Posts
Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Prot. No. 213
February 21, 2010
BARTHOLOMEW
By God’s Grace Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch
To the Fullness of the Church, Grace and Peace From our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
Our most holy Orthodox Church today commemorates its own feast day, and – from this historical and martyric See of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – the Mother Church of Constantinople directs its blessing, love and concern to all of its faithful and dedicated spiritual children throughout the world, inviting them to concelebrate in prayer.
Blessed be the name of the Lord! Those who endeavored over the ages to suppress the Church through various visible and invisible persecutions; those who sought to falsify the Church with their heretical teachings; those who wanted to silence the Church, depriving it of its voice and witness; they all proved unsuccessful. The clouds of Martyrs, the tears of the Ascetics, and the prayers of the Saints protect the Church spiritually, while the Comforter and Spirit of Truth leads it to the fullness of truth.
With a sense of duty and responsibility, despite its hurdles and problems, as the First-Throne Church of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cares about protecting and establishing the unity of the Orthodox Church, in order that with one voice and in one heart we may confess the Orthodox faith of our Fathers in every age and even in our times. For, Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people. Orthodoxy is always contemporary, so long as we promote it with humility and interpret it in light of the existential quests and needs of humanity in each historical period and cultural circumstance.
To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be in constant dialogue with the world. The Orthodox Church does not fear dialogue because truth is not afraid of dialogue. On the contrary, if Orthodoxy is enclosed within itself and not in dialogue with those outside, it will both fail in its mission and no longer be the “catholic” and “ecumenical” Church. Instead, it will become an introverted and self-contained group, a “ghetto” on the margins of history. This is why the great Fathers of the Church never feared dialogue with the spiritual culture of their age – indeed even with the pagan idolaters and philosophers of their world – thereby influencing and transforming the civilization of their time and offering us a truly ecumenical Church.
Today, Orthodoxy is called to continue this dialogue with the outside world in order to provide a witness and the life-giving breath of its faith. However, this dialogue cannot reach the outside world unless it first passes through all those that bear the Christian name. Thus, we must first converse as Christians among ourselves in order to resolve our differences, in order that our witness to the outside world may be credible. Our endeavors for the union of all Christians is the will and command of our Lord, who before His Passion prayed to His Father “that all [namely, His disciples] may be one, so that the world may believe that You sent me” (John 17.21). It is not possible for the Lord to agonize over the unity of His disciples and for us to remain indifferent about the unity of all Christians. This would constitute criminal betrayal and transgression of His divine commandment.
It is precisely for these reasons that, with the mutual agreement and participation of all local Orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has for many decades conducted official Panorthodox theological dialogues with the larger Christian Churches and Confessions. The aim of these dialogues is, in a spirit of love, to discuss whatever divides Christians both in terms of faith as well as in terms of the organization and life of the Church.
These dialogues, together with every effort for peaceful and fraternal relations of the Orthodox Church with other Christians, are unfortunately challenged today in an unacceptably fanatical way – at least by the standards of a genuinely Orthodox ethos – by certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. As if all the Patriarchs and Sacred Synods of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who unanimously decided on and continue to support these dialogues, were not Orthodox. Yet, these opponents of every effort for the restoration of unity among Christians raise themselves above Episcopal Synods of the Church to the dangerous point of creating schisms within the Church.
In their polemical argumentation, these critics of the restoration of unity among Christians do not even hesitate to distort reality in order to deceive and arouse the faithful. Thus, they are silent about the fact that theological dialogues are conducted by unanimous decision of all Orthodox Churches, instead attacking the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone. They disseminate false rumors that union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is imminent, while they know well that the differences discussed in these theological dialogues remain numerous and require lengthy debate; moreover, union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods. They assert that the Pope will supposedly subjugate the Orthodox, because they latter submit to dialogue with the Roman Catholics! They condemn those who conduct these dialogues as allegedly “heretics” and “traitors” of Orthodoxy, purely and simply because they converse with non-Orthodox, with whom they share the treasure and truth of our Orthodox faith. They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers.
Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue. By contrast, when in our day all people strive to resolve their differences through dialogue, Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism. You should have utmost confidence in your Mother Church. For the Mother Church has over the ages preserved and transmitted Orthodoxy even to other nations. And today, the Mother Church is struggling amid difficult circumstances to maintain Orthodoxy vibrant and venerable throughout the world.
From the Ecumenical Patriarchate, this sacred Center of Orthodoxy, we embrace all of you lovingly and bless you paternally, praying that you may journey in health through the holy period of contrition and asceticism known as Holy and Great Lent in order that you may become worthy of celebrating the pure Passion and glorious Resurrection of our Savior Lord with all faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world.
Sunday of Orthodoxy 2010
+ Bartholomew of Constantinople
Fervent supplicant to God for all
Here's a new website set-up to support the Patriarchate that you may find of interest:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.g20humanrights.com/
John,
ReplyDeleteAre you to relate about the canonization of Fr. Justin Popovic?
How can an Ecumenical Patriarch entertain the idea that the Orthodox church "will became... a ghetto on the margins of history" if it does not "open" to the papists?
ReplyDeleteBartholomew is a genuine embrassment to all of Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteThis encyclical - months old - is further proof that the Ecumenical Patriarch's claim to primacy represents nothing but his own delusions of grandeur. No wonder everyone in Russia, Romania, Serbia (in other words, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians) ignores his vain rants.
