't see the point in so much propaganda while ignoring substantial questions. 

A somewhat recent publication of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate had a picture of HAH Bartholomew and Pope Francis together with the very large caption of "the two lungs of the Church."

that church (not capitalized) has emphysema.

That's exactly what my priest said.

 

[Second Chance]

Looks like the two most powerful churches in the Orthodox world are on a collision course with repeating historic fails (as the kids say nowadays). The ROC is toying with being the state religion of the Russian Empire again, while Constantinople is toying with expanding her role as the Sultan's Ethnarch to becoming a quasi-Pope. Good thing I am in the United States.

 

[Sirach]

At 1:35 in the video Archimandrite Symeonides says, "We hope and pray that we can go from dialogue to cooperation and hopefully, God willing one day, enter a period of communion."

I am not sure what to make of this statement.  After the words dialogue, cooperation, and communion he states a Greek word for each of those words.  It sounds like the word for cooperation is “liturgia” liturgy (?), but I don’t know.  The word for communion is koinonia.

Do the Greek words he uses give us any idea of the fuller meaning of the above sentence?

 

[primuspilus]

Looks like the two most powerful churches in the Orthodox world are on a collision course with repeating historic fails (as the kids say nowadays). The ROC is toying with being the state religion of the Russian Empire again, while Constantinople is toying with expanding her role as the Sultan's Ethnarch to becoming a quasi-Pope. Good thing I am in the United States.

Ill just stay nice and happy in Antioch.

PP

 

[Regnare]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

 

[podkarpatska]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

 

[katherineofdixie]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

QFT!

 

[ialmisry]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

of course: the local Arab Christians were shut out long ago.

 

[Second Chance]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

I do not want to start a tangent here, but since you are an inquirer, my short answer would be no.

 

[Second Chance]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

You are saying that the offensive language and even the two principals  in this kumbaya moment signify nothing. Nothing at all? I happen to think that, at the very least, the "two lungs" and "one church" assertions may be used to deep six the scheduled pan-Orthodox Council. I hope that Constantinople can find a way to get back on course after the event because, if she is intent on pursuing this course, she will prove true the critics of the Ravenna Declaration and push the various churches to consider if she is falling into a heresy.

 

[Luke]

I watched the video.   Very Rev. Archimandrite Dr. Nathanael Symeonides is just stressing dialog, which is good.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

I do not want to start a tangent here, but since you are an inquirer, my short answer would be no.

And as an Old Calendarist, my short answer would be yes.

 

[katherineofdixie]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

You are saying that the offensive language and even the two principals  in this kumbaya moment signify nothing. Nothing at all? I happen to think that, at the very least, the "two lungs" and "one church" assertions may be used to deep six the scheduled pan-Orthodox Council. I hope that Constantinople can find a way to get back on course after the event because, if she is intent on pursuing this course, she will prove true the critics of the Ravenna Declaration and push the various churches to consider if she is falling into a heresy.

No. The EP is actually very committed to the Council. AFAIK, of course, since His All-Holiness doesn't confide in me, but what I have heard it is. People misspeak all the time - give them the benefit of the doubt. Is dialog really so bad? Nothing much ever seems to come of it anyway.

 

[podkarpatska]

I watched the video.   Very Rev. Archimandrite Dr. Nathanael Symeonides is just stressing dialog, which is good.

I agree. It takes a heck of a lot of fevered imagination to read "the sky is falling" into this priest's rather pious (and drawn out) exhortation.

I guess some of you are awaiting the "Octave of Holy Brick Throwing" if you're a RCC and the "Akathist Prayer for Angry Polemics" if you're Orthodox. Take a deep breath, the sky isnt falling.

Whatever. After rewatching tbe video, I completely stand by my earlier post regarding "kumbaya" moments, photo-ops and souvenirs.

 

[Second Chance]

To me its merely window dressing; a great big, feel good, "kumbaya" moment making for a good photo op. But in the end, after much sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I'm sure the local Arab Muslim entrepreneurs will make good money selling cold water and kitschy souvenirs.

