www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Is the Ecumenical Patriarch making a power play?

To my supposed Orthodox 'brethren',

If it makes you all feel better, and puts peace in your souls, forget anything that I ever said. If it will make you sleep at night, consider me and my husband ignorant folk who don't know what they heard.

My truth is before me and my God. May He enlighten me or punish me if I am in error. I am humbly his faithful servant, with a calling in my heart since childhood to heal the rifts between His Church. I have felt grace and the Holy Spirit in the West, and I will remain with that fervent belief in my heart to my last breath on this earth. Cultural differences (which are at the core of disagreement between East and West) and the intolerance of understanding them, are made by man and his sinful limitations. God in His GREAT Divine Omnipotence is well beyond this.

I also am coming to believe quite strongly that all shameful internal divisions and judgementalisms which increase by the day in Orthodoxy both here and abroad will not be solved until we are intact in the spirit of the early Church, with the seat of Peter, the Patriarch of Rome, historic first among equals.

Most Holy Mother of God, save us!
Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Dear Stephanos,

I disagree and know for sure that you could not have truthfully written the same thing had you substituted the word Orthodox with Catholic. However you and I are both free to believe whatever we want. I believe what the Orthodox Church teaches to be truthful and don't believe entirely what Rome teaches and does.

Since this is a vast subject matter I ask you only a few questions. Liturgically when reciting the creed do those in communion with the bishop of Rome openly use the filoque or not use the filoque depending on whatever?

St Irenaeus of Lyons tells us that the heretics are proved to be disciples not of the Apostles, but of their own wicked notions. To this cause also are due the various opinions that exist among them, inasmuch as each one adopts error in whatever manner it presents itself to him. But the Church throughout all the world, having its origin firm from the Apostles, perseveres in one and the same opinion with regard to God and His Son.

Do you think St Irenaeus of Lyons above words are some sort of insignificant comment that is adjustable so we can be comfortable or feel good irrespective of what we say.

Furthermore since Rome is of a developmental nature could you please tell how denying children the Eucharist as the Roman Catholic Church teaches and practices until the age of reasoning is theologically acceptable?

To those who have fallen into ther error of heresy that might consider the Orthodox to have departed from Apostolic praxis such a conclusion is a manifestation of seriousness their distorted thinking. The Orthodox Church Fathers clearly show us that those that have fallen into the error of heresy are capable of all sorts of distorted notions that oppose Holy Orthodoxy, right faith right worship irrespective of the beliefs of those in error. St Isaac of Syria tells us to beware of reading the doctrines of heretics for they, more than anything else, can equip the spirit of blasphemy against you.

I have written to Alice in a truthful way, I hope if she wrongly shares your feelings that I have bullied her, she will be less comfortable when making statements like Quote "This is what is really, really, sad about the heart and spirit of Orthodoxy" it is obvious that she is not the recipient of bullying but rather among the profoundly mistaken relative to her understanding of Orthodoxy. Her feelings and her conclusions are her own, perhaps she would like to convey them. If she feels sad about the heart and spirit of Orthodoxy perhaps she should take it up with her bishop. If he is Orthodox he will not want to change what the Church believes to apppease her so she feels better about her understanding of the spirit and heart of Orthodoxy.

The uniated people are the ones that have been historically bullied by Rome, is Alice among them? Had the uniated people stood firm in their faith and not permitted themselves to be bullied much suffering would have been avoided and these discussions on this forum would not be happening. Should you Stephanos choose to present truthful responses to the few questions I have asked I can assure you I wouldn't consider them to be of a bullying nature. But since you are in error you will no doubt consider what I have said to be the opposite of what you think even since I have been truthful.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Patriarch Athenagoras was set to concelebrate the Liturgy with Pope Paul VI in Rome after their mutual lifting of excommunications. The Patriarch of Moscow intervened claiming if this was done the Russian Orthodox Church would be faced with the choice of either having to condemn the Ecumenical Patriarch and go into schism with him or face complete oppression from the Communists for not doing so. The EP relented. Also of note is when the Moscow Patriarch's representative in Rome, a metropolitan, lay dying he received the Anointing of the Sick from the hand of Pope Paul IV.

For those who don't believe either incident ask an OCA priest who studied at St.Cyril and Methodius or Rome (their are plenty) in the 60s.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Alice,

Please don't let Orthoman bother you. Rudeness and bullying are recurring problems of his for which he has been banned from posting and if he keeps it up I am sure he will be again.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your post.

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Dear Matthew,

I am not a theologian, polemicist, or an apologist. I am a Catholic Christian, and being such, I believe myself to be of right belief and right worship, just as wholeheartedly as you believe me to be a heretic. Would you stand before the likes of Pope John Paul II, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, et al. and tell them that they are heretics? And if so, would you listen to what they would have to say to you in return?