Anonymous 2, I've made three posts on the canonization of St Justin.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3, not just Papists, but everyone.
And then you post nonsense that essentially calls St. Justin a fanatic.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't. You are obviously a fanatic for interpreting it that way. There is a difference betweenthe Ecumenism St Justin calls a "Pan-Heresy" and when a bunch of fanatics accuse Orthodox bishops of participating in a "Pan-heresy". Not all Ecumenical dialogue is evil. This is essentially the gist of this much needed Encyclical. St Justin needs to be interpreted in his context. Read him again.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently aren't aware of history. St. Justin ceased commemorating the Patriarch of Serbia for doing far less than what Bartholomew and others have done. And now, he is glorified by the same institution.
ReplyDeleteIt is insane to think that anything Patriarch Bartholomew has done is worse than a Communist controlled Patriarch. This is exactly why St Justin needs to be read in his historical context.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, you aren't educated about history. St. Justin didn't cease commemorating the patriarch because he was controlled by the communists. St. Justin suffered under the communist yoke along with everyone in Serbia. He did so because of the patriarch's advocacy of ecumenism; yet, he never said the heretical and nonsensical things that Bartholomew has.
ReplyDeleteThere's no point in arguing - the vast majority of Orthodox Christians consider Bartholomew embarassing.
I know the history well. St Justin, St Nikolai Velimirovich and many others cut communion with a Patriarch that was installed by Tito, which was basically done to control the Serbian Church. In a few words. I will address this in a separate post soon though since so many people are mis-representing our newly-glorified Saint.
ReplyDeleteActually no, you're quite wrong, profoundly so. You are obviously more concerned about protecting your irrelevant patriarch than presenting the historical facts. The life of St. Justin and his very forceful views on a variety of plagues afflicting the Church are well documented in Serbian, Russian, and even English. Your professors at Holy Cross never did him justice when he was alive, and they won't provide it now.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome to present your "facts" here and I will address it in my post. These issues were never addressed at Holy Cross unfortnately, but I have read much on it.
ReplyDeleteIf the truth is not afraid of dialogue, why is it so terrified of becoming a "ghetto" on the margins of history? Some parts of this sound exactly like the dialogues between St. Maximus the Confessor and his persecutors (and was monothelitism anything other than ecumenism?), except without the St. Maximus part.
ReplyDeleteWe can already see the introversion and self-containment of the fanatical anti-ecumenists, who unfortunately reap the benefits of the efforts of ecumenical dialogue without acknowledging the good and instead focusing only on the evil, and even that it often over-exploits.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with St Maximus and it is a false comparison.
...and was monothelitism anything other than ecumenism?
ReplyDeleteThat is possibly the stupidest thing I've yet read this week.
If people deny that there is any good kind of ecumenism, then there is no way to convince them otherwise. It would seem that the above concatenation of pettiness and theological and historical ignorance is indicative of the kind of support such a position has. Pretty sad.
John, thank you for your sensible -- and FACTUAL -- statements and for your proper historical and political contextualization of St. Justin's words and actions. (I love seeing a former student doing so well.)
ReplyDeleteAs a church historian, I am constantly amazed by how some Orthodox zealots -- who pride themselves on their adherence to tradition and practice -- conveniently ignore early and Byzantine traditions and practices which differ from their own philosopy. I'll give you two examples.
First, the canons of several ecumenical councils call for semi-Arians to be received into the Orthodox Catholic Church by CHRISMATION (NOT baptism), so anyone who advocates re-baptism for Catholics, Lutherans, etc., because they are "heretics" -- thereby implicitly claiming that they are more heretical than semi-Arians -- needs to do some serious remedial work in Orthodox theology. (In fact, there was no systematic rebaptism of Western Christians by any Orthodox churches until the Ottoman period and, even then, it was a reaction to the re-baptism of ORTHODOX by Jesuits and other Catholic missionaries proselytizing among Eastern Christians. Neither St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain nor any other saint is infallible.)
Secondly, St. Mark of Ephesus -- who is frequently upheld as the "patron saint" of anti-ecumenical Orthodox -- not only ATTENDED the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-39 but actually LED the Orthodox theological delegation in its dialogue with the Catholic delegation. Sylvester Syropoulos' memoirs recount how every session -- which St. Mark attended and in which he participated -- began with prayer, and do not indicate that St. Mark ever excused himself from those opening prayers (or any other joint prayers). The final "agreement" was, of course, a complete capitulation to the Church of Rome, which is why St. Mark refused to sign it and immediately began working against it when he returned to Constantinople.
So, St. Mark is actually the patron saint of Orthodox ECUMENISM and has provided a valuable model for us: participating in dialogue aimed at unity, participating in joint prayer but not in concelebration of the Eucharist or in intercommunion, and, generally, remaining true to Orthodoxy without demonizing non-Orthodox Christians.
Thanks for your visit and your sober comments Dr. Karras. Nice to hear from you. I remember these were all points that you made in the past...and they are all very true and relevant comments that most people with strong opinions and little study forget to acknowledge. These are hard lessons that even our own modern elders and saints had to learn the hard way when they took extremists positions, albeit amidst very confusing times. As I've pointed out in previous posts, revered elders such as Joseph the Hesychast, Ephraim of Katounakia, Paisios the Athonite, Ephraim of Philotheou and many others ceased commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch at one time or another until they were sobered by divine revelation to return to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which they did and all became strong supporters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. So as you teach and as is self-evident, Church history is a lot more complicated than extremists make it to be and we should take great caution in taking a position unless we give a fair evaluation of the entire situation, acknowldeging our ignorance in humility if need be.
