www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The East and the West

That figure includes non-monastic "civilians", who also live on the peninusla. The current issue of National Geographic has an article on Mount Athos, which gives the figures I cited.

National Geographic has been rather kind to the Orthodox this year for some odd reason. Maybe we are just so picturesque

National Geographic, December 2009
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/athos/draper-text

Athonite Monasticism at the Dawn of the Second Millennium

An article which deals with Athonite statistics and which is overall a wonderfully inspiring article (with photos of some of the hermits.)

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Athonite_Hermits/

ALICE:

Yes, the Orthodox people I have had contact with are Russian in tradition. They've also been members of very small communities where perhaps the sense of being the last ones left has been poart of the equation.

On the other hand, I have encountered no end of Catholics who ask the question "What do we have to do?" and who always seem to resort to the knee-jerk position of "We don't have to do that."

BOB

Bob,

that's the exact same mentality as many Russian Orthodox in Alaska. It's so pervasive, that Bishop Nikolai used to invite the paper to do an article at the start of Phillips Fast and Great Fast, so that the rules on fasting would make it to the lax laity as well.

And there is a sign of Orthodoxy that is readily visible: most wear a 3-bar cross. Just as most Catholics wear a crucifix or a devotional medal. Devout or Lax, or in between, it's readily apparent.

Plus, even many lax Orthodox have icons at home, or even at work. And the waiting to open presents until 6 Jan is a pretty good tell, as well.

We seem to be getting off track but it's been a good learning experience. That's why I came here--to expand my experience.

On the other hand, I think the fact that each synod within the Orthodox autocephalous Churches has taken a very active role in the dialgue and any final outcome speaks volumes as to the difference between how the Churches opearte and how they perceive that dialogue on issues dividing us should be handled. I don't really think that the Wetern mind grasps this and that's what prompted my first observation.

BOB

Dear Bob,

I can see that the thread has been sidetracked - something which happens with all threads in all forum. But I think that you are right on the money with what you wrote in your first two posts and it is an important consideration in the bi-lateral dialogue.

Cardinal Kasper came to the same realisation with his somewhat exasperated comment that "The Orthodox Church Does Not Really Exist' !!

The Vatican would like to be able to treat the Patriarch of Constantinople as a "pope-like" figure. I suppose that if this were accomplished it would 1) make the ecumenical dialogue easier and, 2) make the transition easier to accepting the universal authority of the Pope of Rome.

There was that extraordinary statement from Cardinal Kasper: "The Orthodox Church does not really exist" !!!

His exact words were: "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist"

On the face of it, it's a rather unusual lapse in good manners and diplomacy by the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Of course, what he probably had in mind and wanted to say was that he wishes that the Orthodox had the same ecclesiological paradigm of "church" as his own does. This would make ecumenical business so much easier if it were so, if we were all moulded in the Roman Catholic mould, if we had a centralised authority in Istanbul to whom the whole Church were obedient. But the fact is that the "structure" of the Orthodox Church (maybe better to say Churches) is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a small essay penned in response to the Cardinal's moment of confusion. I don't know if he has ever seen it but it may help towards mutual understanding...

An Orthodox Reply to the Opinion of Cardinal Walter Kasper:
'The Orthodox Church does not really exist.'
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/cardinal.htm

Is it just possible that the Cardinal was telling the world that finally they have slowly come to realise there are a number of Orthodox Churches, each with it's own leader and not one Church with one leader and Rome needs to engage with them all.

Just a thought.

I recommend Meyendorff's book Imperial Unity, for those who think the Patriarch of Constantinople is nothing more than a figurehead. The phenomenon of multiple, autocephalous patriarchal Churches is a product mainly of 19th century nationalism, and has nothing to do with the Tradition and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. The refusal of so many Orthodox jurisdictions to come to grips with this historical reality resembles nothing less than the pouting rejoinder of a petulant child, "You're not the boss of me!"

This is what Fr Andrew Philips says in the article I referenced, in his usual upfront way....

"This statement by a senior Vatican official once more goes to prove how little the Orthodox Church even today is understood in Rome. The very basics of Orthodox ecclesiology, the Orthodox understanding of the Church, and beyond that, the Orthodox teachings on the Holy Trinity and the Holy Spirit, are still novelties to the mind of the Vatican."

It's a point which chimes with Bob's reason for starting this thread.

I think that it would be absolutely brilliant for the Church of Russia to voluntarily relinquish its autonomy and return to being a daughter Church of Constanstaninople.

That would bring the 180 Russian bishops into the Synod of Constantinople...

Guess what nationality the next Patriarch of Constantinople will be?

Long may he reign....Patriarch Ivan Russkie I of Constantinople.

Nobody will deny that in the centuries covered by Meyerdorff's book the Patriarch of New Rome-Constantinople wielded immense power. Through the Emperor he often controlled the appointment of the Popes of Rome, up until the time when the Normans took control of Italy and began seating their own Norman Popes on the Roman Church's throne.

But those days have gone, New Rome has gone, the Empire has gone, the Ecumene has gone. There is only a handful of elderly people in a rundown suburb of Istanbul called the Phanar.

To sum up the sad contemporary position of the once glorious Church of Constantinople and its Patriarch, one word will suffice -- Ichabod!

________________
Ichabod - 1 Sam 4:19

Do you make this up as you go along, Father?

For many hundreds of years secular rulers appointed the Pope of Rome. The Emperor did this directly and, sometimes, through his Exarch at Ravenna. Rome was also in ecclesiastical submission to Ravenna during its lowest period. The Pope also had to pay a considerable sum of money to the Emperor as a "thank you." After the Byzantine Emperors lost their influence in Italy the Normans appointed the Popes, later they were chosen by the Roman aristocracy. The modern system of election by cardinals is a blessed relief from those secular days.

The last remnant of secular choice was the right of vetoing a Pope given to the Holy Roman Emperors (the Austro-Hungarian Emperors) and the Kings of France and Spain. This was called the 'ius exclusivae' and this right was last used by the Emperor Franz Joseph to veto the election of Cardinal Rampolla in 1903(?). So he had to be discarded and the Cardinals elected the Cardinal of Venice who became Pope Pius X. Pope Pius X then abolished this right of the secular powers to veto Popes.

See Ius Exclusivae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_exclusivae
This 'Ius' had another quite obscure name but my memory will not throw it up for me.

Back to the earlier centuries.... the Emperor of Constantinople had not just a right of veto but of outright appointment. Just start reading some of the lives of the Popes.

Moving back into this period when East and West were united...

"In these earlier centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the problem of ecclesiastical polity (government of the church) was rather complex.

"Complicating matters was the fact that the Pope of Rome was subordinate politically to the Byzantine Emperor, who sat in Constantinople. Up until the eighth century (as is usually not noted) the pope was in fact even appointed by the Emperor or, more directly, through his civil governor in Italy."
http://archons.org/patriarchate/history/pentarchy.asp