Hierarchs and perceptions of Church authority ('Universal authority'?)

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Apostle Peter himself never had nor claimed anything vaguely resembling universal authority nor infallibility. Why would the "successor" of St. Peter have something that the original Apostle didn't have?

[Andreas Moran]

We read in chapter 15 of Acts that St James was the leader of the Church. His authority is clearly described in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15:19. It is James who pronounces after argument has been heard.

[Simon]

We read in chapter 15 of Acts that St James was the leader of the Church. His authority is clearly described in Acts 12:17 and Acts 15:19. It is James who pronounces after argument has been heard.

Dear All, excuse my ignorance on the matter, I'm asking for opinions because in Vicenza I am often the only Orthodox in the audience when such matters are discussed, and sometimes feel I should give well-meaning but mis-informed Catholics some idea of our position regarding eventual reunification.

Would it be fair to say that the Roman patriarch (i.e.Pope) prior to the schism was considered as a first amongst equals rather than as some sort of supreme leader? Am I right in thinking that infallibility, a concept repudiated by many lay Catholics, was a heresy thought up centuries later?

And much more ticklish, under what conditions could we accept reciprocal Communion? Would we allow the Roman Patriarchate, as the RC Church would then be, to have some differences in tradition that would remain specific to them, nevertheless allowing joint Communion? If the answer to the final question be positive, of course the nature of such specificity would have to be rigorously defined.

I am in this position because as the Orthodox community here has few Italian speakers, and those we do have lack the time to participate, the Serb priest sometimes asks me to go for him.

Thankyou, continued happy fasting,

Simon

[Kosta]

Dear All, excuse my ignorance on the matter, I'm asking for opinions because in Vicenza I am often the only Orthodox in the audience when such matters are discussed, and sometimes feel I should give well-meaning but mis-informed Catholics some idea of our position regarding eventual reunification.
Would it be fair to say that the Roman patriarch (i.e.Pope) prior to the schism was considered as a first amongst equals rather than as some sort of supreme leader? Am I right in thinking that infallibility, a concept repudiated by many lay Catholics, was a heresy thought up centuries later?
And much more ticklish, under what conditions could we accept reciprocal Communion? Would we allow the Roman Patriarchate, as the RC Church would then be, to have some differences in tradition that would remain specific to them, nevertheless allowing joint Communion? If the answer to the final question be positive, of course the nature of such specificity would have to be rigorously defined.
I am in this position because as the Orthodox community here has few Italian speakers, and those we do have lack the time to participate, the Serb priest sometimes asks me to go for him.
Thankyou, continued happy fasting,

Simon

Your correct in what you say about the papacy. That before the schism he was the first among equals because he held the throne of elder Rome. Supremacy and infallibility is a heretical innovation.

Joint communion is not possible as long as the Latin church remains heretical. The position of any patriarchate within Orthodoxy remains as long as it is Orthodox. If it lapses into heresy then it is outside the church and such sacraments lack grace. Thus your wasting your time taking part in them. Sacraments are only effective when consecrated by a right believing bishop with apostolic succession and orthopraxis.

Papal supremacy is not the only heresy of the Latin Church. Resolving papal primacy still does not resolve the problem.
Other issues that must be dealth with:

1. Immaculate Conception
2. Merits of the Saints
3. Purgatory
4. the Definition of the Assumption of Mary
5. The Unia and the heretical branches of it, such as the syriac monophysites, nestorian chaldeans, and monothelete maronites.
6. Use of unleavened bread
7. Calculation of Pascha
8. There non-existant fasting tradition
9. Fillioque
i can go on and on .

[Renee Jones]

Simon, I don’t usually comment, but there is something in your post that won’t leave me alone. It was on my mind all of yesterday and into the night. I woke up still pondering your dilemma. My heart really goes out to you in this! I am not the forum member best qualified to answer questions of history or theology, but perhaps lessons learned from my experience might be of some use to you.

Please, forgive my impertinence, but I really believe your questions are on the wrong track. They are good and important questions, but they are not the proper ones if you are seeking an understanding between Catholic and Orthodox individuals. You will quickly find yourself in a heated defensive argument where nothing is gained and perhaps much is lost. But there is another route that will address your questions. Each of your questions is really a symptom of two larger issues-- a misunderstanding of the Trinity and the resultant misunderstanding of the Body of Christ. I suggest you begin with the second. If you can share with the non-Orthodox around you a deep understanding of what “the Church” is to you, an Orthodox, then little by little these discussions will address the questions of papal primacy, infallibility, and intercommunion without (or at least, with less) polemics and perhaps with the added benefit that as your friends begin to see what the Church really is they will arrive at the answers themselves.

I have gone through a number of religious traditions, and have found the biggest obstacle to be vocabulary. You as an Orthodox will have a particular meaning in mind when you use particular religious terms. Your non-Orthodox friend will hear the same word but understand something very different. This is why you need to go slowly, addressing the core issues gradually and carefully, making sure at each step that you both understand the same thing.

As to your last question about tradition, that one is kinda my thing, so I do feel more qualified to address this. There are many traditions throughout Europe that are fully Orthodox. When Rome returns to the faith these will be kept and given new vitality. The traditions that arose out of error will be corrected where possible or done away with where not. There are many rich and beautiful treasures in the Roman tradition that have been bequeathed to us from saints recognized by both Catholics and Orthodox. These should be cherished by all of us.

With love in Christ

[Ken McRae]

We read in chapter 15 of Acts that St James was
the leader of the Church. His authority is clearly described in Acts 12:17
and Acts 15:19. It is James who pronounces after argument has been heard.

The only problem with Andreas' above statement is that it does'nt square with the mind of the Three Holy Hierarchs, as succinctly expressed below:-




St. John Chrysostom

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, ... and the
third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (i.e. St. Peter) Teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." ( Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii )

Now I cordially ask you, Andreas: What is St. John Chrysostom saying above about St. Peter? Is he saying, that St. Peter was appointed Teacher of the whole world, or not? And by whom was he appointed 'Teacher of the whole world,' according to St. John Chrysostom? We must'nt forget the words of St. Basil, following below!




St. Basil the Great

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,--suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here; able to speak with proper reserve and appropriateness, and thoroughly
well acquainted with all that has been effected after Ariminum to undo the violent measures adopted there." ( Epistle 69 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202069.htm) )




St. Basil's Letter to Pope Damasus I (366-384 AD):

"We are in no wise asking anything new, but what was customary with blessed and religious men of former times, and especially with yourself. For we know, by tradition of our fathers . . . that [Pope] Dionysius (259-269 AD), that most blessed Bishop, while he was eminent among you for orthodoxy and other virtues, sent letters of visitation to our Church at Caesarea, and of consolation to our fathers, with ransomers of our brethren from captivity."

(Cited in Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845 [Revised 1878], Part 1, Ch. 4, Sec. 3, No. 12 )

Now I cordially ask you once again, Andreas: If the Roman Pontiff has no authority over the Eastern jurisdictions, then why does St. Basil appeal to him, in the above letter, on the basis of Eastern tradition, to use his own personal authority as Pope "to correct the unruly among us here?" The unruly, to whom St. Basil refers in this letter, are not bound, according to your ecclessiology, anyway, to submit to Pope Damasus I. So why then?




St. Gregory the Theologian

"Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony."( In 'Carmen de Vita Sua ' A.D. 382)

Lastly, Andreas, what does the divinely Illuminated Gregory mean when he says that Rome "presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony." I'd really like to see how you try to reduce that to mean its exact opposite.

Cordially yours in Christ,
Ken McRae

[Ken McRae]

Nicolaj, here (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/19669CE9.en.aspx)is something interesting.

01 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MChixSMnM&feature=related)
02 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18qUIwh0Ss&feature=related)
03 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvahl1q-nQ&feature=related)
04 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo6bKQ12t3o&feature=related)
05 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqMVhU4xeUQ&feature=related)
06 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nDJzAzpCjU&feature=related)
07 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzxDdhNHGb4&feature=related)
08 - Pope's visit to Constantinople: Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ylAABIN_g&feature=related)

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Ken,

The Orthodox Church doesn't have a problem with St Peter or with his successors at Rome until some centuries after the matters you mention.

[Ken McRae]

Dear Ken,

The Orthodox Church doesn't have a problem with St Peter or with his successors at Rome until some centuries after the matters you mention.

Dear Andreas,

Thanks for your reply, though it does not answer to the questions asked. But I have another question for you, or anyone else who would care to answer it: According to St. Gregory the Theologian, Rome "presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony." But since you have excommunicated her, whom do you now say "presides over all," in her place, and who is it now that "guards the universal divine harmony." Would that be the Ecumenical Patriarchate? or no?

Cordially in Christ,
Ken McRae

[Herman Blaydoe]

Rome was center of an empire that no longer exists. Rome is no longer the administrative center of the world. Perhaps it is no longer necessary?

God is eternal, Rome is not.

[Ken McRae]

Rome was center of an empire that no longer exists. Rome is no longer the administrative center of the world. Perhaps it is no longer necessary?

Not true! As Divine Providence elected St. Paul to replace Judas the Devil, and as our Lord Christ is the Second Adam, so to did the Divine Rule make it abundantly clear to all that Russia was elected the Second Rome. According to your own "contemporary" ecclessiology, the next Ecumenical Council will undoubtedly resolve the Russian schism, including the jurisdictional chaos of the US, and officially recognize Russian "primacy" as the "new" Rome. This is inevitable, according to your own line of "contemporary" theology.


God is eternal, Rome is not.
You speak trully. May the Lord bless thee for it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Not true! As Divine Providence elected St. Paul to replace Judas the Devil,

Actually, I believe St Matthew was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 15-26).


so to did the Divine Rule make it abundantly clear to all that Russia was elected the Second Rome.

When and where? Now I realize that Constantinople has often been referred to as the second Rome, and Moscow had been called the THIRD Rome by some at one time, but I really need to see a source for this rather interesting claim, because it is not at all abundantly clear to this bear of little brain.


According to your own "contemporary" ecclessiology, the next Ecumenical Council will undoubtedly resolve the Russian schism, including the jurisdictional chaos of the US, and officially recognize Russian "primacy" as the "new" Rome.

Um, well, actually....

no.

The so-called "Russian schism" has already been resolved in a God-pleasing manner, thank-you-every-much. I would certainly welcome anything that resolved the jurisdictional issue in the US. I suppose that it is possible that Moscow might somehow take on the role of the First among equals if the current holder of that office, the Patriarch of Constantinople were to either relinquish it or fall into schism, cutting himself off from the rest of the Church as did the Pope, but I leave that to God and better minds than mine to sort out.

[Ken McRae]

Actually, I believe St Matthew was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 15-26).

I think you mean Matthias. Yes, I am aware of that, but I'm also aware that not all the ancients were of one mind as to which of the two should be regarded as Judas' rightful replacement; and that due in part to the fact that Matthias is never heard of again, in Holy Scripture, after that day. But I don't mean to quibble. My point was that Divine Providence elected or chose Judas a replacement. I trust you realized that.



When and where? Now I realize that Constantinople has often been referred to as the second Rome, and Moscow had been called the THIRD Rome by some at one time, but I really need to see a source for this rather interesting claim, because it is not at all abundantly clear to this bear of little brain.