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that Monothelitism was developed so as to further attempts at reunification with those who had fallen away into Monophysitism. Monothelitism and relativistic ecumenism value worldly power (whether it be preserving a Christian Empire or staying out of the "ghetto") more than the truth, and thus invent a false truth in the former case, and deny the historical existence of truth in the latter. I don't believe (nor am I in a ecclesiastical or spiritual position to determine) that the Patriarch espouses ecumenism in such a relativistic form, but he sure seems to lend it a good measure of "aid and comfort."
ReplyDeleteI also still stand by my point about being afraid of marginalization, because the Patriarch's words convey an insecurity about the future of the Church similar to that which he criticizes in the extremists. He himself says, and I agree, that we should be completely confident in the Church.
All that being said, my original post is admittedly pretty silly and cheap. Thank you for your honest words.
The semi-Arians have been received in the Church only by Chrismation because they observed rigorously the form and the matter of the Orthodox baptism (the triple immersion in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy ghost. Those who altered the form were baptized (not re-baptized, because they were not baptized in the first place). It is the case of the Latins who altered the form. The truth is that the Orthodox were (re)-baptizing the Latins before the Ottoman period. The Council of Lateran of 1215 accuse the Orthodox that they were (re)-baptizing the Latins. That at times Oikonomia was applied was due to special circumstances and was never meant to become a rule. Saint Nikodemos is emphatic: "the need of economy having passed, exactness and the Apostolic Canons must have their place". "The baptism of the Latins is one which is falsely called Baptism, and for this reason is not acceptable either by reason of exactness or by reason of economy. It is not acceptable by reason of exactness for they are heretics", wrote Saint Nikodemos. But he adds that it can't be accepted nither by reason of economy, for the Latins do not even preserve the form of the Baptism intact (i.e the triple immersion).
ReplyDeleteThe argument about St. Mark of Ephesus is childish.
ReplyDeleteRegarding St. Mark, he did join in prayer with the Catholics. But...we have to make clear that he denounced Florence and their councils, when he went back to Constantnople. As the canons explicitly say,
ReplyDelete"we are not to have intercommunion with heretics". This of course is far understated by scholars of Orthodoxy in the west.
It seems we Orthodox in the diaspora keep borrowing from the west, in order to make a point concerning ecclesiastical matters. "When their are two seperated church bodies they can not join in communion". And when it comes to ecumenism, why is it that Constantnople acts alone? when it comes to decisions that should involve all the Patriarchates. As history shows.
Who gave him the right to act alone without the approval of the other Patriarchs?
- Anthony, you talk about the ECumenical Patriarch's fears of marginalization in an unfair manner, and neglect the fact that if you had a valid point then an equally valid point can be made that you and the fanatical anti-ecumenists have an obsessive fear of incorporation. My point - the issue is not about fear and your point is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteSemi-Arian Anonymous (since I can't distinguish all the Anonymous'), you are way over-simplyfying a much more complicated issue that has been dealt with in many ways under many circumstances since the Great Schism. I remember having a conversation with Fr. George Metallinos, the author of the book on the baptism of Catholics called "I Confess One Baptism", and he bemoaned the fact that in America everyone was taking his book out of context and how he never wanted his book translated because it only applied to Greece and not to America, in which he is an advocate of the Chrismation of Catholics. To begin your studies on this issue and its complications, I would recommend Fr George Dragas' essay on the subject here:
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic_1.html
- Thanos, despite leanings to the contrary, the boogieman of Orthodoxy is not the Ecumenical Patriarch. On certain matters he is canonically allowed to act alone and in other matters he is not. Constantinople certainly does not act alone in Ecumenism and if they did they have every right to do so. This is not canonically forbidden. In doing so, the Ecumenical Patriarch is not making orders over the entire Church as you seem to suggest.
I could not see in the essay of Dragas anything contrary to what St. Nikodemos said.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I sent you the wrong link. That was only the Introduction.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Dragas_RomanCatholic.html
And Fr Dragas' paper is not contrary to St Nikodemos, but your interpretation of St. Nikodemos.
ReplyDeleteI am referring to the whole essay.
ReplyDeleteOk, then I guess you agree with the current practice.
ReplyDeleteI was just quoting St. Nikodemos.
ReplyDeleteI guess I thought you were the Anonymous from before protesting against current practices. All Anonymous' are the same to me.
ReplyDeleteI was not protesting against current practices, but against the half truths enunciated by "Valerie".
ReplyDeleteYou should have probably mentioned that, as well as signed in with a name.
ReplyDeleteHaving read much of Fr. Metallinos and having heard him speak more than once, I can tell you that you must be mistaken regarding his book and his views on the acceptance of papists into the Church. Unless you can post actual quotes, let's not make points based on hearsay and conversations. In addition, healthy ecumenism strives to bring everyone into the Orthodox Church through a faithful Orthodox Christian witness. Our Patriarchate sadly has not done this. This is fact. This is history.
