Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch attending Pope's inaugural Mass

[Peter_J]

Just so long as he doesn’t eat breakfast with those heretical Protestants.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. Apologies to any protestants who were offended by that last comment. It wasn’t meant seriously.

 

[teresa_lamb]

I did not state that.

5Loaves…not trying to argue, but in your #32 post

you posted part of an article. In that article you bolded this…The occasion is being presented in the media as something that has not happened since the ecclesiastical schism that separated Christian East and Christian West in the eleventh century. But that characterization is almost certainly wrong–

This then follows (from your quote)tthis is quite likely the first time in history that a Bishop of Constantinople will attend the installation of a Bishop of Rome.

(that is a quote taken from "A potion of the Article in your post #32…

My question was simple
This is the first time a Patriarch attended the Popes inauguration from Constantinople.

It’s not the "First Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch’s attendence at a Popes Inauguration?

Please have patience with me…and if I don’t get an answer that is fine…

Peace

 

[thewanderer]

5Loaves…not trying to argue, but in your #32 post

you posted part of an article. In that article you bolded this…The occasion is being presented in the media as something that has not happened since the ecclesiastical schism that separated Christian East and Christian West in the eleventh century. But that characterization is almost certainly wrong–

This then follows (from your quote)tthis is quite likely the first time in history that a Bishop of Constantinople will attend the installation of a Bishop of Rome.

(that is a quote taken from "A potion of the Article in your post #32…

My question was simple
This is the first time a Patriarch attended the Popes inauguration from Constantinople.

It’s not the "First Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch’s attendence at a Popes Inauguration?

Please have patience with me…and if I don’t get an answer that is fine…

Peace

I took it to mean that not only is he the first to attend since the schism, he is the first to ever attend, period. Especially since there was a paragraph about how the election of the pope used to be a very local event, not something that people would have traveled great distances to attend.

 

[5Loaves]

(that is a quote taken from "A potion of the Article in your post #32…

My question was simple
This is the first time a Patriarch attended the Popes inauguration from Constantinople.

It’s not the "First Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch’s attendence at a Popes Inauguration?

Please have patience with me…and if I don’t get an answer that is fine…

Peace

Just curious-- did you read the article?

 

[teresa_lamb]

I clicked on the link, and my tablet shut off…I tried three times, with each time closing down my browser…so all I got to read was the open quote from your post

I will try again later…

Thanks for responding…hope I didn’t cause confusion…

Peace in Christ…

 

[Proton]

I think you guys are too enthusiastic about this. Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t really matter in Orthodox world. He is completely powerless to reign even his own jurisdiction, many monasteries rebelled against his ecumenical approach towards Rome. He gets a lot of critics from the Orthodox Church of Greece.
He is only respected in Liturgical Life, he is mentioned first, and he leads service if more Patriarchs gather.

And if Constantinople was in Greece, or if Byzantium was still alive and powerful, you would see much different face of Ecumenical Patriarch. I bet Constantinople’s Patriarch would be even more against ecumenism than Moscow Patriarchate. The more powerful Orthodox country is standing behind one Orthodox Church, that Church is more against Rome.

And there are only 4000 Greeks left in Turkey (Constantinople), and according to the Turkish law, only citizen of Turkey can be the patriarch of Constantinople. It is very likely that Patriarchate will move to Greece.

There is very common opinion among Orthodox on Patriarch Bartholomew that he likes to meets with pope, because only then he gets world attention, when he doesn’t meet with pope, he just sits with few Greeks left locked in his throne monastery, completely ignored by all.

Orthodox Church respects him in Liturgical and Worship sense, he is always invited to lead funeral services of Orthodox Patriarchs and to celebrate anniversaries, etc… But in sense of making decisions, he is nothing more than a local bishop who has problems with oppressive Muslim government.

I think the two Churches will not unite anytime soon. Even if Patriarchs and bishops of the Orthodox Church accept unity with compromise, they will be simply removed by the People, and new Bishops would be enthroned, like it happened after Florence. There would be another schism among Orthodox, like it happened with Eastern Catholics. Eastern Catholics and new pro-ecumenist Orthodox would unite, and we would again have majority of Orthodox remaining outside the communion with Rome. I don’t have to remind you that vast majority of Orthodox Christians in Europe (not USA) believe that Orthodoxy is the only Apostolic Church (They believe Holy Spirit left Rome long time ago) and that they have very low opinion of Rome. Anti-Rome opinions go so far in Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches, that Serbs have developed a saying “Better to be tortured by Turks than taught by Latins.”
And in 2014, Serbian Patriarch said Pope should not visit Serbia, because he is not sure about his safety.

 

[wynd]

Just a note, this thread is 2 years old.

 

[malphono]

Just a note, this thread is 2 years old.

You beat me to it.

 

[Nestor_kea]

There is very common opinion among Orthodox on Patriarch Bartholomew that he likes to meets with Pope, because only then he gets world attention, when he doesn’t meet with Pope, he just sits with few Greeks left locked in his throne monastery, completely ignored by all.

I guess he would get an exquisite big portion of world’s attention if he converted and asked to be received into Catholic Church during one of those meetings.

 

[Iconodule]

To join communion with Rome, an Orthodox Christian does not have to convert.

 

[Peter_J]

To join communion with Rome, an Orthodox Christian does not have to convert.

This seems a little off-topic, but since you brought it up I (and I’m sure many others here) remember how a Romanian Orthodox bishop received communion at a Catholic mass, a few years ago. Though I don’t feel entirely polite saying so.

 

[John_Lazarus]

This seems a little off-topic, but since you brought it up I (and I’m sure many others here) remember how a Romanian Orthodox bishop received communion at a Catholic mass, a few years ago. Though I don’t feel entirely polite saying so.

I am not familiar with this. What happened, that you refer to it circumspectly?

 

[Peter_J]

What happened, that you refer to it circumspectly?

Funny that you ask … I definitely do sometimes mean something slightly different than what I say (e.g. my recent “anathema” comment ) but in this case I was just being literal: a Romanian Orthodox bishop received communion at a Catholic mass.

 

[wynd]

Funny that you ask … I definitely do sometimes mean something slightly different than what I say (e.g. my recent “anathema” comment ) but in this case I was just being literal: a Romanian Orthodox bishop received communion at a Catholic mass.

Yes, and if I recall correctly he got in some trouble for that.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, whether we call it “getting in trouble” or whatever, it’s clear that he wanted to remain in the Orthodox Communion, and therefore needed to follow the rules of said Communion. We Catholics aren’t really all that different: we have to follow the rules of the Communion we are in.