My bad. You are correct, no doubt. Pardon me on that point. Once again, as I don't mean to quibble, the point I was merely trying to make was that Russia was generally viewed within Orthodoxy as the "providential" replacement of the Roman See. The term "Third" Rome still means the "new" Rome, however, you choose to slice and dice it.




Um, well, actually....

no.

The so-called "Russian schism" has already been resolved in a God-pleasing manner, thank-you-every-much.

That hardly strikes me as an accurate depiction of affairs. However, do you deny this resolution will be debated at the next Ecumenical Council? And either formally approved or disapproved by the attending fathers? Or do you deny that an Ecumenical sanction of the supposed "union" will determine the matter, once for all, among those who still view the resolution" or "union" with guarded suspicion?



I would certainly welcome anything that resolved the jurisdictional issue in the US. I suppose that it is possible that Moscow might somehow take on the role of the First among equals if the current holder of that office, the Patriarch of Constantinople were to either relinquish it or fall into schism, cutting himself off from the rest of the Church as did the Pope, but I leave that to God and better minds than mine to sort out.

My point here, which I admit might seem somewhat esoteric to you and most others of your cast, is that if the ancient Church merely "awarded" Rome the "honor" of primacy due entirely to political expediency, then since the USA is presently the reigning political super-power of the world, and since she rightfully belongs to the Russian Church, not the Greek, then it seems entirely reasonable that she (i.e Russia) should be recognized as the most powerful jurisdiction in the universal Church, due to the expediencies. I don't see how the Ecumenical Patriarch has any veto-power in the matter,
based upon tradition and the basic tennants of your own ecclessiology, as I appear to have understood them, so far.

[Ken McRae]

My point here, which I admit might seem somewhat esoteric to you and most others of your cast, is that if the ancient Church merely "awarded" Rome the "honor" of primacy due entirely to political expediency, then since the USA is presently the reigning political super-power of the world, and since she rightfully belongs to the Russian Church, not the Greek, then it seems entirely reasonable that she (i.e Russia) should be recognized as the most powerful jurisdiction in the universal Church, due to the expediencies. I don't see how the Ecumenical Patriarch has any veto-power in the matter,
based upon tradition and the basic tennants of your own ecclessiology, as I appear to have understood them, so far.

OK, I guess I should fess up to being unclear about the canonical status of the USA. Is the USA (or North America) regarded as "independent" of Russia; or as still under the Russian jurisdiction? I guess I should've been clear about that before I went and spouted off. Nevertheless, Europe will become a super-power again, as the "revived" Roman Empire of prophecy; and it looks like the USA might have seen its best day, and will only know political decline from here on in, on the world scence; so in the end, even if America is no longer under Russian jurisdiction, it is highly doubtful the OCA will
ever be recognized as the "principal" Church.

[Kosta]

This thread is evidence how roman propaganda has been effective in influencing certain people about the history of the Church. The Fifth Ecumenical council condemned the heresy of the pre-existence of souls, yet Roman bishops still imply the Apostle Peter is his reincarnation. Certain bishoprics are successors of the apostles not there reincarnation. Peter has died, no earthly source has a monopoly on his soul. The Latins elevation of Peter as some sort of supernatural ghost that haunts vatican city and guides the pope is another example of roman propaganda. St. Peter is looking down and is very sad that the heretical latin church has hijacked his memory and is abusing it in such a way.

Ancient Homilies by the Fathers mentioning and praising the Apostle Peter is just that. Just like the Fathers praised all the apostles and saints and martyrs using equally flattering language. What the rc dont understand is that they alone have been brainwashed into automatically associating the geographic location of Rome and its local church with the individual of Peter. Peter was a person who died in 67 a.d. He is not a city nor a church.
I can quote 10,000 verses from Fathers who give equal praise to other cities and churches. According to St John Chrysostom he considered Antioch the most blessed and greatest city and its church the greatest on earth because the word 'christian' was first given to them. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was officially given the title "Mother of all the Churches" at an ecumenical council. I can go on and on.

Ecumenical councils have given ranks of honor to the patriarchates and an ecumenical council can take it away. Considering the roman empire no longer exists and what was that empire now consists of secular and even non christian lands and governments, a future one should indeed abolish this obselete system.

[Simon]

This thread is evidence how roman propaganda has been effective in influencing certain people about the history of the Church. The Fifth Ecumenical council condemned the heresy of the pre-existence of souls, yet Roman bishops still imply the Apostle Peter is his reincarnation. Certain bishoprics are successors of the apostles not there reincarnation. Peter has died, no earthly source has a monopoly on his soul. The Latins elevation of Peter as some sort of supernatural ghost that haunts vatican city and guides the pope is another example of roman propaganda. St. Peter is looking down and is very sad that the heretical latin church has hijacked his memory and is abusing it in such a way.

Ancient Homilies by the Fathers mentioning and praising the Apostle Peter is just that. Just like the Fathers praised all the apostles and saints and martyrs using equally flattering language. What the rc dont understand is that they alone have been brainwashed into automatically associating the geographic location of Rome and its local church with the individual of Peter. Peter was a person who died in 67 a.d. He is not a city nor a church.
I can quote 10,000 verses from Fathers who give equal praise to other cities and churches. According to St John Chrysostom he considered Antioch the most blessed and greatest city and its church the greatest on earth because the word 'christian' was first given to them. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was officially given the title "Mother of all the Churches" at an ecumenical council. I can go on and on.

Ecumenical councils have given ranks of honor to the patriarchates and an ecumenical council can take it away. Considering the roman empire no longer exists and what was that empire now consists of secular and even non christian lands and governments, a future one should indeed abolish this obselete system.

Dear Brethren,
i hesitate to intervene, being much less up on Church councils and so on than the rest of you. However, this thread seems to be rather like a playground battle, ‘My Church is better than your one, so there!’ Speaking purely personally, intellectual and academic discussion will never convince my either way, my being Orthodox depends on the awareness during the Liturgy, which then permeates the rest of the week, that I’m a little closer to God than I would otherwise be. If Ken feels closer to God within his RC tradition he and we can trade erudition until the cows come home.
The other thread, ‘Was the great schism really such a tragedy’ or words to that effect I find much more appealing. But then, perhaps I ‘ve just got an academic inferiority complex, happy Xmas thoughts to all, Simon

[Simon]

P.s I'm not good with the mouse, so please accept me apologies for quoting the previous letter, as I was referring to the tone of the thread in general. looking ever more forward to Christmas, Simon

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think you mean Matthias.

Matthew = Matthias, just like Ghermanos = Herman or Isau = Jesus.


the point I was merely trying to make was that Russia was generally viewed within Orthodoxy as the "providential" replacement of the Roman See. The term "Third" Rome still means the "new" Rome, however, you choose to slice and dice it.

Sorry, and not to quibble, but no. Russia was viewed by RUSSIA as the guardian of the Faith and successor to the Empire at one time, but hardly by "Orthodoxy" however you choose to define it. Constantinople never acknowledged it, Rome certainly didn't, and I am not aware of any other Patriarchate that thought so.


However, do you deny this resolution will be debated at the next Ecumenical Council?

This might just be me talking, but I doubt there will ever be another Ecumenical Council. There is no Emperor of the World to call one. The Age of Ecumenical Councils has passed. Having one might be a good thing, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.


OK, I guess I should fess up to being unclear about the canonical status of the USA. Is the USA (or North America) regarded as "independent" of Russia; or as still under the Russian jurisdiction?

Yeah, you are not alone there. The answer is YES. I shall explain.

The Patriarch of Moscow (MP) granted autocephaly to the Russian churches in America which became the OCA. The Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) in Constantinople does not recognize the authority of the MP to grant autocephaly. So the EP considers the OCA to be still under the MP, even though the MP considers the OCA to be independent. Go figure. In the mean time other Churches have established their own jurisdictions to care for their people who immigrated to the US, so we have Greek, Syrian (Antiochian), Serbian, Bulgarian, Carpatho-Russian jurisdictions. Most of them have formed a standing committee of bishops to work out jurisdictional issues called SCOBA, which is as close to an idea of unity as we have been able to get at present. And there are a few small schismatic groups here and there, even as the Catholics have their "Old Catholic" renegade groups.

We don't belong to any organized religion, we are Orthodox! The People of God have always had trouble getting organized even in the ancient days. Ever read the Old Testament? Interestingly enough, those Jews were seldom a UNITED people, they were sometimes led by tribal leaders, by judges, by prophets, by various and sundry kings. They were families, tribes, split kingdoms, separated by deportation and diasporia, and yet they were still ONE PEOPLE. Like the Orthodox. Many languages, many customs, but ONE FAITH. A Faith that has more in common across language, culture and geography than the relatively wide range of beliefs that fit within the loose definition of Judaism.

[Herman Blaydoe]

then since the USA is presently the reigning political super-power of the world, and since she rightfully belongs to the Russian Church, not the Greek, then it seems entirely reasonable that she (i.e Russia) should be recognized as the most powerful jurisdiction in the universal Church, due to the expediencies.

That is God's decision to make, I suspect, not ours. BTW, America does not "belong to Russia". The MP relinquished that role in 1970, when it granted independence to the OCA. And it should be noted that the OCA is not the largest Orthodox Church in America, I believe that title belongs to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOAA), which is under the Ecumenical Patriarch, as is my little diocese of Carpatho-Russians. Again, go figure.

The Church of Russia is pretty much the largest Orthodox Church these days. But it is mostly concerned about Russians at present, not the world at large. So while they are a "force to be reckoned with", they do not seem to be looking to be the leader of the Orthodox world. They have enough to deal with at home. While the USA may be a powerful country, it is not an empire and of the many bishops of Washington DC (or perhaps the bishops of New York City?), there has not emerged one with the God-given charism to establish a Patriarchate--too much squabbling going on and there is no Emperor to sponsor a particular bishop for the post, as in times ancient. And perhaps this is as God wants it to be. IF the USA becomes Orthodox and IF it remains a supreme world power at the time, perhaps there will be a new Ecumenical Patriarch. But don't hold your breath.

I hope that clears things up for you at least a little.

[Father David Moser]

The Church of Russia is pretty much the largest Orthodox Church these days. But it is mostly concerned about Russians at present, not the world at large. So while they are a "force to be reckoned with", they do not seem to be looking to be the leader of the Orthodox world.

Here I would differ strongly with you. The Russian Church is indeed concerned with the world at large and recognizing her own responsibility as the largest and most widespread Orthodox body has made efforts to fulfill that responsibility by taking a leadership role in many situations. This has, naturally, caused some "friction" with Constantinople, but what else is new. Certainly there has been a lot of effort expended to get her own house in order following the chaos of the years of Soviet captivity, but this work is ongoing and is increasingly being accomplished (the recent reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP is evidence of that). The Russian Church is, of course, Russian and therefore concerned about the welfare and spiritual state of the scattered Russian diaspora and considers this her primary flock, however, the many non-russian converts who have sought Orthodoxy in the arms of the Russian Church are just as much her priority (I'm one of those). The Patriarch of Moscow isn't seeking to be "the leader of the Orthodox World" but he does recognize that simply by being the Patriarch of the largest most wide spread Orthodox Church that he already is a leader of the Orthodox world and has been acting in that manner, especially among the historic bounds of the Russian Church.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

Matthew = Matthias, just like Ghermanos = Herman or Isau = Jesus.