ReplyDeleteHearsay, we had a 20 minute conversation on this issue alone. Sorry I didnt record it, but I assure you he was very insistent on it. When he came to America to speak he found it humorous Americans knew him for a book that he only intended to be read by Greeks, and this is the response he would give to everyone when they would write him about the issue since he became known for supposedly advocating the baptism of Catholic converts. He would explain that this should be the practice in Greece, but not in the diaspora.
ReplyDeleteIf Fr. George did in fact say this, it is very confusing. How does it make sense to apply such oikonomia based on where one lives? Huh? A roman catholic is a roman catholic, whethere they live in rome, the us, or in kenya. The beliefs are the same no matter what the geographical location, political situation, etc. Also, though chrismation of papists does have its place in history, it is the exception to the rule. Now that practice has become akrevia instead of oikonomia! My goodness!
ReplyDeleteThings aren't so simplistic, as history proves in the past 1000 years. Read the article at the link above by Fr Dragas to get a better understanding of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with anonymity. They are like the chorus of the ancient tragedies, the voice of the hoi polloi ordinary Christians who care more for the Truth than for showing off their knowledge of Orthodoxy, their "original" contributions.
ReplyDeleteThose who flaunt their names, not rarely accompanied by a string of titles (Doctor, Master in such and such branch of theology - mostly Patristics) obtained at "prestigious" Catholic, Protestant Universities care for their name and positions. They would not dare to call a spade a spade (Catholicism a heresy)because then they would have to say Good by to chairs of Patristics and seats on joint "ecumenical" commissions and publications(and funds). That was the substance of the fear expressed by the EP that "Orthodoxy would be marginalized".
They would make St. Mark of Ephesus the patron saint of Orthodox ecumenism, disregarding the fact that he was constantly a thorn in the side of the Ferrara-Florence pseudo-ecumenical Council. He did not "lead" the Greek delegation, but was appointed by the Emperor to dispute with the Latins. And whereas some of the delegation pleaded for the union with the Emperor, Mark "daring more than the rest" said: "Our Church has kept silence on this, because the Latins are more powerful and numerous than we are; but we, in fact, have broken all ties with them, for the very reason that they are heretics. Peace with them can be renewed only on their rejecting the addition to the Creed, and receiving our doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost". He actually wished to write a letter to the Pope at the beginning of the Council in Ferrara in which he declared that if the Church of Rome wishes to finish as well as she begun, she must retract her doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost, and not to perform the Liturgy in azymes. The Emperor rebuked him for his daring and wanted to discipline him. And after the fiasco of the pseudo-Council he enjoined all Christians: "Avoid, brethern, such teachers (the unionists) and all communion with them. They are false apostles, workers of evil transformed into Apostles of Christ... It is not the Lord Jesus they serve, but their own bellies, and seduce the hearts of the innocent by their sweet words and blessings". If we can say that St. Mark is the patron of Orthodox ecumenism is only because he spoke in defense of the Ecumenical Councils.
I'd respect your anonymity more if you were just silent about it, geesh.
ReplyDelete<>
ReplyDeleteJohn,
What Pat. Bartholomew has done is far, far worse because he has done it willingly, he believes in it, he pushes it upon the people of God. What has he done? For starters: he has accepted papism as church, the pope as a bishop, their mysteries as Mysteries of the Church. He has denied the Oneness of the Church. He has prayed with heretics again and again, no, co-liturgized with them, with the exception of Communion. He has communed papists publicly in Ravenna. And much more. . . But perhaps worst of all he has blasphemed God by calling the blasphemous book, The Koran, "holy, and by giving it as a gift to the head of Coca Cola in front of nearly the entire Synod of the GOA.
The Patriarch of Serbia doesn't even come close to this heretic in his blasphemous actions. And, besides, St. Justin ceases commemoration because of the Patriarch's presidency of the WCC.
John, your sentimental attachment to the EP has blinded your judgement.
But, know this: this Patriarch is the Patriarchate's worst enemy. SAVE THE PATRIARCHATE . . . from the Patriarch.
That's absurd Joseph. I don't personally agree with everything the Ecumenical Patriarch has done and said, as Ive also reported here in my blog, but your extremist schismatic views are nothing less than bearing false witness. Get your information straight.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Valerie,
ReplyDeleteYou said that there was no systematic baptism of Latins. You are incorrect and need to read your sources. New Martyr Saint Hilarion (Troitsky) of Russia has shown that the Russian Church baptized latins consistenly from just after the schism until the reform period of Nikon and the upheavel it brought to Russia, wanting to do everything that the Greeks had done - including chrismating latins. So, for 600 years Latins were baptized in Russia.
But, for most of that time, they were also baptized in the Roman Empire. Latins were already complaining to representatives in Constantinople around the time of the Lateran councils that "the Greeks are rebaptizing us".
The move to baptize Latins in the 18th century was a return to earlier practice not an innovation.
John, you are as ignorant as they come. Dr Valerie, you need to learn your place as a woman, you are out of line.
ReplyDeleteEnlighten us with your wisdom then Fotios and we'll see how great your understanding of these matters are.
ReplyDeleteAs John has stated elsewhere, you fanatics need to start reading something besides the propaganda literature published by the schismatic HOCNA and Cyprianites groups.
ReplyDelete"The zealot according to knowledge, motivated by the love of God and his neighbor, does all things with charity and self-effacement; he does nothing that might bring sorrow to his neighbor; such a zealot is enlightened by knowledge and nothing prompts him to deviate from what is morally right." - St Nektarios
"Zeal for piety is a good thing, but when combined with love!" - St John of Damascus
Great quotes George, but with all the misinformation people read these days from extremists, they actually think they are fighting for truth despite the lies they have come to believe. Propaganda = Brain Washing.