The path of my own faith journey,(Contrary to a statement made by another poster on another thread that I never truly considered Orthodoxy),led me toward the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I learned from official sources on this journey was the richness and beauty of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What I learned from some individuals was quite different. One example; The Antiochian Church is not as "Orthodox" as the Greek Church, which in turn is not as "Orthodox" as the OCA, which in turn is not as "Orthodox" as the ROCOR, and that none of these Churches are part of the "True Orthodox Church". Needless to say, I was and still am befuddled by this kind of stuff. This is what I think Alice was getting at with her statements about the "heart and spirit",and the "correctness" of Orthodoxy. I don't believe she meant the official Church, but what some individuals are doing and saying in the name of her church.

In my case I chose to stay with Rome because I feel I've rediscovered what I believe to be the truth there, and a Church firmly anchored in the truth. I haven't switched to the Byzantine Rite mainly because of church location and family concerns.

As for your question on the Filioque may I refer you to www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm [cin.org] and to www.ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM [ic.net]

It's late and I'll have to think about the Communion issue. Maybe someone else can answer that sooner than me.

The only direct response I shall offer to Matthew Panchishin is the observation that "Uniate" is either a noun or an adjective, depending on the context; it is not a verb, nor does any verb "to Uniate" exist in the English language.

In general, and in support of Alice's veracity, most of us who have been around for a few years are well aware that from time to time things happen which some people think should not happen. I have never heard the Pope commemorated at Saint Vladimir's Seminary, which means that I was not present on the occasion when Alice and her husband heard that commemoration. I have certainly heard this happen at Orthodox celebrations elsewhere, though it is certainly an exceptional matter.
I do remember myself the time just a few years ago when Moscow and Constantinople fell out of communion because of the dispute over Esthonia. Moscow dropped Constantinople from the diptychs - but Constantinople seized the moral high ground by declining to reciprocate; in Constantinople itself, the name of the Patriarch of Moscow continued to be mentioned in the diptychs throughout the whole sad affair. And I remember at least one occasion when two bishops, one of each Patriarchate, served the Divine Liturgy together during that breach in communion (no, I won't give their names - it would be a poor return for trust to expose people to the sort of bullying and worse that Alice is experiencing right now).

Dear Alice,
You are not alone, neither in prayer nor in conviction. Bullying in such matters is a sure sign that you are witnessing accurately and speaking the truth!

Incognitus

Deacon Lance,

That was Metropolitan Nikodim, of blessed memory, of Leningrad and Novgorod and head of the Dept of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate. He entered into repose on 5 Sept 1978, during an audience with HH John Paul I, of thrice-blessed memory.

Metropolitan Nikodim already had a controversial history, having been accused at one time of being a KGB agent and at other times being described as an arch-ecumenist.

Many years,

Neil

Alice, Incognitus, and Deacon Lance,

Patriarch Athenagoras did commemorate "the name of the Pope of Rome" in the diptychs for at least some time in 1968-69 according to various sources:

and,

Many years,

Neil

Dear Incognitus,

I think your observation regarding my use of the word "Uniate" is superficial and significant. The English language is often limited by space and time and the meaning of words can change and are understood by individuals relative to their ability to understand. If you think the essence of the establishment of the unia was not an action you are limiting your understanding by preferring the nice definition of an English dictionary. However, you are being proper and could get an A in an elementary English class. I would prefer to be a stupid and flunk with a more complete understanding from my perspective. I offer for your consideration the notion that the word uniated is a verb for it is an action with spiritual significance that effects relationships. For the sake of a short discourse the not so nice word "hell" might be defined as a noun. (person, place or thing) The reality is that if a person was in hell it would be more than place or thing. The English dictionary would offer you this understanding. (intr.v. Informal helled, hell�ing, hells) If your did a spell check on your computer you may find the informal word helled is not in the dictionary depending on the software you use. A soul in that place would offer you a much different understanding and might say defining it as a verb or noun is an action that very much lacks understanding. We are both free to define things in accordance with our ability to understand and digress from the relevant discussion. I think your attention to grammar and your proper correction is not proper and does not serve the subject matter well.

Dear Deacon Lance and Neil,

I thought that Alice's remarks regarding commemorating the Bishop or Pope of Rome had pertained to more recent times than the 1960's. I must have misunderstood. However since in the words below of the learned Matthew Steenberg from monachos.net an understanding conveyed by the Orthodox Monastic Communities of the Holy Mountain is an appropriate consideration for Orthodox Christians.
In the Orthodox Christian tradition, monasticism has more than once been called the 'barometer of the spiritual life of the Church.' So great has the influence of and appreciation for this institution been, that its life and status have been equated with those of the Church as a whole: the state in which the monastics existed, so existed the Church.