Oh, I see now. What you have said strikes me as logical. However, I should also say I've never seen a Bible translation that ever translated Matthias as 'Matthew'; and I've seen more than a few. But then again, my memory isn't what it use to be. We have witnessed that already.



This might just be me talking, but I doubt there will ever be another Ecumenical Council. There is no Emperor of the World to call one. The Age of Ecumenical Councils has passed. Having one might be a good thing, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.

I see your point, and it makes sense too. But with God. All things are possible! And at least a few of the contemporary Orthodox fathers and saints ( such as Blessed Father Popovich, for example,) appeared hopeful about it; and so that is the better way, or viewpoint, imho; but I'm visually challenged.




The Patriarch of Moscow (MP) granted autocephaly to the Russian churches in America which became the OCA. The Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) in Constantinople does not recognize the authority of the MP to grant autocephaly. So the EP considers the OCA to be still under the MP, even though the MP considers the OCA to be independent. Go figure.

That's a hard one, (I admit,) to wrap my head around. I guess one would need to really dig down deep into all the historical data to even try and make sense of it all. Maybe I will some day, but right now I have little desire to get involved in ecclesiastical controversy.




In the mean time other Churches have established their own jurisdictions to care for their people who immigrated to the US, so we have Greek, Syrian (Antiochian), Serbian, Bulgarian, Carpatho-Russian jurisdictions.

Were these other jurisdictions established with the blessing of the MP? Or quite contrary to the MP's public objections and envoked canon law(s)?




Most of them have formed a standing committee of bishops to work out jurisdictional issues called SCOBA, which is as close to an idea of unity as we have been able to get at present. And there are a few small schismatic groups here and there, even as the Catholics have their "Old Catholic" renegade groups.

Ah yes, the "old" Catholics, God bless their souls. And all the contemporary splinter groups who adhere strictly and only to the Tridentine Latin Mass. I am quite familiar with the phenomena. And then there was the age of the three Popes, too, way back when. Wow! Talk about confusion. It's enough to try the faith of an honest soul. a hundred sighhhs!




We don't belong to any organized religion, we are Orthodox! The People of God have always had trouble getting organized even in the ancient days. Ever read the Old Testament?

Yes, I have glanced upon a page or two of it in my day, though I deny any proficiency in it; beyond that of a mere acquaintance. I confess it's a great book, and I have sinned by not spending more serious time in the study of it. I will try to reform my way, but without God I can do nothing, either of or by myself.




Interestingly enough, those Jews were seldom a UNITED people, they were sometimes led by tribal leaders, by judges, by prophets, by various and sundry kings. They were families, tribes, split kingdoms, separated by deportation and diasporia, and yet they were still ONE PEOPLE. Like the Orthodox. Many languages, many customs, but ONE FAITH. A Faith that has more in common across language, culture and geography than the relatively wide range of beliefs that fit within the loose definition of Judaism.

Yes, I understand what you mean, but I am a little reluctant to reduce the degree and gravity of the sin of schism to something relatively harmless on the grander scale of the ladder of life. It's not that I feel you're doing or saying that necessarily, but sometimes I just get the strong feeling from contemporary Orthodoxy that it really does'nt matter who you're canonically aligned with, just so long as you're of the Orthodox faith.

I confess to having a real hard time viewing the Patristic fathers accepting and justifying such an approach to the administration of the Church. Perhaps it's just that I'm still too blind and ignorant yet to see what is plain in front of my nose.

If I have understood even the basics, it seems that the work of schism is described in holy scripture as a work of the flesh, and destructive to the Living Temple. And what does St. Paul say about defiling the Temple of God? "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." => 1 Cor 3:17. Now, if the Lord will judge those who defile His Temple, in such a manner, how will he judge those who outright destroy it through the working of schism(s)?

It is so abundantly clear (to me at least) that the work of schism is so contrary to, and utterly devoid of the Spirit of Love and prayer, that it is hard for me at best to imagine many, if any, who are in bondage to this sin, making it into Paradise. Surely those who sincerely struggle to overcome it will find mercy with God, but what about those who rest contented in it; and never lift a finger to free themselves of its power?

Besides, and perhaps even more importantly, Apostolic tradition is very clear on the spiritual state of schismatics. Or so I thought. Perhaps the one thing that irks me the most about Protestant Evangelicalism is its almost complete dismissal of the sin of schism as if it did not exist, and as if it were not a very serious and soul-endangering sin.

May the All-Compassionate Lord have mercy on us all! God bless the children of Abraham, and the Spirit of Adotion in the children of faith! Amen.

Gal 5 - "19": Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

"20": Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

"21": Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Cor 13 - "1": Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

"2": And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

"3": And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

"4": Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

"5": Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

"6": Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

"7": Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

"8": Charity never faileth.

[Kris]

That's a hard one, (I admit,) to wrap my head around. I guess one would need
to really dig down deep into all the historical data to even try and make sense
of it all. Maybe I will some day, but right now I have little desire to get involved
in ecclesiastical controversy.


As I understand it, all the Orthodox in America were originally under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. This changed when EP Meletios (same guy that changed the calendar and recognised Anglican orders), wishing to promote Hellenism and increase the authority of the EP, brought all the Greeks under his jurisdiction. The Antiochians quickly followed suit in creating their own jurisdiction, as did every other ethnic grouping eventually.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Were these other jurisdictions established with the blessing of the MP? Or quite contrary to the MP's public objections and envoked canon law(s)?

What was done was just done, no permission or blessing was asked. Not having the secular power to enforce any claims, the MP has had very little to say on the subject and things really got chaotic when the Communists took over. The MP had actually established an Arab bishop for Arabic Orthodox in the USA, but that sort of went out the window once Lenin moved into the Kremlin. After that it was pretty much every jurisdiction for itself.


Yes, I understand what you mean, but I am a little reluctant to reduce the degree and gravity of the sin of schism to something relatively harmless on the grander scale of the ladder of life.

We are in agreement here, schism is a serious thing. It is considered by some Orthodox as worse than heresy. But having numerous jurisdictions is not in itself schism, even if it is not strictly canonical (whatever that means these days). Schism is what exists between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but there is obviously going to be some disagreement over who is in schism from whom.

Oh and one last thing (yeah right). One really should not read too much into the rhetorical hyperbole that characterizes the correspondence between the patriarchs through the ages. The Patriarch of Alexandria is called the Supreme Judge of the Universe, because Alexandria was the authority for establishing the Church calendar for the Empire. Hyperbole is the deliberate overstatement in order to provide emphasis. It was a tool of diplomatic language. they didn't have bold and italics and ALL CAPS and smilies to abuse, so they used hyperbole instead! And lets face it, when you really want someone's help, a little flattery can go a long way...

[Ken McRae]

... this thread seems to be rather like a playground battle, ‘My Church is better than your one, so there!’

Well, Jesus did say that we must become like little children, did He not? "Simon says" "Take two steps back and three deep breaths!" I'm just kidding with ya, bro'. In all seriousness, though, you make a good point.




Speaking purely personally, intellectual and academic discussion will never convince my either way, my being Orthodox depends on the awareness during the Liturgy, which then permeates the rest of the week, that I’m a little closer to God than I would otherwise be.

I can feel the power of truth in this statement! However, there are dangers in that approach as well, if taken to an extreme; as the nature and mystery of spiritual experience clearly evinces. I hope I speak according to the true and tried experience of the saints, and according to Scripture; that there are seasons in the spiritual life which are characterized as deserts or spiritual desertions, where the sweetness of the Lord and spiritual joy is not communicated to our souls; at least not in any great or consistent manner. The children of light walk in darkness, as it were, while the Lord hides his face from them who cry out to Him for deliverance from the bondage of iniquity.

The Psalms answer much to this mystery, and it would be unwise of us to ignore its reality. For many of sound-heart have forgotten what the sensible presence of God feels like, (if they have ever known it all,) due to the many, many years they have passed by under the frame of spiritual depression and the utter absence of any deep, mystical, spiritual joy in Christ. The Psalmist speaks of this in terms of being spiritually "downcast." I'm sure you know about this. There is much of this mystery set forth in the grace-filled book by St. John of Kronstadt.




If Ken feels closer to God within his RC tradition he and we can trade erudition until the cows come home.

You are correct, Simon. Though I am far from dismissing the usefulness of erudition, I confess that doing the will of the Father, that is to say, by participating in the life of the Church, and cleansing our nous the right way, we shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set us free. This is true!




The other thread, ‘Was the great schism really such a tragedy’ or words to that effect I find much more appealing. But then, perhaps I ‘ve just got an academic inferiority complex,

I have not read that thread you refer to, but for the record, I was the one who gave this thread a "two-star" rating.



happy Xmas thoughts to all, Simon

And to you as well, dear brother in Christ.

[Ken McRae]

This thread is evidence how roman propaganda has been effective in influencing certain people about the history of the Church. The Fifth Ecumenical council condemned the heresy of the pre-existence of souls, yet Roman bishops still imply the Apostle Peter is his reincarnation. Certain bishoprics are successors of the apostles not there reincarnation. Peter has died, no earthly source has a monopoly on his soul. The Latins elevation of Peter as some sort of supernatural ghost that haunts vatican city and guides the pope is another example of roman propaganda. St. Peter is looking down and is very sad that the heretical latin church has hijacked his memory and is abusing it in such a way.

Well, St. Silouan did believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, on religious matters, or that every man and woman had the right or freedom to worship God, according to the dictates of their own conscience. This is made very clear in Wisdom from Mount Athos. But seriously, I find little help, if any, in your above statement(s). Thanks for sharing them anyway. I'll keep them under
consideration.




Ancient Homilies by the Fathers mentioning and praising the Apostle Peter is just that. Just like the Fathers praised all the apostles and saints and martyrs using equally flattering language. What the rc dont understand is that they alone have been brainwashed into automatically associating the geographic location of Rome and its local church with the individual of Peter. Peter was a person who died in 67 a.d. He is not a city nor a church.

Seriously? Really?




I can quote 10,000 verses from Fathers ...

Wow! You sure you ain't just "pullin' my leg," bro'? (Hmmm ... maybe this is just another case of "hyperbole?") I'm reminded here of Simon's words, which carry more weight with me, in this regard or connection. They appear to ring more of truth, but maybe I'm just deluded.




According to St John Chrysostom he considered Antioch the most blessed and greatest city and its church the greatest on earth because the word 'christian' was first given to them. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was officially given the title "Mother of all the Churches" at an ecumenical council. I can go on and on.

Just a couple quotations to back up the above claims will suffice.




Ecumenical councils have given ranks of honor to the patriarchates and an ecumenical council can take it away. Considering the roman empire no longer exists and what was that empire now consists of secular and even non christian lands and governments, a future one should indeed abolish this obselete system.

Fodder for debate, but I don't have the present appetite for it.

[Herman Blaydoe]

As I understand it, all the Orthodox in America were originally under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. This changed when EP Meletios (same guy that changed the calendar and recognised Anglican orders), wishing to promote Hellenism and increase the authority of the EP, brought all the Greeks under his jurisdiction. The Antiochians quickly followed suit in creating their own jurisdiction, as did every other ethnic grouping eventually.