ReplyDeleteWhen the State Church of Greece adopted the new calendar, the Lord gave many miraculous signs that the path they had embarked on was false. The most famous such sign was the Appearance of the Cross over the Old Calendarist faithful in Athens in 1925. Another was given to the new calendarist Bishop Arsenius of Larissa on December 12/25, 1934, the feast of St. Spyridon according to the Old Calendar, but Christmas according to the new calendar.
ReplyDelete“In the morning the bishop went by car to celebrate the Liturgy in his holy church. When he arrived there, he saw a humble, aged, gracious Bishop with a panagia on his breast. Arsenius said to him: ‘Brother, come, let’s proclaim the joyful letters of Christmas and then I will give you hospitality.’ “The humble Bishop replied: ‘You must not proclaim those letters but mine, St. Spyridon’s!’ Then Arsenius got angry and said: ‘I’m inviting you and you’re despising me. Go away then.’
“Arsenius went into the church, venerated the icons and sat in his throne. When the time for the katavasias came, he sang the first katavasia, and then told the choir to sing the second. Arsenius began to say the third, but suddenly felt anxious and unwell. He motioned to the choir to continue and went into the altar, where they asked him: ‘What’s the matter, master?’ He replied: ‘I don’t feel well.’
“When Arsenius’ indisposition increased, they carried him to his house, where his condition worsened, and the next day he died. He had been punished by God for his impious disobedience to St. Spyridon. This miracle is known by the older Orthodox faithful of Larissa.”[1]1
] I Agia Skepe (The Holy Protection), № 122, October-December, 1991, p. 109 (G)
We can go back and forth for days on end and you will see that arguments can be made on both sides both positive and negative. When will we make attempts at cleaning up our own home first and then turn to the heretics of the world with dialogue in an effort to reunite?
ReplyDeleteAh, so all you have is schismatic propaganda Fotios. I'm aware of this, so I don't see how I'm ignorant. You should read about the real miracles against the schismatics I have posted in the past, but for here I would just like to stick to the subject.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteCould you please be more specific: what was "absurd" about my post? Do you deny the facts - that this Patriarch gave the koran as a gift and called it "holy"? That he believes and preaches bareheaded the heresy of papism being a church, the pope a bishop, their "mysteries" the Mysteries of the Church?
You must know that the speakers at the conference in Athens, the conclusions which you posted on your site, all agree (with the exception of Dr. Papadakis, perhaps) that this Patriarch preaches heresy bareheaded and that his actions make him worthy of ecclesastical trial and defrocking. The giving of the Koran publicly as a gift alone should bring this about.
So, are these speakers and their views "extremist"? If so, why did you post them? If not, then why do you call my words absurd?
Seeing that I have critiqued bishops in the past who give Koran's as gifts, obviously I am aware of it and disagree with it. To call anyone a heretic for giving a Koran is indeed extremist and absurd however, since by doing so you are telling them they are no longer part of the Church. And if the speakers at the conference said such things, I would call them extremist as well. I agree with their conclusions however, and their opinions I could care less for. So what proof do you have of them calling the Patriarch a heretic? Can you provide quotes?
ReplyDeleteYou talk from both sides of your mouth John, unfortunately, most of it comes from the bottom side.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI have written twice now that the Patriarch denies the Oneness of the Church by accepting papism as a church (in the full ecclesiological meaning of the term), the pope as a bishop of the Church and their mysteries as true Mysteries of the Church. This ecclesiology has been espounded by the Patriarch again and again and is nothing new. Do I need to provide quotes, when it is well known? It is totally untenable, rather, is in direct contradiction of the ecclesiology of the Church. The various theories that circulate - "baptismal theology/unity" (common baptism theories), the "two lungs" theory, etc., are ecclesiological heresies (when truly applied, and not simply as sentimental expressions).
But, in regards to the giving of the Koran, your position is not that of the Saints and I am saddened to hear it. We have saints who have been martyred for denying much less than giving the koran out as a gift or calling it holy. At the very least, if the synodical system of government and ecclesiastical conscience were at work in the EP (rather a neo-papist ecclesiology exists in practice), the Patriarch should be brought up on charges and defrocked for scandalizing the faithful and for blaspheming the Lord (for the Koran says that The Lord is not God).
Finally, there are many, many quotes of the Patriarch which indicate that he has left behind Patristic theology and adopted a neo-gnostic/perennialist philosophy regarding the "religions of the world." Read his letters to Muslims, for instance, and tell me what father ever said such things about Islam?
John, write Fr. Theodore Zisis or Fr. George Metallinos or Fr. Luke of Grigoriou or Dr. Tselingides in Thessaloniki and ask them whether or not the Patriarch is preaching heresy bareheaded. In Greece, everyone knows he has fallen away and does not "rightly divide the word of truth", but for a number of reasons or perhaps in some cases excuses they do not say it plainly and clearly: the emperor has no clothes! He is naked, lacking an Orthodox confession of faith! (And I am talking about bishops and theologians WITHIN the Church of Greece.)