That so great an influence would be granted to the monastic life bespeaks something of the great importance in which it is viewed by the Church. Monasticism is not just a 'part' of the Orthodox religion; it is the very centre and heart of the Church, out of which all other aspects of her life are born and grow. The monastics (both men and women) are those who choose to follow with singular devotion and obedience the call of Christ, who live the life of the Church in its fullest and most authentic sense. They are thus the models in which the Church sees her perfect icon: a communion of souls wholly living the Christian life.

It is said that monasticism is 'built in' to humanity; that a nature which has been torn from the intimate communion with its Creator for which it was created, naturally longs to return to that better state. The outward expression of 'monasticism' --the life set apart, the rigorous asceticism, etc-- are all but manifestations of that deep inward desire of the human soul to unite itself to God through Christ.

Here is a link regarding a statement from the communities from the Holy Mountain in 1993.

http://holyorthodoxy.tripod.com/patriarchletter.html

Dear Bill from the Latin Rite,

Perhaps you are not a theologian, polemicist, or an apologist. I'm sure by your words you are a Catholic Christian and a gentlemen of good will. You have addressed the questions with sincerity. I thought about what I would say to Pope John Paul II. I think I would ask him how comfortable he is in a position a first over equals as opposed to among equals. I sincerely also would ask him why he kissed the koran when the spirit of the koran does not confess our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, and mention that historically we have many Orthodox Saints that suffered some of the most brutal deaths rather than displaying or participating in that sort of action. I might even ask him what the Orthodox Church Fathers might think of such an action and to explain to me why I tend to think they might perceive it to be a mockery.

As far as Francis of Assisi and Mother Teresa are concerned I would enter into a dialog similar to the one we are participating in on this forum. I'm sure I would find them to be of good will as you are. If they understood me or anyone to be calling them heretics, I'm sure from what I understand they would not hate me and recognize that I do not hate them or the Bishop of Rome. I also do not agree with the who is more Orthodox endeavor, the Antiochian Orthodox Church is just as Orthodox as the Greek Orthodox Church etc. from my perspective. If the OCA was in communion with Rome under it's current disposition I would no longer consider the OCA to be Orthodox this is because currently I do not consider Rome to be Orthodox. The post schism words and actions of our Saints and monastic communities and the current understanding of the Orthodox Church do not consider Rome to be Orthodox either.

Dear Alice,

I will write no more since I do not want to bully you. Your Quote is well beyond brow beating in Orthodox circles it is terrible from my perspective. Your public wondering if we have morphed into a cult is a wondering that is beyond my ability to understand.

Your Quote Please stop bullying me. I am seeing so much bullying and brow beating in Orthodox circles lately that I am starting to wonder if we have morphed into a cult.

Well, I have to go and get some work done and will bully you know more from now on.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear in Christ Alice,

I first must thank you for your kind words to me, which I have only read today, and second, must disclaim any such label as loving and charitable, as I am about to be neither.

I did not see your words, because the title of the topic itself was off-putting, and I did not read it.

I am a "traditional Orthodox Christian". As such, I too, CRINGE when polemical, canon-thumping, hate-filled people decide to call themselves "traditionalists". When did we decide, "traditionalists", that we could DISREGARD AT WILL our lord's command to love? WHEN did we begin to equate love, respect, and a quiet witness of our faith with quoting dogma, canons, and criticism at others? WHEN did we decide that we have a RIGHT to personally condemn others?

In the Orthodox tradition *I* belong to, both in monasticsm and in the parishes, the responsibility we have is OURSELVES! When we decide that as LAITY we can quote The Rudder, while ignoring the Scriptures, we are sadly incorrect. When we judge other jurisdictions in such anger that we do not see Christ present everywhere, and filling all things, we have truly sinned.

I have watched online "Orthodoxy" destroy souls, quite literally, for the very reasons Alice puts forth. We scandalize others..seekers and faithful alike. When you come to me, and say "I am a traditionalist," Or, more commonly "I will not be received into Orthodoxy in THAT jurisdiction, they are not traditional enough for me, according to canon law, and history!", I have something to ask you.

What does your OWN house look like? If I walk in, will I feel Christ's love? Or have you scandalized your own family by being of Pharasitical correctness to the exclusion of love? Are you attending the services of the Church, or ignoring them, because they interfere with other plans? Are you fasting, per the Canons? Or did you decide for yourself that that is too much work, and belonging to a "traditional" jurisdiction will alow you any amount of personal laxness?

Do I mean that traditionalists must be modernist ecumenists? Absolutely not! I do not support ecumenism at the expense of the Orthodox faith. However, I, like all other "traditionalists" pray for peace in the world, and for the unity of the faith.