You are saying that the offensive language and even the two principals  in this kumbaya moment signify nothing. Nothing at all? I happen to think that, at the very least, the "two lungs" and "one church" assertions may be used to deep six the scheduled pan-Orthodox Council. I hope that Constantinople can find a way to get back on course after the event because, if she is intent on pursuing this course, she will prove true the critics of the Ravenna Declaration and push the various churches to consider if she is falling into a heresy.

No. The EP is actually very committed to the Council. AFAIK, of course, since His All-Holiness doesn't confide in me, but what I have heard it is. People misspeak all the time - give them the benefit of the doubt. Is dialog really so bad? Nothing much ever seems to come of it anyway.

I will refrain from further criticism only because of your and podkarpatska's optimism and because I really respect your opinions.

 

[rakovsky]

At this point it is just a sign or bad sound. If it comes out in an official statement by the EP, it would be much more troubling. That said, people are free to use OC.net and other forums to explain the Orthodox teaching.

 

[Regnare]

At this point it is just a sign or bad sound. If it comes out in an official statement by the EP, it would be much more troubling.

That's true, but at the same time, the EP (among other churches) have had this happen so many times to them in exhortations to dialogue and "Agreements" of various kinds that they really should have officially repudiated this branch theory-esque rhetoric by now.

 

[Sirach]

At this point it is just a sign or bad sound. If it comes out in an official statement by the EP, it would be much more troubling. That said, people are free to use OC.net and other forums to explain the Orthodox teaching.

Although not a reference to the OP event, in his May 2014 welcome to the "study group" that came to discuss "Benedict XVI And Orthodoxy,” the Ecumenical Patriarch does not seem to draw a clear distinction between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

"Benedict XVI proved faithful to the tradition of the Church and of theological witness before the existential pursuits and challenges of our time."

"The entire journey of Pope Benedict is characterized by stability and unwavering devotion to the fundamental ecclesiological principles and by complete dedication to the Church."

"The message that emerges from the impressive ecclesiastical and theological work of Pope Benedict is the creative coexistence of the offering of the Church and the study of theology."

When the EP mentions Pope Benedict and "the Church" together in the sentences he does not qualify it by including the word Roman or Catholic.  This would seem to be at least some kind of indicator that he holds Catholicism and Orthodoxy on a par.

However, it should be noted that the one time that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are mentioned in the same sentence the EP is a little more circumspect:  "On the ecumenical movement, Pope Benedict gave particular emphasis to the theological dialogue of Roman Catholicism with the Orthodox Church."  Note that only the Orthodox are referred to as a Church.

Source:  Patriarchate.org

 

[Shanghaiski]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

 

[Shanghaiski]

At this point it is just a sign or bad sound. If it comes out in an official statement by the EP, it would be much more troubling.

That's true, but at the same time, the EP (among other churches) have had this happen so many times to them in exhortations to dialogue and "Agreements" of various kinds that they really should have officially repudiated this branch theory-esque rhetoric by now.

To my knowledge, no Orthodox jurisdiction has officially or unofficially accepted branch theory. This ecumenist show is just more idiotic fluff for PR and unicorns.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

 

[Cyrus]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

There is no documentation from 1924 about any grievance of Ecumenism, nor in 1935.  The Old Calendarists were just fine with the Ecumenism of the early 1900's, in fact, one of their heros, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was not only the first EP Mason, but in his letters to his brother bishops considers the changing of the calendar, and this was well before 1924.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_III_of_Constantinople

 

[Maria]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

There is no documentation from 1924 about any grievance of Ecumenism, nor in 1935.  The Old Calendarists were just fine with the Ecumenism of the early 1900's, in fact, one of their heros, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was not only the first EP Mason, but in his letters to his brother bishops considers the changing of the calendar, and this was well before 1924.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_III_of_Constantinople

First EP Mason? Where is your proof?
The link makes no reference to Masonry, nor to his so-called popularity with Old Calendarists.

 

[Nephi]

Here's part two of the 8-episode miniseries about the "Apostolic Pilgrimage."

"... devoted to the Christian faith, whether Orthodox or Catholic."

Pretty strange emphasis there.

"We have unity, we have union, we want to come to communion, a sense of oneness of Christ."