Joseph, have I said anywhere that I agree with everything the Patriarch does and says? Have I said that about anybody for that matter, except Christ and the Panagia of course? Your blind extremism is talking ahead of you. You obviously do not know what is going on in the Church of Greece that have certain clergy in an uproar against the Patriarch, and if you knew then you would know ecumenism is a sub-category of an issue. The issue right now is jurisdictional after the Patriarch's last visit a few months ago. I am perfectly aware and have been for a long time of the Patriarch's views, and though I diagree with some things, I have never read anything that calls for his excommunication and condemnation as a heretic. You obviously don't understand the complexities of these issues, which is why you cannot evaluate them beyond your simple-minded ways of bearing false witness. Yes, at times the Patriarch has also done extreme things, but just like I would not condemn you as a heretic despite your extremism, the same also I would not do to the Patriarch. So where are those quotes condemning the Patriarch as a heretic at the gathering?
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteYou are engaging in ad hominem and not addressing the issue of ecclesiology which I address: he does not confess our faith in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The most well-known of his declarations which proclaim a heretical ecclesiology is his joint declaration with the Pope in 1995 when he said that they are together responsible for Church of Christ, that they share the mysteries together, that the pope is his brother bishop, etc. But, he has repeated that innumberable time, especially when the Pope stood in the seat of Proestos and said the Our Father - a clear acceptance on the part of the Patriarchate that he is a part of the Church, a bishop of the Church. Since he still holds the heretical dogma of the Filioque and the heretical dogmas of Jurisdictional Primacy and Infallibility, this is an acceptance on the part of the Patriarch of a heretic as an Orthodox bishop and an endorsement of a heretical ecclesiology.
John, where do you live? In Greece? How do you know the situation in Greece better than I, who live here?
The issue for those I suggested you contact is NOT jurisdictional. But, neither is the jurisdictional question an abiding issue, whereas the ecclesiological one is. So, you are wrong on that.
You have said that I am bearing false-witness, which is sicophantia - a sin. Are you sure you want to say such a thing? What have I said that is false and a lie? I have not said that Patriarch has done "extreme things" but that he has preached heresy bareheaded and I have given you examples of this. What do you have say of substance and not as attack on me as an "extremist"?
Too clarify then, you are jumping to extremist conclusions. I thought I made that clear though. Sikophantia describes your conclusions.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDelete"my conclusions"? Have I not described to you the facts, the truth of things vis-a-vis the Patriarch's views of papism, etc.? These are not "my conclusions" but the plain facts: he has adopted an ecclesiology which is not Orthodox. Am I wrong on this? Why don't you address the substance of the matter? I have not lied about his position on bit, so there is no sikophantia at all in my statements. Rather, he and those with him are quite proud of their views, so much so as to host the Pope at the Phanar as A BISHOP OF THE CHURCH. ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. With whom do you stand?
I don't stand with you on this. And of course, they are your conclusions. Don't let your ego think your conclusions are inspired of the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteDon't stand with me. Stand with the Saints. But, I am still waiting for you to address the issue substantively. You keep referring to "my conclusions" but do not address the facts and the views expressed by the Patriarch re: the Pope and his "church."
ReplyDeleteI try to always stand with the Saints. As for responding, that is what my blog is for. I've been doing it and will continue to do it. I'm not interested in debating anyone one on one. I've been debating these issues for over 15 years and I get different challenges everyday. If people want to comment, I listen and evaluate, but it ends there. Everything else I consider a distraction. If you want to learn, which I highly encourage you to do, keep reading my blog. If you have something interesting to say and want to debate and you can get my attention, then start your own blog.
ReplyDeleteBut I am still waiting for those quotes.
ReplyDeleteQuote 1 - Perennialism/Neo-gnosticism/masonic idealogy:
ReplyDeleteΜήνυμα, επί τη ευκαιρία της θρησκευτικής εορτής του Ραμαζανίου, αποστέλλει ο Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαίος προς τους «αδελφούς Μουσουλμάνους», όπως τους αποκαλεί. «Ο Θεός είναι Θεός ειρήνης και ευαρεστείται εις την ειρηνικήν συμβίωσιν των ανθρώπων και, μάλιστα, *αυτών οι οποίοι Τον λατρεύουν ανεξαρτήτως των διαφορών,* αι οποίαι υπάρχουν εις την πίστιν μεταξύ των τριών μεγάλων μονοθεϊστικών θρησκειών». (Flash.gr)
Quote 2: Perennialism/Neo-Gnosticism - Denies Mission and Missionary Imperative of the Church:
ReplyDelete«Ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία δέν ἐπιδιώκει νά πείσῃ τούς ἄλλους περί συγκεκριμένης τινός ἀντιλήψεως τῆς ἀληθείας ἤ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως, οὔτε ἐπιδιώκει νά τούς μεταστρέψῃ
εἰς συγκεκριμένον τινά τρόπον σκέψεως. […]
Ὁποτεδήποτε οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀντιδροῦν εἰς τάς τοποθετήσεις καί τά πιστεύω τῶν ἄλλων μέ βάσιν τόν φόβον καί τήν αὐτοδικαίωσιν, παραβιάζουν τό θεόσδοτον δικαίωμα καί τήν ἐλευθερίαν τῶν ἄλλων νά γνωρίσουν τόν Θεόν καί τόν συνάνθρωπόν των μέ τρόπον πού προσιδιάζει εἰς τήν ταυτότητά των ὡς λαῶν»
www.orthodoxa.org/GB/patriarchate/speech/statement.htm
Quote 3: Essentially the Branch Theory resated in the Form of Baptismal Theology/Two Lungs Theory = result is a heretical ecclesiology:
ReplyDeleteIn the Joint Declaration “Call To Unity” of Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew on June 29, 1995 the following declaration was made:
“A common sacramental conception of the church has emerged, sustained and passed on in time by the apostolic succession. In our churches the apostolic succession is fundamental to the sanctification and unity of the people of God. Considering that in every local church the mystery of divine love is realized and that this is how the church of Christ shows forth its active presence in each one of them, the joint commission has been able to declare that our churches **recognize one another as sister churches, responsible together for safeguarding the one church of God,** in fidelity to the divine plan and in an altogether special way with regard to unity. In this perspective we urge our faithful, Catholics and Orthodox, to reinforce the spirit of brotherhood which **stems from the one baptism and from participation in the sacramental life.”**
Quote 4: Delusion and Blasphemy = He Includes the Saints and Fathers Who condemned Papism as heresy - Ss. Photios, Mark, Gregory Palamas, Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Paisius Velichkovsky, etc. etc. - as "victums of the serpent:
ReplyDeleteAddress of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the Papal Delegation at the Patronal Feast of the Phanar, Nov. 30, 1998; cited in: Community of Mt. Athos - Karyae, Open letter from the Athonite Monks to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, 11th/24th May 1999.