I think this is something of an oversimplification. There were Greek churches established in the USA independent of the Russian Metropolia back in the 1800s. There was to be an Antiochian ministry under the Russians, who originally ordained St. Raphael as a bishop to the Arab-speaking Orthodox. But that ministry went sadly awry after his passing under Bishop Afthimios (Ofiesh) of unfortunate memory. The resulting vacuum was filled by the Patriarch of Antioch since the MP was then in no position to do anything about it under the Soviet yoke. The evolution of my own dear little Carpatho-Russian Diocese is a tragicomedy that perhaps deserves its own thread.

That "Anglican Orders thing". Hmm. Even saints can be mislead. There was a short time when St. Raphael allowed his flock to commune in Anglican churches if no Orthodox Church was nearby. He later realized that the Anglicans had beem misleading in their representation of Anglican ecclessiology and theology and were abusing his policy, which he quickly rescinded.

[Ken McRae]

As I understand it, all the Orthodox in America were originally under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church. This changed when EP Meletios (same guy that changed the calendar and recognised Anglican orders), wishing to promote Hellenism and increase the authority of the EP, brought all the Greeks under his jurisdiction. The Antiochians quickly followed suit in
creating their own jurisdiction, as did every other ethnic grouping eventually.

Thanks, Kris, for taking a few seconds out to try and shed a glimour of light on the matter. It's appreciated.

Hey, by-the-way, your last name would'nt happen to be "Kringle", would it? Just kiddin' ya, bro'!

Have yourself a blessed Christmas, in the Lord!

[Ken McRae]

...a glimour of light ...

Or is that "glimmer", instead? Not sure which is the right spelling, but I trust you understood me. My first inclination was to revise, but since you all like to keep count of "revisions", I chose to log another post, perhaps out of pure vanity on my part. Who really knows, but the Lord?

O, Lord, help me to overcome vain and useless thoughts, in Jesus' name! Light, O dear Lord! We need Thy Light, life, liberty and love! So, help us God.

[Olga]

Matthew = Matthias, just like Ghermanos = Herman or Isau = Jesus.

Not so, Herman. Ken is correct. Matthew (Mat-thaios, Matfey) is a different name to Matthias (Mat-thias, Matfiy).

[Effie Ganatsios]

This is from the Trumpet article :"Benedict is literally making a career out of re-acquiring Catholicism’s daughter churches. However, no matter what is on the table for discussion, one dogma will remain the same: Everybody obeys the pope. "

This is from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html :

"10. This conciliar dimension of the Church’s life belongs to its deep-seated nature. That is to say, it is founded in the will of Christ for his people (cfr. Mt 18, 15-20), even if its canonical realizations are of necessity also determined by history and by the social, political and cultural context. Defined thus, the conciliar dimension of the Church is to be found at the three levels of ecclesial communion, the local, the regional and the universal: at the local level of the diocese entrusted to the bishop; at the regional level of a group of local Churches with their bishops who “recognize who is the first amongst themselves” (Apostolic Canon 34); and at the universal level, where those who are first (protoi) in the various regions, together with all the bishops, cooperate in that which concerns the totality of the Church. At this level also, the protoi must recognize who is the first amongst themselves. "



"Conclusion


45. It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.


46. We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together."

" THE PROTOI MUST RECOGNIZE WHO IS THE FIRST AMONGST THEMSELVES"......... i.e. the Roman Pope?





This is a plea from Elder Paisios to unite the Orthodox Churches : http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/elder-paisios-the-athonite-letter-on-ecumenism.aspx

I suppose the basic issue is one of control. And perhaps, in spite of the word games on this thread, we, as Orthodox need to state in no uncertain terms why we will or will not submit to a Roman Pope, to a church that has a bloody history, to a man elected by other men who considers himself to be an intermediary between our souls and that of our Lord. Strong words are not always an indication of arrogance or of hyperbole or whatever else non-Orthodox christians made uncomfortable by deep feelings choose to describe them. Strong words are sometimes an expression of something so deeply ingrained that it is even a little embarrassing to say them aloud.

I am all in favour of goodwill between the various Christians churches but my soul is God's. This is why I am an Orthodox Christian.



http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/orthodoxy.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papal_supremacy.aspx


effie

[M.C. Steenberg]

Matthew = Matthias, just like Ghermanos = Herman or Isau = Jesus.

Dear all, while I realise it is rather tangental to the actual discussion of this thread, it is worth pointing out that Matthew and Mathias are not, in fact, the same name. 'Matthew' is the English translation of the Greek Mathaios, while 'Mathias', as it usually occurs in English, is a transliteration of the different Greek name, Mathias.

Mathaios (Matthew) is the author of the first Gospel; Mathias (Mathias) is the apostle chosen by lots to succeed Judas.

INXC, Dcn Mathaios

[Ken McRae]

... a church that has a bloody history ...

Well Effie,

No one will ever accuse you of being too irenic in spirit, that is for sure; but since you appear in a "playful" mood, comments on the following "historical data" are cordially invited:

Bishop Ware is officially on record as conceding the following;

Each ... must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (Ware, ibid. , p. 70) (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx)

Now, effie, since you're in such a playful frame of mind, I will ask you to expound on what precisely Bishop Ware means by the Orthodox massacre of Roman Catholics, at Constantinople in 1182, some 22 years prior to the historic tragedy of 1204? Well, just in case you sincerely do not know about the notorious year of 1182, I will share a couple of the sad details with you; but only because you asked for it:

A record of the mystery of iniquity in 1182

1. Venice and Constantinople: AD 1082-1201 (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=2760&HistoryID=ac59)

"During the 12th century Venetian merchants make excellent use of the exclusive trading privilege granted them in the Byzantine empire, in 1082, for their help against the Normans. But their wealth and arrogance provoke profound hostility in Constantinople. In an attempt to curb them, the emperor makes trading agreements with Genoa in 1169 and with Pisa in 1170, following this in 1171 with the confiscation of the goods of every Venetian merchant in the empire. In 1182 the people of Constantinople take matters into their own hands with a massacre of the Latins (or Roman Catholics) living in the city."

2 - In April 1182 Andronicus organised a massacre of the 'Latins' (http://www.roman-emperors.org/maryant.htm) in the city [of Constantinople], on the grounds that the empress and the protosebastos had bought their support by promising them the chance of plundering the city. Some 60,000 Latins are said by Eustathius to have died in the massacre, though the figure must be exaggerated.[[57]]

[[57]]Choniates, Historia, 250-1; Eustathius, 28-30. 4,000 who survived the slaughter were sold to the Turks as slaves. See also William of Tyre, 22.12-13; D. M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge, 1988), 107-8; Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, esp. 41-2, cf. 204-6; Angold, Byzantine Empire, 196, 264-5.

3. Historian Warren Carroll notes: (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/orthodoxy.html)

Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated ... Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 ... a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant].... in which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother's wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. (Carroll, ibid ., pp. 157,131)

Carroll recalls two other lamentable Byzantine incidents:

In 1171, on the orders or at least with the tacit approval of the Byzantine government, thousands of Venetians in the Eastern empire had been killed, mutilated, or arrested and held for years in prison. (Carroll, ibid. , p. 150)

[In 1188] Frederick Barbarossa ... requested permission of the Eastern Emperor, Isaac 11 Angelus, for passage of his army through Byzantine dominions on the way to the Holy Land, and for the right to purchase food for his troops within them. Isaac said he agreed . . . but in fact Isaac was resolved to oppose the passage of the crusaders, and made contact with Saladin [the Muslim commander] to concert plans "to delay and destroy the German army." About this "Byzantine treachery" there is no doubt; even the many modern Western historians sympathetic to Byzantium and hostile to the Crusades have to admit it [e.g., Emperor Isaac, in 1187, had written Saladin to congratulate him for his great achievement of re-taking Jerusalem from the Latin crusaders] ...

[Frederick's envoys, imprisoned for a time] returned to Frederick... with infuriating (and accurate) reports of the Byzantine alliance with Saladin, plans to destroy the crusading army as it crossed the Dardanelles, and the violent anti-Western attitude of Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople, who had offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner. Frederick passed on this information to his son Henry.... to ask the Pope's approval for a crusade against the Eastern Empire because of its treachery and dealings with the enemy. No Papal approval was given and Frederick soon thought better of the idea ... Though a war against Christians was indubitably a perversion of the crusading ideal, Emperor Isaac's acts against the crusaders had clearly been acts of war ...

Everything that the Fourth Crusade later did to Christendom's discredit, Frederick Barbarossa refused to do, though he was directly provoked as the leaders of the Fourth Crusade never were. The extent of Byzantine provocation of the Third Crusade is obvious from the sequence of events. It would be a long time before anyone in the West would trust them again. (Carroll, ibid. , pp. 130,132-133)

[Ken McRae]

I've read a variety of documents regarding the exact interpretation of the postion of Pope in the first several centures, but nothing that proves papal supremecy, except by quite a stretch.



1. St. Gregory of Nazianzen

Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church ... ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 234-235. )

2. St. Gregory of Nyssa

The memory of Peter, the Head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but [upon him] is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 235-236. )

3. St. Basil the Great

And when he, the instrument of such and so great a judgment; he the minister of the so great wrath of God upon a sinner; that blessed Peter, who was preferred before all the other disciples; who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest; he to whom were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 236. )

4. St. John Chrysostom

Peter, that Leader of the Choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the Brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 245. )

Peter, the Leader of the Choir, the Mouth of all the Apostles, the Head of that Tribe, the Ruler of the whole world, the Foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ....It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. "If thou lovest Me," He says, "feed my sheep." Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 245. )

Peter so washed away [his] denial so as to be even made the first Apostle, and to have the whole world committed to him. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 294. )

And should any one say, "Why then did James [instead of Peter] receive the throne of Jerusalem?": this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man [Peter] not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 316. )

5. St. Maximos the Confessor

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confesses the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 273. )

6. St. John of Damascus

It is to [Peter], as to the most faithful servant, that Jesus entrusted the rudder of all the Church, this Church which He acquired with His blood. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 275.)




In fact, if I remember right, Saint Gregory, even condemned any suggestion of supremecy over other bishops.

Link => Pope Gregory the Great and the Universal Papacy (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-gregory-great-and-universal-papacy.html)

[Ken McRae]

5. St. Maximos the Confessor

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confesses the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 273. ) ]

POPE ST. GELASIUS I (+ 496 A.D.)

A few years after Leo the Great, another orthodox Pope would sit on the Apostolic Throne of Peter who would set forth in unmistakable terms the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Primacy of Peter and his successor. Pope St. Gelasius I would write:

1. "We do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgment of any bishops whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that any appeal should lie to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment ... [This See] ratifies each Council by its authority, and safeguards it by its ceaseless oversight, in virtue of its leadership (principatu), which the Blessed Apostle Peter by the word of the Lord, and which by common agreement of the Church he has always possessed and still retains."

2. "The Apostolic See has frequently had occasion, as it has been said, by ancient custom, even without any previous council, both of absolving those whom a council had unfairly condemned and of condemning without the presence of a council those whom it ought to condemn."

3. "The canons ... ordered it [the Roman See] to give judgment relative to the whole Church, but itself to have recourse to the judgment of none."