Hmm...

"And I think that both of these spiritual leaders, heads of the state, they are part of the ancient, Christian, undivided Body of Christ. Like John Paul II said, 'two lungs of the same body.'"

Well, then.

 

[DeniseDenise]

The title of this thread...



makes it sound like they cancelled the dancing or something....

 

[Maria]

The title of this thread...



makes it sound like they cancelled the dancing or something....

Like in a fancy hair-do for the prom?

 

[Jonathan Gress]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

There is no documentation from 1924 about any grievance of Ecumenism, nor in 1935.  The Old Calendarists were just fine with the Ecumenism of the early 1900's, in fact, one of their heros, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was not only the first EP Mason, but in his letters to his brother bishops considers the changing of the calendar, and this was well before 1924.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_III_of_Constantinople

"Ecumenism" was not a term in vogue at the time, which is why you won't find it mentioned. But the context of the reform, i.e. the desire for rapprochement with the West on the part of the Venizelist faction in Greece and their supporters in the Phanar, establishes the ulterior motive. Even if you don't find that argument watertight, it is still by no means obvious that the calendar reform and what would later become known as ecumenism were unrelated phenomena, and if you look at what happened subsequently, i.e. the fact that it was the reforming jurisdictions that spearheaded the involvement of the Orthodox Church in ecumenism, then our case looks more plausible.

In what way was Patriarch Joachim considered a "hero"? And suggesting a calendar change is one thing, actually changing it in an anti-canonical fashion is another.

 

[ialmisry]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

There is no documentation from 1924 about any grievance of Ecumenism, nor in 1935.  The Old Calendarists were just fine with the Ecumenism of the early 1900's, in fact, one of their heros, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was not only the first EP Mason, but in his letters to his brother bishops considers the changing of the calendar, and this was well before 1924.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_III_of_Constantinople

"Ecumenism" was not a term in vogue at the time, which is why you won't find it mentioned. But the context of the reform, i.e. the desire for rapprochement with the West on the part of the Venizelist faction in Greece and their supporters in the Phanar, establishes the ulterior motive. Even if you don't find that argument watertight, it is still by no means obvious that the calendar reform and what would later become known as ecumenism were unrelated phenomena, and if you look at what happened subsequently, i.e. the fact that it was the reforming jurisdictions that spearheaded the involvement of the Orthodox Church in ecumenism, then our case looks more plausible.

In what way was Patriarch Joachim considered a "hero"? And suggesting a calendar change is one thing, actually changing it in an anti-canonical fashion is another.

for one thing, they swallow the erroneous Tomos the Phanar issued under HAH in 1908.

 

[Maria]

This is probably too polemical a comment to make here, but isn't this exactly the reason that the Old Calendarist movement existed in the first place? Because they were worried this sort of thing would happen?

No, actually. The Old Calendarist movement began over the calendar. The issue/excuse of ecumenism was added later.

You are assuming that the calendar issue and ecumenism are unrelated, which we dispute.

There is no documentation from 1924 about any grievance of Ecumenism, nor in 1935.  The Old Calendarists were just fine with the Ecumenism of the early 1900's, in fact, one of their heros, Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was not only the first EP Mason, but in his letters to his brother bishops considers the changing of the calendar, and this was well before 1924.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joachim_III_of_Constantinople

"Ecumenism" was not a term in vogue at the time, which is why you won't find it mentioned. But the context of the reform, i.e. the desire for rapprochement with the West on the part of the Venizelist faction in Greece and their supporters in the Phanar, establishes the ulterior motive. Even if you don't find that argument watertight, it is still by no means obvious that the calendar reform and what would later become known as ecumenism were unrelated phenomena, and if you look at what happened subsequently, i.e. the fact that it was the reforming jurisdictions that spearheaded the involvement of the Orthodox Church in ecumenism, then our case looks more plausible.

In what way was Patriarch Joachim considered a "hero"? And suggesting a calendar change is one thing, actually changing it in an anti-canonical fashion is another.

for one thing, they swallow the erroneous Tomos the Phanar issued under HAH in 1908.

Who is they? It is bolded above.