"Those of our forefathers from whom we inherited this separation were the unfortunate victims of the serpent who is the origin of all evils; they are already in the hands of God, the righteous judge...And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge."
Quote 5: Heretical Ecclesiology - calls the heterodox confessions "holy churches of God" and includes Orthodoxy among those which need to return to unity in Christ:
ReplyDelete'We Do Not Wish to Blur the Faith’: The spiritual head of Orthodoxy speaks some frank words to Protestants: An interview with Bartholomew I”, Christian History, Spring 1997, Issue 54, Vol. 3, No. 2, Page 42.
“[T]he Orthodox Church has never deviated from that consciousness and fundamental perspective of agape—love and unity. We are called to exercise the "ministry of reconciliation" (II Corinthians 5:18), and **we look forward to a return of the holy Churches of Christ to unity in him.…**
“We do not hold that exclusivity means judgment or exclusion. The idea that membership in a visible Church organization is requisite for membership in heaven is based on a false paradigm—that we somehow parallel the kingdom of God in this world. The kingdom is not an exterior reality; rather it is interior, at least until the end of time.”
Quote 6: Syncretism/Neo-Gnosticism/Perennialism/Masonic ideology - name it what you want, it is not Orthodoxy, not Christian, not Patristic, as the quotes from other hierarchs after his quote indicate:
ReplyDeleteΑΠΟ ΟΜΙΛΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΗ ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΑΙΟΥ ΣΤΟ «6ο ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΣ», **ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΚΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥΣ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΩΝ ΘΡΗΣΚΕΙΩΝ,** ΣΤΗΝ ΠΟΛΗ RIVA DEL GARDA ΤΗΣ ΙΤΑΛΙΑΣ, ΣΤΙΣ 4/11/1994. Περιοδ. «Ὀρθοδοξία» τοῦ Πατριαρχείου, τεῦχος Ὀκτωβρ.-Δεκεμβρίου 1994
"Πρέπει νά συμβάλωμεν ὥστε νά φέρωμεν εἰς τό προσκήνιον τάς πνευματικάς ἀρχάς τοῦ οἰκουμενισμοῦ, τῆς ἀδελφωσύνης καί τῆς εἰρήνης. Πράγματι, διά τόν λόγον αὐτόν συνεκεντρώθημεν ἐδῶ! Αὐτός εἶναι ἕνας τρόπος, διά τοῦ ὁποίου ἠμεῖς οἱ κληρικοί δυνάμεθα νά βοη-θήσωμεν αὐτούς οἱ ὁποῖοι κυβερνοῦν. Ἡ βαθεῖα καί σταθερά πνευ-ματικότης μας ἔρχεται εἰς ὀξεῖαν ἀντίθεσιν μέ τόν ἐγκόσμιον χαρακτῆ-ρα τῆς συγχρόνου πολιτικῆς. […] **Αὐταί αἱ δυνατότητες ἀνακύπτουν ἀπό τήν ἰδίαν τήν φύσιν τῆς ἰδιότητος πού φέρωμεν, ἄνδρες καί γυναῖ-κες, ὡς κλητοί τοῦ Θεοῦ.** Ὡς μία κοινότης πίστεως δυνά-μεθα νά ἀντιμετωπίσωμεν τόν κοσμικόν οὐμανισμόν καί τόν ἐθνικισμόν μέ ἀγά-πην, μέ πνεῦμα οἰκουμενισμοῦ καί μέ τόν ὑγιῆ σεβασμόν μας πρός τήν παράδοσιν.