( From various Letters of Pope St. Gelasius I; Quoted in The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, p. 80 )




Link => Pope Gregory the Great and the Universal Papacy (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-gregory-great-and-universal-papacy.html)

THE REUNION FORMULA OF POPE ST. HORMISDAS (+ 515 A.D.)

It is not surprising that Eastern Orthodox polemicists either truncate or ignore one of the most powerful testimonies to Papal supremacy over the Eastern churches, namely the famous Reunion Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas (A.D. 515) which was signed by over 2,000 Eastern Bishops seeking unity with the See of Peter after the Acacian schism. I quote this Formula intended to cement the union of repentent Monophysites with the Apostolic Throne of Peter and which expresses the Roman primacy of doctrine and jurisdiction in the Church:

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the orthodox faith and to deviate in nothing from the laws of the Fathers. And one cannot pass in silence the affirmation of Our Lord Jesus Christ who says 'Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church,' etc. ... may not be ignored is proved by the result: for it is in the Apostolic See that the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Not wishing therefore to separate ourselves from this hope and from this faith, following in everything the laws of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies ... etc. We receive and approve all the Letters written by the blessed Pope Leo I on the Christian religion, desiring to follow in everything, as we said, the Apostolic See; and proclaiming all its constitutions. I hope therefore to enter into communion with you representatives of the Apostolic See; it is there that the Christian religion finds its perfect solidity. I promise, then, that in future I will not recite in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries the names of those who have been separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See."

It was on the basis of acceptance of this Formula that the patriarch of Constantinople John II and his suffragan bishops were reconciled to the See of Peter in 519 A.D. It is also to be observed that this remarkable Formula of Hormisdas would be demanded by Rome of the Eastern Bishops who took part in the famous IV Council of Constantinople that deposed the Patriarch Photius in 869. ( Quoted again from The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, pp. 81-82 )

[Olga]

It is not surprising that this thread is becoming a tussle between Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspectives on the primacy of Peter and Rome. Each side, as expected, defends its respective position by quoting history, scripture, and the writings of the Fathers.

Consider the following:

While the writings of the Holy Fathers are valuable, there are instances where there can be inconsistency or disagreement between individual documents or Fathers. On the other hand, the liturgical texts represent the distillation of the theology and doctrine associated with that saint or feast, derived from the Tradition of the Church - scripture, apostolic and patristic teachings, etc. It also illustrates the universality of this theology and doctrine among all Orthodox, irrespective of ethnic or cultural origin. It is what the entire Orthodox Church espouses.

The above paragraph is from a post I made some time ago on an iconographic matter. It may be worth using a similar approach with regard to the subject discussed on this thread.

The feast of Apostles Peter and Paul is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on June 29. The theological and spiritual regard for these saints is expressed in the liturgical texts for the services of Vespers and Matins, especially the Canons sung at Matins. Space and time does not permit me to post the complete text of these services, though I would be happy to email the text to anyone on request. It is significant that both saints are extolled in equal measure in the hymnody of this feast.

Much of the hymnody for this feast was written by St Andrew of Crete, and his contemporary St John of Damascus, as well as contributions by other hymnographers. Therefore, the writing and compilation of these services to these saints dates to the late 7th to early 8th century, over 300 years prior to the Great Schism. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Well Effie,

No one will ever accuse you of being too irenic in spirit, that is for sure; but since you appear in a "playful" mood, comments on the following "historical data" are cordially invited:

Bishop Ware is officially on record as conceding the following;

Each ... must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (Ware, ibid. , p. 70) (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx)

Now, effie, since you're in such a playful frame of mind, I will ask you to expound on what precisely Bishop Ware means by the Orthodox massacre of Roman Catholics, at Constantinople in 1182, some 22 years prior to the historic tragedy of 1204? Well, just in case you sincerely do not know about the notorious year of 1182, I will share a couple of the sad details with you; but only because you asked for it:

A record of the mystery of iniquity in 1182

1. Venice and Constantinople: AD 1082-1201 (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=2760&HistoryID=ac59)

"During the 12th century Venetian merchants make excellent use of the exclusive trading privilege granted them in the Byzantine empire, in 1082, for their help against the Normans. But their wealth and arrogance provoke profound hostility in Constantinople. In an attempt to curb them, the emperor makes trading agreements with Genoa in 1169 and with Pisa in 1170, following this in 1171 with the confiscation of the goods of every Venetian merchant in the empire. In 1182 the people of Constantinople take matters into their own hands with a massacre of the Latins (or Roman Catholics) living in the city."

2 - In April 1182 Andronicus organised a massacre of the 'Latins' (http://www.roman-emperors.org/maryant.htm) in the city [of Constantinople], on the grounds that the empress and the protosebastos had bought their support by promising them the chance of plundering the city. Some 60,000 Latins are said by Eustathius to have died in the massacre, though the figure must be exaggerated.[[57]]



3. Historian Warren Carroll notes: (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/orthodoxy.html)

Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated ... Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople ... rarely if ever mention the massacre of the Westerners in Constantinople in 1182 ... a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant].... in which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope's representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother's wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks. (Carroll, ibid ., pp. 157,131)

Carroll recalls two other lamentable Byzantine incidents:

.............................

A playful mood? Hardly.

Are we comparing which church has killed more people? Have you forgotten the inquisition? Have you forgotten the conquistadors who followed the Roman Catholic priests into so many countries and destroyed whatever they found in their paths,
have you forgotten the escape route the Roman Catholic church provided for Nazi criminals?

I agree that we must forgive and "each side must look back with sorrow and repentance" but forgiveness does not entail loss of memory concerning historical events - and this, in spite of a recent spate of rewritten history books.

Has the Roman Catholic church looked back with sorrow and repentance? If it has, why has the Office of the Inquisition been reinstated? "The Vatican has appointed Former Archbishop of San Fransisco William Levada as the New Grand Inquisitor and the “Tribunal Courts of the Inquisition” were reinstated by Pope Benedict in 1983. "

My opposition to the Roman Catholic church "reabsorbing" the Orthodox Church is not based on your church's "bloody history" in which it is evident that love of power and not of God was the driving force, but on the basic differences between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic church.

You picked up on these two words - which I stand by and which do not become untrue because of what happened in 1182.

From http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx

From the above :

"But worse was to follow in 1204, with the taking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. The Crusaders were originally bound for Egypt, but were persuaded by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed Emperor of Byzantium, to turn aside to Constantinople in order to restore him and his father to the throne. This western intervention in Byzantine politics did not go happily, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted by what they regarded as Greek duplicity, lost patience and sacked the city. Eastern Christendom has never forgotten those three appalling days of pillage. 'Even the Saracens are merciful and kind,' protested Nicetas Choniates, 'compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders.' In the words of Sir Steven Runciman, 'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom. The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two.

Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponent wrong upon the points of doctrine that arose between them; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182, when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace. (None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.) And each side, while claiming to be the one true Church, must admit that on the human level it has been grievously impoverished by the separation. The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy."

Ken, you mention the "notorious year" of 1182. Yes, it was notorious and not just because of the above massacre but also because so many good Roman Catholics were busy being thrown into flames becaue of their beliefs.

"Many pious Christians, throughout all France and England, for maintaining their true belief, cast into the fire alive, where they expire under great pain, A. D. 1182.

Many Christians in Flanders, put to death by fire for the same reason; many others miserably perish in other places, in the year 1183."


Pope Innocent III commissioned his own inquisitors who answered directly to him. Their authority was made official in the papal bull of March 25th, 1199.7

Innocent declared "anyone who attempted to construe a personal view of god which conflicted with the church dogma must be burned without pity."

You have used a very vivid account of the "massacre" of 1182 in Constantinople from a Catholic site, while at the same time you have also omitted the last line of Bishop Ware's quote : "
(None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.)"



A spirit of peace?

[Kosta]

I agree, Olga. In Orthodox Tradition Peter and Paul are equals. We see this in the iconograpgy of the church, as in the icon of the Embrace of Peter and Paul, the Icon of Pentecost and in the icon of the Great Deesis.
As well as their shared feast day on June 29. Which is officially called, "The Holy, Glorious, and All-Famed Apostles and First Coryphaei(plural), Peter and Paul."

Once again Ken gives us a bunch of quotes that can only convince, if one has been conditioned to pre-suppose that Peter and the city of Rome are one and the same. Of course it also pre-supposes that the bishop of Rome is the reincarnation of Peter, similar to the buddhist reincarnation of the dalai lama of Tibet. Some of the other quotes are simply exposed forgeries and spurious texts found only in latin, which the vatican has failed to point out to the papal apologists.

St Cyprian interpreted Matt 16.18 to be a reference to the episcopacy in general, and used it to support his own episcopal authority over certain schismatics. St Cyprian of Carthage being a bishop automatically assummed he was as successor of Peter and had the ability to loose and bind sins. This would be accurate since it is outlined in the the Apostolic Constitutions:

"Speak as one having authority to judge offenders. For to you, O Bishops', it is said, 'Whatever you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you will loose will be loosed in heaven".

Perhaps if Ken were preaching to the choir his quotes would be strong proofs for papal supremacy. That is until one begins to actually read the writings of the Fathers and put them in their proper contexts.

Can you imagine the confusion of the papal apologists, once they read St. John Chrysostom's 1st Homily on the Gospel of John which says this:

"It is the Son of Thunder, the Beloved Disciple of Christ, the pillar of all the Churches in the world, who now comes to us. It is he who possesses the keys of heaven, who has drunk the chalice of Christ, and has been baptised with His Baptism, and who so confidently reclined on the breast of the Lord."

Here is a link to the Akathist of Peter and Paul. No where is Peter associated with Rome and prayers 3 &5 make it clear that the reference to Rock is Peters confession of Faith and Christ is that Rock.

http://www.saintspap.org/peterpaulakathist.html




"

[Andreas Moran]

Context is important here. For example, St Maximos the Confessor was safe in Rome during the time of the Monothelite controversy in Constantinople. More important than quotes from before the Great Schism is what happened after and the position today.

[Nina]

1. St. Gregory of Nazianzen

Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church ... ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 234-235. )

2. St. Gregory of Nyssa

The memory of Peter, the Head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but [upon him] is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 235-236. )

3. St. Basil the Great

And when he, the instrument of such and so great a judgment; he the minister of the so great wrath of God upon a sinner; that blessed Peter, who was preferred before all the other disciples; who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest; he to whom were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 236. )

4. St. John Chrysostom

Peter, that Leader of the Choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the Brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 245. )

Peter, the Leader of the Choir, the Mouth of all the Apostles, the Head of that Tribe, the Ruler of the whole world, the Foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ....It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. "If thou lovest Me," He says, "feed my sheep." Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 245. )

Peter so washed away [his] denial so as to be even made the first Apostle, and to have the whole world committed to him. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 294. )

And should any one say, "Why then did James [instead of Peter] receive the throne of Jerusalem?": this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man [Peter] not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 316. )

5. St. Maximos the Confessor

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confesses the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 273. )

6. St. John of Damascus

It is to [Peter], as to the most faithful servant, that Jesus entrusted the rudder of all the Church, this Church which He acquired with His blood. ( Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, p. 275.)



