Depends . The USA already staked there flag on Mars. That falls under the barbarian lands. Pretty large jurisdiction I must say.
Further obsession on the Pentarchy of the 1st millennium only serves the tendentious papal claims of the Phanar. It’s more outdated than their obsession over Russia having claimed 3rd Rome status half a millennium ago (and not since). At this point they only use it to adumbrate this notion of ‘fully autocephalous‘ churches vs. ‘junior/provisional autocephalous’ whose autocephaly could be revoked by fiat, uniquely accorded the Phanar. In pursuit of this false dichotomy and exalted, exaggerated primacy they even floated the notion of rescinding Moscow’s Tomos of autocephaly. This is particularly amusing since Moscow obtained it after about a century of functional autonomy after the fall of C’ple to Mehmet Yıldırım.
There are no ‘barbarian lands’ and you constant recourse to this trope is tiresome. The context in which the canon was written defines its relevance, and that situation is long gone. There is no Christian Empire and no barbarian people. To continue to claim that IV c. politics and ethnic notions still prevail defines an ecclesiological intransigence peculiar to a nonfunctional Patriarchate in search of possible relevance in a world that changed half a millennium ago. As the kids say these days, ‘Cope’.
If we listen to you, we may as well rewrite all the canons to serve special interests.
What about the part that says Old Rome has privileges? Should we keep using that one too?
Are you sure about that?
When I was a catechumen in the OCA, I asked the priest that same question. "Because we're waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy." I think that was a big part of my decision not to go through with becoming Orthodox. I was already questioning Orthodoxy's position on the papal claims, and that kind of confirmed for me that there was at least some truth to them that Orthodoxy wasn't willing to accept. Even though this was this priest's personal opinion, it showed he implicitly acknowledged a primacy in Rome that has more substance than just honor - even if Rome makes more of it than is there.
I see you are addicted to the slippery slope fallacy. It’s very clear that not all canons are relevant and useful. Do you avoid Jewish doctors?
I don't disagree. Most of the immigrants in my parish do speak English in various degrees.
People can pray privately in whatever language they like. I'm saying i don't think it's right if they tried to get rid of the priest and force the language preference on everyone else.
And many people in Ukraine, for better or worse, think the same about Slavonic as opposed to Ukrainian.
Within Orthodox (and Late Antique) canon law, where the Council of Carthage is in force, Rome's rights don't even extend to directly hearing appeals from North Africa. Likewise, historically Canon 28 of Chalcedon was read as limiting Constantinople's authority, because it explicitly denies the patriarch the right, normal in other patriarchates, to ordain (and so implicitly, to judge) the bishops below his metropolitans.
I can accept that the immediacy claimed by Rome of its primacy is at least imprudent, if not altogether invented. But Rome either is the court of final appeals, or it is not. If it is, then there must be some kind of authority there over the other bishops that even they are unable to annul. If they could, then Rome would never be able to claim the final say. So if Rome's rights don't extend to directly hearing appeals, does that also deny it the right to hear final appeals, specifically, after Carthage exhausted all of its own effort first and was unable to resolve an issue on its own? Isn't this the Orthodox understanding of the proper role of the bishop of Rome outside of his own diocese?
Probably not, but I certainly wouldnt debate moses about the contents of the tablets he brought down from Mt Sinai.
You're conflating the right to *hear* appeals with jurisdiction (court of final appeals), and as you admit, the claim to Rome's immediate jurisdiction is either imprudent or an innovation. This isn't a perfect example but think of it as the Church pentarchy was like a board of directors. Rome was the chairman. If other board members had a problem with each other, they could appeal to him *voluntarily* to resolve the situation without need for further disputation. However if the chairman claimed to make unilateral decisions for the board without permission, he would be fired by the CEO.
I've always heard Orthodox refer to Rome as the court of final appeals in reference to its role in the Church of the first millennium. If they were wrong in ascribing that to Rome, ok. My thinking was that if Rome has any capacity to make a final decision for the rest of the Church, that implies some kind of authority. Logic doesn't require it to be carried to infallibility or immediate, supreme jurisdiction. And if an ecumenical council can annul that decision, again ok. But short of an ecumenical council annulling a papal decision, does Orthodoxy recognize *any* right or ability to hear appeals that it doesn't recognize in any other see? If Rome does have any final authority, however minimal it may be in comparison to its modern claims, that represents substantive authority. Can another bishop annul a papal decision without the support of an ecumenical council in Orthodox ecclesiology (and by this, I mean a decision made in the context of acting as an appellate judge; not one that is merely interference in the ordinary administration of another diocese)? I don't know the answer to this question.
I find this statement impossible to prove. All languages suit their speakers and are capable of conveying all that is necessary for discourse on any given topic, providing sufficient experience with it exists in that language community. Loan words suffice to fill the gap. In the OCA, for example we use Theotokos without confusion.
That reads pretty silly to me. Slavs in general weren't a particularly cultured kind of people before being illumined in the waters of the Dnepr, quite the opposite actually. I guess as the faith permeates every aspect of the soul and the culture of a people the language develops into finding expressions for the transformative power of God's grace. It works the same in the other direction though: German is deemed pretty expressive in a lot of different ways, yet the semantics of religious and philosophical terminology are usually pretty one-sided and heretical in their implications.
The Russians have a saying, “all heresy comes from the Germans”.
Russians are a cocky know it all bunch.
. Next round he joined in and shoot like 2 clays out of 25. Mean while I shoot 24 out of 25. I hope that doesn't represent the whole country.
Немец, ‘non-speaker’. Those who don’t speak ‘language’ which is Russian. Same as βάρβαροι, ‘those who say var-var’ among Greeks. Just an expression of xenophobia that both cultures use to define their boundaries and valorize their chauvinism.
Racism?Russians are a cocky know it all bunch.
I was recently at a sporting clay shooting event, fundraiser. The Russian clay thrower, operator was trying to correct my shooting
No, Vodka
About the sides. Perhaps it will be interesting:
and http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5837973.html ,
I read Abp. Elpidophoros make the claim that the CP is both first among equals and first without equals.
Whoa there. Just because the EOs do not want to appoint an EO bishop in Rome because they honor Rome as a Patriarchy does not entail that the EOs consider Rome to be the Primus Sine Pares Uber Alles like the Roman Popes and now P. Bartholomew hold themselves out to be.
Both English and Slavic have pagan and Christian elements.
I want to hear more from you, Samn, and Stinky, about why Canon 9 of Chalcedon does not give Constantinople universal appellate jurisdiction. On one hand, it sounds like it could give a clergyman the option to appeal there. But on the other, that interpretation sounds unreasonable based on several factors. For instance, that canon 9 lists the levels to which clergy can appeal, but never lists the patriarchal level, except the CP's level. The implication of this silence seems to be that the CP is only mentioned as an analogy for the patriarchal level.