Ἀλλά τοῦτο δυνάμεθα νά ἐπιτύχωμεν μόνον **ἐάν εἴμεθα ἡνωμένοι ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ ἑνός Θεοῦ,** "Δημιουργοῦ τῶν πάντων, ὁρατῶν τε καί ἀοράτων". Ρωμαιοκαθολικοί καί Ὀρθόδοξοι, Προτεστάνται καί Ἑβραῖοι, Μουσουλμᾶνοι καί Ἰνδουϊσταί, Βουδδισταί καί Κομφουκιανισταί εἶναι καιρός ὄχι μόνον διά συμφιλίωσιν, ἀλλ' ἀκόμη καί διά συμμαχίαν καί συνεργασίαν, διά νά συντελέσωμεν εἰς τήν ἀπομάκρυνσιν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἀπό τούς ψευδοπροφήτας τοῦ ἐξτρεμισμοῦ καί τῆς μή ἀνεκτικότητος.»
==================
ΣΕΒ. ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΕΒΕΖΗΣ κ. ΜΕΛΕΤΙΟΣ:
(Ἀπό τό βιβλίο τοῦ Σεβασμιωτάτου: «᾿Αγαλλίαμα Καρδίας», ἔκδοσις ε´, Πρέβεζα 1997.):
«῞Οποιος δὲν ὁμολογεῖ ἢ δὲν πιστεύει, ὅτι Θεὸς εἶναι μόνον ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιο Πνεῦμα, καὶ **ὅποιος λέγει, ὅτι στὶς διάφορες θρησκεῖες ―Χριστιανισμό, Μωαμεθανισμό, Βουδδισμὸ κ.λ.π.― οἱ ἄνθρωποι μὲ διαφορετικὰ ὀνόματα λατρεύουν τὸν ἴδιο Θεό, ἔχει ἀρνηθῆ ἔμπρακτα τὸ βάπτισμα!**
Τὸ ἔχει χάσει. Γιατὶ ἔχει χάσει τὴν οὐσία τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Πίστης, ποὺ εἶναι ἡ πίστη καὶ ἡ ὁμολογία ὅτι σωτήρας εἶναι μόνο ὁ Χριστός, [ὁ ὁποῖος] εἶναι ἀληθινὸς Θεός, ὁμοούσιος, ὁμόθρονος καὶ συνάναρχος μὲ τὸν Θεὸν Πατέρα.»
------
ΣΕΒ. ΜΗΤΡΟΠΟΛΙΤΗΣ ΝΑΥΠΑΚΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΒΛΑΣΙΟΥ κ. ΙΕΡΟΘΕΟΣ
(Ἀπό τό ἄρθρο τοῦ Σεβασμιωτάτου: «Διαχριστιανικὸς καὶ Διαθρησκειακὸς Συγκρητισμὸς» τοῦ περιοδ. «᾿Εκκλησιαστικὴ Παρέμβαση» τῆς Ἱ. Μητροπόλεως Ναυπά-κτου, ἀριθ. 71/Δεκέμβριος 2001):
«Υπάρχουν ἄνθρωποι σήμερα ποὺ ἔχουν **παντελῆ ἄγνοια τῶν ἀληθειῶν τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἰσχυρίζονται, ὅτι ἕνας Θεὸς ὑπάρχει καὶ ὅλοι οἱ ἄνθρωποι πιστεύουν στὸν ἕνα καὶ μοναδικὸ Θεό,** ἀλλὰ ὁ καθένας τοῦ δίνει διαφορετικὴ ἑρμηνεία.»
Quote 7: New Age/Neo-Gnostic Acceptance of the Synagogue as a place where God is worshipped:
ReplyDeleteIn the following message of the Patriarch to the Jewish community on Crete he calls their synagogue "place of worship of the One God".
ΜΗΝΥΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΚΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΗ κ. ΒΑΡΘΟΛΟΜΑΙΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΚΕΝΤΡΙΚΟ ΙΣΡΑΗΛΙΤΙΚΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ (20/1/2010) (see http://thriskeftika.blogspot.com/)
But, what do the Saints say about the Synagogue? Here is what St. John Chrysostom says:
«Ἄν λοιπόν ἀγνοοῦν τόν Πατέρα, σταύρωσαν τόν Υἱό, κι ἀρνήθηκαν τή βοήθεια τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ποιός δέ θά κατάληξη στό συμπέρασμα πώς ὁ τόπος [τῆς Συναγωγῆς] εἶναι κατοικητήριο τῶν δαιμόνων; Δέ λατρεύεται ὁ Θεός ἐκεῖ καί
συνεπῶς εἶναι εἰδωλολατρικός ὁ χῶρος ἐκεῖνος. [Λόγος Α' §γ]
(English: the synagogue is the habitation of the demons! God is not worshipped there, hence it is a place of idol worship!)
John,
ReplyDeleteI wrote two more postings full of quotes, but they were lost in cyperspace. And now I must go. I think it is enough!
I believe you get the picture. Unfortunately, there are endless quotes and an abundance of material that make it clear that this Patriarch has lost his way and does not "rightly divide the word of Truth". Rather, he preaches another Gospel, a foreign Christ, and denies basic tenets of the Faith. It is truly sad and tragic. But we must face the truth of things if we are to be free in Christ Jesus.
God keep you John.
Those aren't the quotes I asked for. I asked for the quotes where Fr George Metallinos, Fr Theodore Zisis, etc call Patriarch Bartholomew a heretic. The quotes you provided are nothing new and unfamiliar to anyone.
ReplyDeleteDear John, why are you calling the True Orthodox "fanatics"? Were the Holy Fathers "fanatics"? Were Sts. Photios the Great, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus "fanatics"? Please read this article carefully
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hotca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=236:why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox&catid=50:orthodox-awareness#_edn1