Link => Pope Gregory the Great and the Universal Papacy (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/pope-gregory-great-and-universal-papacy.html)

:) I see that you are isolating sayings of Fathers and are trying to get in the 'nice' list of St. Peter. St. Peter... keys... Paradise... But do not worry because even if you are in the 'naughty' list of Santa here, we all know that where St. Peter is there are other standards.

With love in Christ,
nina: who is under the 'naughty' category in all the lists there are.

[Nicolaj]

If there ever should be an attempt to install a seat with the authority: one to rule all, it have to be the seat of the first patriarch, which was in Jerusalem.

This city was and still is the city where Jesus centred his Life! Here we had the first Bishop ever, the brother of the Lord, James. It is the city of the Bible, it is the city of God, it is the most holy place on earth.

And the papists can bring up arguments and more, but never ever will the heresy of Rome be able to rule the Orthodox Church, because we are ruled by the Holy Spirit. No need for a pope here.

Amen, Nicolaj

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There has been a an order of honour in the Church's hierarchy since the time of the Apostles. This was reflected in the honour which certain of the Apostles acquired in relation to each other.

But in turn this relation was actually founded on their relation to Christ which as with all human relationships is subject to weakness and instability. Thus St Peter could be pre-eminent as representing the Rock of Faith in regards to Christ. However in relation to St Paul and as evidenced at other times it should be more than obvious that the faith of St Paul has been that which has had the most powerful effect on the Church.

This reminds us I think that for the Church this whole discussion about episcopal honour & preeminence has always been set into the larger context of each person's actual life in Christ. At all times preeminence has been relative to the hierarch's actual spiritual authority.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Kosta and all,

Let us also look at St. John Chrysostom's commentary in more complete context, his second Homily on the Gospel of St. John as well.

We can deduce then that Saint John is: the pillar of all the Churches, the holder of the Keys, the earthly mouthpiece of the Almighty, the Rock, supreme pastor, not subject to anything that is human. As such the Pope is a human being, so Ken's papal system or model of an "ecclesiology" has some problems with the position of Saint John the Evangelist in the Church.

Let us not forget that Saint John is infallible!

I think that if one has attached to ones being strange and bizarre notions like "the Pope is the Vicar of Christ" or "Successor of Christ" when reading the Gospel of St. John the Evangelist/Theologian or any true Christian writings that the persons understandings of Christianity would be much different than Orthodox understandings. So discussions with Ken, a steadfast herald of the papacy here compel us to understand that St Cyprian of Carthage's understandings of Saint Peter being a prototype of all Bishops is much different than other types of "Bishops", namely, the "Vicar of Christ" or "Successor of Christ" types.

According to Saint Cyprian of Carthage's understandings and from what I can determine every Orthodox Church Father that I have read, such ones would be seen as heretics that are woefully in error.

Consequently, we see several things, the reductions in Rome liturgically and otherwise, the removal of the theological and spiritual regard for the Church fathers, the understandings of Orthodox saints have either been removed or woefully distorted as those in communion with Rome turn to the papacy and the majesterium for wisdom and understanding. In short, they end up turning to those distort for additional distortions, in other words false obedience leads to other false things. Can any Christian think himself to be a true Christian while being in union with the "Successor of Christ"?

Nevertheless it is good that the Orthodox Church continues to pray for those "blinded by pernicious heresies" if others choose to bind pernicious heresies and bind others to them, then how is it possible for the subjects of such things to allow God to renew a right spirit? I think from what I can determine that is why the Orthodox Church Fathers often expressed strong opposition towards the heretics, because they love. So while the heretics arrived saying that they too come in the name of the same Lord Jesus Christ and entered into discourse with the Orthodox Church Fathers, the Church Fathers understood, blessed is he that hath He that comes in the name of the Lord, and desired that such ones return to the Church. Thanks be to God that tradition continues as the Orthodox Church also "desires not the death of sinners". So in the Orthodox Church, we can struggle against being sinful and can be healed, this we see via the lives of the Orthodox saints that love and are quick to interceed for us, thanks be to God.

The herald of Divine and holy love, St. John the Evangelist and indeed all of the saints follow Christ for it is written, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me," and "a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

Dear Ken,

Orthodox Christians know not the voice of a "Vicar of Christ" and "Successor of Christ", our minds and our hearts reject such a spirit. Should you think it wise to choose to listen to such a one, be assured that no Orthodox Church father could agree with such a notion. You can present as many quotes as you like of the writings of the Orthodox Church Fathers while going against the very essence of those quotes by means of papal understandings, even a parrot does not do that.

You see in the Orthodox Church, the entire Church is the "true faith" because the ecclesiology of the true Church is known in the mystery of the Holy Trinity.


“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

“Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we needs must describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters. And yet even thus it is not superfluous, but even very necessary. For when you have learned who he was, and from whence, who his parents, and what his character, and then hear his voice and all his heavenly wisdom, then you shall know right well that these (doctrines) belong not to him, but to the Divine power stirring his soul…. Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human” (St. John Chrysostom, Second Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

[Ken McRae]

What was done was just done, no permission or blessing was asked. Not having the secular power to enforce any claims, the MP has had very little to say on the subject and things really got chaotic when the Communists took over. The MP had actually established an Arab bishop for Arabic Orthodox in the USA, but that sort of went out the window once Lenin moved into the Kremlin. After that it was pretty much every jurisdiction for itself.

Herman, thanks for the explanation; but I confess the whole thing seems somewhat odd to me; especially the MP's failure to vigorously object to these "uncanonical" developments, at the time they were actually taking place. I also find it hard to understand the need for any secular power to enforce canon law. How do you think the pre-schism Church would handle this sort of problem, or fix it now, after the fact?

[Ken McRae]

You see in the Orthodox Church, the entire Church is the "true faith" because the ecclesiology of the true Church is known in the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. There was quite a lot that I would like to reply too, as you can probably imagine, but let's start with the above quote. It strikes me as easily the most significant point you made, and therefore the most worth while to pursue. If you would expound on it further, or elaborate a little more for me, I would appreciate it. I would like to try and understand how Orthodox ecclessiology is modelled upon, or patterned after the divine economy of the Holy Trinity. Many thanks!

Ken

[Ken McRae]

Are we comparing which church has killed more people?




You have used a very vivid account of the "massacre" of 1182 in Constantinople from a Catholic site, while at the same time you have also omitted the last line of Bishop Ware's quote : "(None the less there is no action on the Byzantine side which can be compared to the sack of 1204.)"

Well, I was'nt comparing, but it's quite obvious both you and Bishop Ware are. Why else would he include that qualifier in brackets, if he was'nt? Besides, his statement in brackets seems totally "foolish" to me, to be perfectly honest, in light of the facts of 1182. Come on, now! How is cutting babies out of their mothers' wombs, or the tying of a cardinal's head to a dog's tail, and dragging it all around the city, or selling 4,000 survivors into slavery any less sinful than anything that happened in 1204? I don't see it. Personally, what happened in 1182 strikes me as the height of depravity, and exceedingly sinful, by any rule or standard of measurement. Don't you think so?

Romans 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

What lesson(s) do you think we can or ought to derive from the above words, in relation to the events of 1182 and 1204?

[Ken McRae]

This reminds us I think that for the Church this whole discussion about episcopal honour & preeminence has always been set into the larger context of each person's actual life in Christ. At all times preeminence has been relative to the hierarch's actual spiritual authority.

Dear Father,

I humbly agree with the above observation(s) and feel their power upon my spirit. There is no question that the saints are annointed with the fullness of Grace, and authority from above. They are heaven's true ambassadors and apostles, and I deeply respect the Orthodox emphasis of this principle. And I believe this is taught with crystal clarity in the Scriptures; that novices, or those still in the first stage of theosis, ought not be granted episcopacies; for obvious and sundry reasons.

The saints, in whom Christ reigns supreme, have attained the promised land, and we cannot fail to achieve paradise too if we will but adhere closely to their example, in so far as it reflects the life, light and love of Christ. St. Athanasius and all the saints attest to this, as does Holy Scripture. I confess it, willingly.

Ken

[Effie Ganatsios]

Well, I was'nt comparing, but it's quite obvious both you and Bishop Ware are. Why else would he include that qualifier in brackets, if he was'nt? Besides, his statement in brackets seems totally "foolish" to me, to be perfectly honest, in light of the facts of 1182. Come on, now! How is cutting babies out of their mothers' wombs, or the tying of a cardinal's head to a dog's tail, and dragging it all around the city, or selling 4,000 survivors into slavery any less sinful than anything that happened in 1204? I don't see it. Personally, what happened in 1182 strikes me as the height of depravity, and exceedingly sinful, by any rule or standard of measurement. Don't you think so?

Romans 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

What lesson(s) do you think we can or ought to derive from the above words, in relation to the events of 1182 and 1204?

That all men are sinners. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Ray, I need to add that there is of course a difference between the official policy of a church and mobs rioting.

Ray, let us have peace. I have just learnt that my mother, whom I left in good health when I left Australia a couple of weeks ago, is fine and at home after another episode of ill health a couple of days ago. These are the important things in life. You're a Roman Catholic because of your beliefs and I am an Orthodox christian for the same reason. I would never become a Roman Catholic for the reasons I outlined in my first post and I'm sure you would never become an Orthodox for your own reasons. We can't change history but we can honour God.

Please accept my apology for opening this particular Pandora Box.

Effie

[Anthony]

Thank you, Effie, for the link to Fr Paisios' letter. That pretty much says it all, I think.

I have missed the recent discussion here, so apologies if the following remarks are no longer relevant. As far as the barrage of patristic quotations is concerned, I think the important point is that the pre-schism Popes are being honoured as the defenders of Orthodoxy, rather than Orthodoxy being defined as "whatever the Pope says". In fact I think I am right in saying (though I can't provide chapter and verse), that it was originally the whole Church in Rome that attracted praise for the purity of its faith, of which their bishops, the popes, were witnesses and spokesmen. (In other words it is misleading to say that this charism, so far as it existed, was attached to the person of the Pope.)

As for Apostles, I find it curious that Mr McRae wants to model the Petrine succession on the succession to Judas. St Peter himself makes it very clear why Judas had to be replaced. On the other hand when St James son of Zebedee was martyred (the only martyrdom of an Apostle recorded in the NT), there is no mention of a replacement being chosen. I also don't see what follows from the fact (if it is true) that St Matthias is not subsequently mentioned; the same is true, I think, of most of the Apostles, even St Andrew the First-Called.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman, thanks for the explanation; but I confess the whole thing seems somewhat odd to me; especially the MP's failure to vigorously object to these "uncanonical" developments, at the time they were actually taking place. I also find it hard to understand the need for any secular power to enforce canon law. How do you think the pre-schism Church would handle this sort of problem, or fix it now, after the fact?

Well, they could certainly "vigorously object" but so what? Would it have accomplished anything? And the MP had bigger problems, like survival. Bishops were being sent to gulags or assassinated, priests were being crucified on the doors of their churches which were being turned into prisons or storehouses or landfills. Revolution, war, invasions and wholesale persecutions can mess with your priorities.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I also find it hard to understand the need for any secular power to enforce canon law.

Then you might want to spend some time to study Church history, or just history in general. Councils, which set Canon, were often enforced by the secular power of the Emperor. This is why many believe the Age of Councils is past, there is no more Emperor to convene/enforce them. The Vatican certainly established and maintained power by judicious support of various monarchs/secular powers. To think otherwise is to be very naive.