How, pray tell, is peace and unity to come about in armed, warring, opposing camps? Armed? YES! armed with words that sicken souls. To be in peace, and in unity, the members of each camp MUST speak to each other, and MUST endeavor to understand each other. This is true whether we are talking about EO "vs." OO, or Rome vs. Constantinople, or Antiochians vs. ROCOR.

Regardless of what Matthew and Anastasios say, the moment we begin telling someone else that they cannot love Christ because they are not in the "right" Church, or jurisdiction, WE SIN. Do you place yourselves above Christ? MY tradition is to observe the canons of the Church, as apply to myself, in love, and NOT to scandalize others.

Alice speaks correctly again. "Cult-like" is what happens when we "wall off" and fail to pray for those in need of our prayers, and fail to aid the sick, poor, and downtrodden, as Christ commanded!
The Pharisees were great advocates of "correct actions"...look where it got them, because love was not present also. We must reach out to others, to touch their hearts, NOT go to them, and scold, and tell them pedantically where THEY have failed!

I read these pages truly heartsick that one as gentle and beloved on this forum as Alice is should be so scandalized, and so condemned, for stating what she says is a historical fact, and rejoicing in the MEANING...unity...that it would signify were it universal. Further, as a "traditionalist" I point out that WERE unity to be re-established between East and West, the pope of Rome WOULD be "First Among Equals". Get over it.

Put your own house in order, then after you do so, and have reached out to help ALL others, with true love in your heart for those others made in the Image and Likeness of Christ, be they festering in slums, or jails, or housing projects, THEN come to me, and hurl anathemas at "modernists" and "ecumenists". I guarantee once you change your heart first, you will NEVER think of doing the latter, as you will have learned how deep the love of Christ may run in others outside of the Orthodox Church, and that will seal your mouth, as you strive ONLY TOWARD THEOSIS, looking out for your own soul, rather than condemning others for perceived short comings in praxis.

I am posting this, a condemnation of those who condemn, because it sickens me that my faith is so misrepresented as to seem "legalistic" at the expense of love. BE BOTH! Personally strict, and yet loving toward others.

Gaudior, in true disgust that I must post in a manner so unworthy of the name "Orthodox Christian" in order to make a point.

Dear Matthew,

The Bishop of Rome, as I'm sure you're well aware, also holds the title of "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church", along with which comes the title "Servant of the Servants of God". This is quite a large responsibility to say the least.
When you see bishops, priests, and others bowing before him, kissing his ring, venerating him, it is not to submit to him as one would a king or emperor, it is done out of respect for the great and holy office for which he was chosen and agreed to undertake. He is to serve humbly and in charity by the will of the Father in the love of the Son and by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is not a dictator who rules over his subjects.

That said, his kissing of the Koran was unsettling to me also. I do not know the reasoning for doing this, but I am positive it was not meant to accord the same veneration one would give to the book of the Gospels. No official explanation has been given and I do not wish to speculate. I feel the Pope has proven his love for Christ and the Church and in no way meant to jeopardize the truth.

On the subject of children and the Eucharist, The Church of Rome reserves the reception until the child reaches the age of reason in order to make sure the child understands and appreciates the true nature of the sacrament. It has become the custom here in the US that Communion is given at the age of 7 or in the second grade, which would be the second year of the child's catechesis. The Roman Church teaches that the Eucharist is not necessary for the salvation of the baptized before they reach the age of reason. I do not object to children receiving the Eucharist before the age of reason, nor do I object to my Church's current practice. I believe the Eastern Catholic Churches do commune children. I do not consider this to be a stumbling block for unity between our respective Churches.

Gaudior,

Why am I being lumped in with others? I have said twice now exactly what you said, namely that people spewing forth hate can't be considered traditional Orthodox, let alone Christians. Thanks for refraining from misrepresenting me in the future.

anastasios

Dear Gaudior,

Thank you for sharing the true "heart and spirit" and "correctness" of Orthodoxy.

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Amen.

I am going to take a sabbatical break from posting on this forum because even though I tried to make it clear that I think people that post nastiness and filth "in the name of the truth" are not true Orthodox Christians some people didn't understand what I was trying to say and were scandalized, which might be indicative of my inability to properly express myself.

I think it was also unhelpful that the thread on Pat. Bartholemew got mixed up with a thread on the predisposition of traditionalists. The former involves politics and opinions, the later hits close to home as a matter effecting our spiritual life. Hence, some probably saw my (in my opinion appropriately expressed) anger over some of Patriarch Bartholemew's moves as indicative that I was some type of fringe Orthodox guy posting in the style of Nektarios/Daniel (who I have no affinity for!), which could hardly more NOT be the case. At any rate, I'd rather just duck out for awhile and let things cool off.

My sincerest apologies to anyone who thought I posted in an offensive manner.

anastasios