[Father David Moser]

Herman, thanks for the explanation; but I confess the whole thing seems somewhat odd to me; especially the MP's failure to vigorously object to these "uncanonical" developments, at the time they were actually taking place. I also find it hard to understand the need for any secular power to enforce canon law. How do you think the pre-schism Church would handle this sort of problem, or fix it now, after the fact?

When these things were occurring, the "MP" was unable to do anything because of the violent and merciless attacks by the atheist government. The Patriarch could not even have any kind of contact with his own bishops in country, let alone make a public statement about what other jurisdictions were doing in a whole different continent. The Russian Church in North America was itself in some turmoil at that time and even when Metr Platon sent his own envoys to Moscow to visit the Patriarch to gain support, the patriarch was unable to make any kind of statement to them other than to refer the whole situation to the Temporary Higher Church Authority (the Karlovtsi Synod). Had he even tried to intervene, it would have given the Soviets the ability then to use him to injure the Church even further. The Patriarch could not manage the internal affairs of the Church, even in his own homeland, let alone beyond its borders - how in the world could he have tried to influence the actions of other jurisdictions? Beside all this, although the Patariarch had a great deal of moral authority, and would have,in any case been the "spokesman", the true authority of the Orthodox Church is not in the person of the Patriarch but rather in the Synod of Bishops of which the Patriarch is the "first hierarch"; and the members of the Synod at that time were scattered to the four winds - either as refugees in Eastern Europe or as prisoners in internal exile in prison camps in the Gulag.

How would the "preschism Church" have handled this kind of a situation? Probably by appealing to the Emperor to define in which political entity of his administration the new territory in question fell. But the Roman empire has not been around for a few years.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Well, they could certainly "vigorously object" but so what? Would it have accomplished anything? And the MP had bigger problems, like survival. Bishops were being sent to gulags or assassinated, priests were being crucified on the doors of their churches which were being turned into prisons or storehouses or landfills. Revolution, war, invasions and wholesale persecutions can mess with your priorities.

Remember though that by the time of the revolution and following turmoil the situation within the Orthodox Church in the west had become much more complex than just that of keeping or resisting good order.

Due to Bolshevik pressure on the Church in Russia efforts were made to try to force the Orthodox Church in the west to cease protesting the changes occurring in Soviet Russia. This, in general, the Church in North America & in western Europe refused to do at which point canonical connections with the Mother Church in Russia became tenuous. Each local Church dealt with this new situation in a different way, some becoming more or less self governing and autonomous. These in fact are the roots of our present jurisdictional situation.

In terms of the present discussion the point is that what was in question at the time wasn't primarily that of good order but that of hierarchal authority. Most every Church resisted the pressures of the Mother Church which were seen as something which would have led to a level of canonical compromise unacceptable for the well being of the Church here. In fact these many years later now that the situation has changed so dramatically in Russia the Church in Russia has come to accept that these changes in our situation here; ie resistance to Her central authority, were for the best, given the circumstances of the time.

Thus on the local level the over all point of our ecclesiology has been demonstrated. If the authority of the Mother Church had been accepted perhaps a certain kind of 'good order' may have been achieved. But certainly this would have been at the cost of a spiritual compromise of great damage to the life of the Church.

Actually though it's difficult to see any other course than that which was taken. ie massive resistance to a spiritual compromise which the faithful believed was simply unacceptable.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Ray ...

I'm sorry, effie, but is 'Ray' the truncated version of Mc'Rae'?

[Ken McRae]

As for Apostles, I find it curious that Mr McRae wants to model the Petrine succession on the succession to Judas.

Excuse me? You obviously misunderstood. However, perhaps you would care to demonstrate where and how I ever intimated such a thing?




St Peter himself makes it very clear why Judas had to be replaced. On the other hand when St James son of Zebedee was martyred (the only martyrdom of an Apostle recorded in the NT), there is no mention of a replacement being chosen. I also don't see what follows from the fact (if it is true) that St Matthias is not subsequently mentioned; the same is true, I think, of most of the Apostles, even St Andrew the First-Called.

You have missed the point by trying to appear so clever.

[Ken McRae]

Revolution, war, invasions and wholesale persecutions can mess with your priorities.

Yes, I can understand that. Still, whatevr justification can be made for what happened, at the time, there is no longer any justification, in my eyes, for allowing the 'status quo' of those former times to continue in America; as though those 'nightmarish' circumstances continue to prevail in Russia today. All jurisdictions in the USA should now look to, and come under the MP's leadership, imo, for whatever it's worth. Refusal to do so appears (in my eyes) like a sign of "ill" will, or "bad" faith.

[Ken McRae]

When these things were occurring, the "MP" was unable to do anything because of the violent and merciless attacks by the atheist government. The Patriarch could not even have any kind of contact with his own bishops in country, let alone make a public statement about what other jurisdictions were doing in a whole different continent. The Russian Church in North America was itself in some turmoil at that time and even when Metr Platon sent his own envoys to Moscow to visit the Patriarch to gain support, the patriarch was unable to make any kind of statement to them other than to refer the whole situation to the Temporary Higher Church Authority (the Karlovtsi Synod). Had he even tried to intervene, it would have given the Soviets the ability then to use him to injure the Church even further. The Patriarch could not manage the internal affairs of the Church, even in his own homeland, let alone beyond its borders - how in the world could he have tried to influence the actions of other jurisdictions? Beside all this, although the Patariarch had a great deal of moral authority, and would have,in any case been the "spokesman", the true authority of the Orthodox Church is not in the person of the Patriarch but rather in the Synod of Bishops of which the Patriarch is the "first hierarch"; and the members of the Synod at that time were scattered to the four winds - either as refugees in Eastern Europe or as prisoners in internal exile in prison camps in the Gulag.

How would the "preschism Church" have handled this kind of a situation? Probably by appealing to the Emperor to define in which political entity of his administration the new territory in question fell. But the Roman empire has not been around for a few years.

Fr David Moser

Thank you, Father, for the explanation. It's helps me to see the utter depth of the quagmire within which the Church was called to struggle, under Communist rule.

Ken

[Effie Ganatsios]

I'm sorry, effie, but is 'Ray' the truncated version of Mc'Rae'?

Didn't look carefully.... wrote it from memory.

Effie

[Anthony]

You have missed the point by trying to appear so clever.


I don't know exactly where I was trying to appear clever, but evidently I didn't succeed. Perhaps you could explain again what your point was. I thought it was that the apostles needed successors, for which the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas was supposed to be evidence.

[Ken McRae]

:) I see that you are isolating sayings of Fathers and are trying to get in the 'nice' list of St. Peter. St. Peter... keys... Paradise... But do not worry because even if you are in the 'naughty' list of Santa here, we all know that where St. Peter is there are other standards.

With love in Christ,
nina: who is under the 'naughty' category in all the lists there are.

Thanks, Nina. Yes, I have posted a few "quotes," but as you can see that goes nowhere fast, around these forums. I have been accused of being 'naive', and I don't deny it. It is 'naive' to think the members here might try to actually discuss any of those quotes. It is more comfortable or "fun" just to play "dodge-ball;" a game we Canadians like to play in primary school.

For example, Pope St. Gelasius I says with crystal clarity, (in referring to his illustrious predecessor, Pope St. Leo,) that the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See is universal in its reach, and yet that is shrugged off as mere "hyperbole," or nonsense; as if he was the first and only Roman Pope that ever said that. I cannot accept that attitude in dealing with the words of the Holy Roman Fathers.

The way I see it, the universal pre-schism Church confessed Rome as the one Apostolic See, before the great schism; and now the Orthodox refuse to acknowledge any "Apostolic See" in the same manner as it did prior to the schism. This strikes me as a great discontinuity that must be addressed. Where is the "new" post-schism "Apostolic See" located today?

With love in Christ,
Ken

[Herman Blaydoe]

Where is the "new" post-schism "Apostolic See" located today?

That would be the Patriarch of Constantinople, often referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarch. Generally speaking, he is looked to these days as the "First amongst Equals" since our disagreement with Rome. Not having an Emperor to back him up and living under the Turkish yoke, he is a bit more limited in this role these days than in times past.

[Paul Cowan]

Thanks, Nina. Yes, I have posted a few "quotes," but as you can see that goes nowhere fast, around these forums. I have been accused of being 'naive', and I don't deny it. It is 'naive' to think the members here might try to actually discuss any of those quotes. It is more comfortable or "fun" just to play "dodge-ball;" a game we Canadians like to play in primary school.

For example, Pope St. Gelasius I says with crystal clarity, (in referring to his illustrious predecessor, Pope St. Leo,) that the jurisdiction of the Apostolic See is universal in its reach, and yet that is shrugged off as mere "hyperbole," or nonsense; as if he was the first and only Roman Pope that ever said that. I cannot accept that attitude in dealing with the words of the Holy Roman Fathers.

The way I see it, the universal pre-schism Church confessed Rome as the one Apostolic See, before the great schism; and now the Orthodox refuse to acknowledge any "Apostolic See" in the same manner as it did prior to the schism. This strikes me as a great discontinuity that must be addressed. Where is the "new" post-schism "Apostolic See" located today?

With love in Christ,
Ken

When I was younger (much younger) my cousin and I were the best of friends. He would stand up for me to the local bullies as I would for him when he got into trouble. We were real friends. We hung out together and even helped each other on our school work. Well his parents moved due to work and we were separated by several states and 1000 miles or so. We tried to keep in touch but over time it was just too far and finally too much trouble to call or write or especially come to visit.

I found out later that he had really changed. He was now a bully. The same kind that we had protected each other from a few years before. When I tried to talk to him, we just didn't click anymore. His living conditions in his new state had changed his perceptions of right and wrong. If he was to survive, he had to take control of others around him. His parents both had to work so were never home so he had to fend for himself.

I didn't believe in him anymore. He was my cousin, but our values had changed too much for me to hang out with him. My parents did not want me around him when we went to go visit. He later got into drugs and alcohol and other bad things. Now we both have our adult lives to live. Me with my family and he with his. I can promise you our kids will never spend time together. I won't permit it. They are more wild than he turned out to be. I wish things were different. But there will have to be major life changes for him and his family before I will let my family near him.

I hear him complain to my parents that I should come over and let my kids play with his. He has even threatened he will just show up one day on my front door step and invite himself to visit for a few days (weeks). I tried to talk to him about our differneces but he won't listen to me and just says we need to get back to the way things were and live as we are today. Basically that my concerns over his kids behavior has nothing to do with our kids playing together as we used to and there is no need to discuss change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone? The RC and EO are cousins. We have alot of mending to do to reunite. Can we? sure. Will we? Not unless past behaviors are addressed, acknowledged, repented of and ammendments made.

This analogy brought to you from the simpleness of my mind.

Paul

[Ken McRae]

That would be the Patriarch of Constantinople, often referred to as the Ecumenical Patriarch. Generally speaking, he is looked to these days as the "First amongst Equals" since our disagreement with Rome. Not having an Emperor to back him up and living under the Turkish yoke, he is a bit more limited in this role these days than in times past.

Am I to understand that the title of 'Apostolic See' is the 'official' title of the EP, and one that all Orthodox Churches everywhere recognize as rightfully belonging to, and adorned by the EP?

[Ken McRae]

That all men are sinners. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

Precisely, effie! As the Lord has taught us, in the sacred words below, "for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again:"

Matt. 7:1-4 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

We have been taught to pray "forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us;" which teaching embodies the above principle(s). If we ever hope and pray to be forgiven of all our sins, then we must learn to absolutely forgive all other men and women of every sin; especially those which have been directly committed against us; no matter how exceedingly sinful and vile in nature.

I can't imagine myself standing before the Throne of Grace saying, "Yes, Lord, I forgave those 'blood-thirsty' devils of what they did to me; BUT what they did to me was far, far worse than anything I have ever done." I don't imagine that kind of reasoning will go far, or accomplish much at the great assize.

Peace and love to you, in Christ, my sister,

Ken

[Effie Ganatsios]

I can't imagine myself standing before the Throne of Grace saying, "Yes, Lord, I forgave those 'blood-thirsty' devils of what they did to me; BUT what they did to me was far, far worse than anything I have ever done." I don't imagine that kind of reasoning will go far, or accomplish much at the great assize.

Peace and love to you, in Christ, my sister,

Ken

I imagine we might all be in for a few surprises at that time.

Peace and love to you also, Ken. Let's not continue. OK?

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

When I was younger (much younger) my cousin and I were the best of friends. He would stand up for me to the local bullies as I would for him when he got into trouble. We were real friends. We hung out together and even helped each other on our school work. Well his parents moved due to work and we were separated by several states and 1000 miles or so. We tried to keep in touch but over time it was just too far and finally too much trouble to call or write or especially come to visit.

I found out later that he had really changed. He was now a bully. The same kind that we had protected each other from a few years before. When I tried to talk to him, we just didn't click anymore. His living conditions in his new state had changed his perceptions of right and wrong. If he was to survive, he had to take control of others around him. His parents both had to work so were never home so he had to fend for himself.

I didn't believe in him anymore. He was my cousin, but our values had changed too much for me to hang out with him. My parents did not want me around him when we went to go visit. He later got into drugs and alcohol and other bad things. Now we both have our adult lives to live. Me with my family and he with his. I can promise you our kids will never spend time together. I won't permit it. They are more wild than he turned out to be. I wish things were different. But there will have to be major life changes for him and his family before I will let my family near him.

I hear him complain to my parents that I should come over and let my kids play with his. He has even threatened he will just show up one day on my front door step and invite himself to visit for a few days (weeks). I tried to talk to him about our differneces but he won't listen to me and just says we need to get back to the way things were and live as we are today. Basically that my concerns over his kids behavior has nothing to do with our kids playing together as we used to and there is no need to discuss change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone? The RC and EO are cousins. We have alot of mending to do to reunite. Can we? sure. Will we? Not unless past behaviors are addressed, acknowledged, repented of and ammendments made.

This analogy brought to you from the simpleness of my mind.

Paul

A simple mind? I think not. Paul. Christ used parables to enable people to understand his teaching. Seemingly simple but with a world of wisdom behind them.


A good post. Thank you.

Effie

[Adrian Martin]

The way I see it, the universal pre-schism Church confessed Rome as the one Apostolic See, before the great schism; and now the Orthodox refuse to acknowledge any "Apostolic See" in the same manner as it did prior to the schism. This strikes me as a great discontinuity that must be addressed. Where is the "new" post-schism "Apostolic See" located today?

Orthodox consider Rome the Apostolic See because the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred there, and also because of the preeminence of Rome's faith.

<omission>

[Ken McRae]

And as long as the Pope of Rome confessed the faith of St. Peter, he was indeed his successor.

Thank you for your reply, but beware of half-truths; as it appears to me that you have quite misrepresented things. A word of advice: attend first and most to experimental and practical truths. Avoid controversies as much as possible, until you have become "proficient" in virtue and the power of godliness, at the very least. I declare as much to my own self, and not merely for your sake.

Learn to defend the faith not in word alone, but most of all and pre-eminently by godly example. Words are powerless to convert the soul from error, unless infused with the life and power of godliness. Great is the power of godliness that animates the lives and words of Sts. Herman of Alaska, Seraphim of Sarov, John of Kronstadt, Silouan of Athos, and of course, all the holy Optina fathers in Christ.

If I have made any progress at all toward Orthodoxy, I assure you it has not been by virtue of "loveless" lectures which can only the harden the hearts of men. Study closely the mystery of godliness, and how words do either break the hardened-heart or harden it in sin. May the gracious Lord forbid you to become the instrument of hardening the hearts of men in their sins, by your words and example.

When words are no better than silence, it is better to keep silent. And they are only better when infused with the power of grace and love. Examine your conscience and ask yourself if you can honestly say your recent speeches were/are clearly distinguished by the love of Christ? Do not use words cheaply as they are powerful, either to the working of salvation or destruction in the hearers/readers.

[Adrian Martin]

You are correct. I have no right to teach anyone, as I am a great sinner. Please accept my apology for my brashness.

[Paul Cowan]

Thank you for your reply, but beware of half-truths; as it appears to me that you have quite misrepresented things. A word of advice: attend first and most to experimental and practical truths. Avoid controversies as much as possible, until you have become "proficient" in virtue and the power of godliness, at the very least. I declare as much to my own self, and not merely for your sake.

Learn to defend the faith not in word alone, but most of all and pre-eminently by godly example. Words are powerless to convert the soul from error, unless infused with the life and power of godliness. Great is the power of godliness that animates the lives and words of Sts. Herman of Alaska, Seraphim of Sarov, John of Kronstadt, Silouan of Athos, and of course, all the holy Optina fathers in Christ.

If I have made any progress at all toward Orthodoxy, I assure you it has not been by virtue of "loveless" lectures which can only the harden the hearts of men. Study closely the mystery of godliness, and how words do either break the hardened-heart or harden it in sin. May the gracious Lord forbid you to become the instrument of hardening the hearts of men in their sins, by your words and example.

When words are no better than silence, it is better to keep silent. And they are only better when infused with the power of grace and love. Examine your conscience and ask yourself if you can honestly say your recent speeches were/are clearly distinguished by the love of Christ? Do not use words cheaply as they are powerful, either to the working of salvation or destruction in the hearers/readers.

Ken,
These sound like quotes from the Fathers. Please provide their source and consider putting them in the Quotes of the Holy Fathers section.

Or if they are your own, please yield your sword more softly towards another lest you hinder someone from exploring and examining what they have learned.

[Ken McRae]

I am a great sinner.

Great sinners learn to love much for they have been forgiven much; and those who love much become great saints. Please, if you have not yet acquired a copy of Wisdom from Mount Athos, waste no time in acquiring one. It will instruct you well in the mystery and power of godliness, if you can tune yourself into it.

In that blessed little treasure trove, St. Silouan indicates how he has witnessed some novice monks acquire the seal of the Holy Spirit in as few as 6 months of intensive labour and importunity. On the other hand, the norm appears to have been 10 years during his time on Athos. He also says, however, that he's witnessed some monks labour up to 40 years before acquiring the grace of the Holy Spirit. In your case that would put you into your 60's, and myself well into my 80's.

According to his own testimony, St. Silouan claimed to being aware of having lost the grace of God only twice in his entire life. That means the rest of the time he was treasuring it up. Thus, every line of his little book of wisdom is literally drenched and dripping with divine grace; or heaven's spiritual dew that revives and refreshens the soul; and especially the soul's of them who are passing through arid lands in their spiritual journey through this God-forsaken world. By all means get it, if you haven't yet!

[Ken McRae]

Ken,
These sound like quotes from the Fathers. Please provide their source and consider putting them in the Quotes of the Holy Fathers section.

Or if they are your own, please yield your sword more softly towards another lest you hinder someone from exploring and examining what they have learned.

They are not quotes, but my own words, for the most part. I say for the most part because I can claim no originality in them, obviously; as I have spent much time reading Scripture over the years, as well as many Patristic and contemporary writings; and so it goes without saying that I have acquired some small degree of a spiritual formation.

I tried to write from my own experience, and from the heart, according to the rule of Scripture and the teachings of the saints. If anything of what I wrote was a quote from some father, then it was done so quite indirectly and unconsciously on my part, as I did not open any book or file and borrow anything "word for word."

I am not opposed to anyone exploring what they have learnt, so long as they keep the following words in mind while they do so: "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." (1 Cor. 8:1) Charity edifieth. Let that be our goal in all conversation, to edify those that hear and read our words. I can honestly say that was my goal in what I wrote. If I failed, then I do sincerely apologize for it.

In Christ,
Ken

[Paul Cowan]

Ken,
These sound like quotes from the Fathers. Please provide their source and consider putting them in the Quotes of the Holy Fathers section.

Or if they are your own, please yield your sword more softly towards another lest you hinder someone from exploring and examining what they have learned.

In other words Ken, Had you spoken to me as you did again in Post #70 I would have felt very belittled by you. I am confident this was not your intent to Adrian, but please re-read your words and punctuation. The book you mention is full as you say with many spiritual benefits and we all are the better for reading it. The following tone is not of spiritual profit for him or me.


Please, if you have not yet acquired a copy of Wisdom from Mount Athos, waste no time in acquiring one.

By all means get it, if you haven't yet!

I am not a moderator but simply a member. It is difficult via the internet to know a person's facial expression or even voice inflection. That is why it is so important to choose our words carefully and especially our punctuation and capitalization or bolding.

trying to walk my own fine line,
Paul

[Ken McRae]

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. There was quite a lot that I would like to reply too, as you can probably imagine, but let's start with the above quote. It strikes me as easily the most significant point you made, and therefore the most worth while to pursue. If you would expound on it further, or elaborate a little more for me, I would appreciate it. I would like to try and understand how Orthodox ecclessiology is modelled upon, or patterned after the divine economy of the Holy Trinity.

Well, it appears that Matthew has decided, for whatever reason, not to follow up on this request. Would anyone else care to try and explain what he was referring to or what he meant by the relationship or connection between Orthodox ecclesiology and the Holy Trinity? How is Orthodox ecclesiology modelled upon the divine economy of the Trinity?

[Nicolaj]

Well Ken,

You say about yourself:
I have acquired some small degree of a spiritual formation.


That is fine, but it doesn't bear any fruits, because the fruit of spiritual formation is at first and above all others humility! And this one you sure lack.

Wisdom from Mount Athos, and many other books and Sayings by the Fathers can certainly understand only by one who stands within the tradition of the True Orthodox Faith. This is because we need to have a certain art of view to look at such treasures, to understand them in an appropriate context, which is for sure only able in the Orthodox Church.

Sure, there may be many wise men and women on earth, but their wisdom is not a fruit coming forth from their adoption to the Holy Trinity, but their longing to wisdom the cheap way, committing an outrage with the demons, selling their words for the Antichrist.


I have spent much time reading Scripture over the years, as well as many Patristic and contemporary writings

You can read on for ages as you write so proudly, but you have to lay off the coat you are wearing and seek the true wisdom which you only can gain in the Church, Jesus himself founded on earth, not in the cheap images which are all around. The Orthodox Church is headed by the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised us before going to the Father, and it is through this Holy Spirit that the Church lives.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj