Patriarchates and Schism

[pablope]

Be
**So I would have to disagree with you that the Church patterned herself after the Roman Empire. For her to do so, our Pope would be viewed as our king or emperor, which he never is. The Pope is the Vicar on earth to our eternal King and Lord Jesus Christ.

The Pope is the only apostolic successor that has never officially subjected his divine office as bishop of Rome into the hands of Emperors or heresy.

Peace be with you**

Quite a read:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

*It is very often forgotten that the early Church found a model for her organization in the political divisions of the Roman Empire rather than in the apostolic tradition. This form of Church organization was initiated by the Apostles themselves, who, for practical reasons, had to respect and to use the organization they found in the world in which they lived. They started preaching in the capitals of the major cities of the Roman provinces because there they found important Jewish communities, and it was from these centers that Christianity spread through the provinces and to other communities.
*

. Although this does not mean that the bishops of these cities received from the Apostles a superior place in the original hierarchy of the Church, it was natural that the bishops of the capital of a civil province should enjoy a certain prestige over the bishops of other provincial cities. So it happened that from the outset the Church was obliged, for reasons of practical expediency deriving from the political and economic conditions of the Roman Empire, to adapt its ecclesiastical organization to the political divisions of the Empire.1

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Quite a read:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

*It is very often forgotten that the early Church found a model for her organization in the political divisions of the Roman Empire rather than in the apostolic tradition. This form of Church organization was initiated by the Apostles themselves, who, for practical reasons, had to respect and to use the organization they found in the world in which they lived. They started preaching in the capitals of the major cities of the Roman provinces because there they found important Jewish communities, and it was from these centers that Christianity spread through the provinces and to other communities.
*

. Although this does not mean that the bishops of these cities received from the Apostles a superior place in the original hierarchy of the Church, it was natural that the bishops of the capital of a civil province should enjoy a certain prestige over the bishops of other provincial cities. So it happened that from the outset the Church was obliged, for reasons of practical expediency deriving from the political and economic conditions of the Roman Empire, to adapt its ecclesiastical organization to the political divisions of the Empire.1

I understand your point now, I raised the issue as to clear up any misunderstandings and differences between the office of apostles which is divinely instituted and consecrated by God that is never subject to change.

So as not to confuse them (bishop’s office) with the organizational skills the Church took on from the times they lived in which becomes subject to change.

It should be noted that Jesus appointed 12 fisherman, not 12 politicians.

As time went on after the 400 years of persecution, I would agree with you the Church took on organizational skills to govern the faithful in liturgy and faith.

The tending and feeding of the flock came with what was available to the Church at the time to fulfill her commission. Not to mention Emperor’s and Secular powers at times tried to enter the tending and feeding of the faithful.

Whether by horse and buggy, or automobiles and trains. As man advanced so did the Church with the times, but her divine office never changes, as do the secular powers of the world.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

Hi, spina; We never hear of any Patriarchs from history until 451 a.d during the council of Chalcedon. the bishops of the East at this time were considered the patriarch’s of the Church united to one head the bishop of Rome.

Eastern Patriarchs are heirs of the Eastern apostolic see’s. where the Orthodox claim their Patriarch of Constantinople owed it’s prestige to St. Andrew.

When Alexandria owes it’s prestige to Peter because Mark was Peter’s disciple, Antioch owes it’s prestige to Peter because Peter was it’s first bishop.

The Patriarch of Constantinople during the fifth century, is considered an Imperial Patriarch to the Emperor of Rome. Although the apostolic succession is prestiged from the apostle Andrew according to the Orthodox.

The political power is prestiged from the Eastern Emperor’s to the Patriarch’s of Constantinople. There were great Saintly Patriarch’s of Constantinople united to the Bishop of Rome. When the Patriarch overreached it’s political powers to usurp Church authority, leads to the schismatic circumstances, that still haunts the unity with the bishop’s of Rome today.

Though apostolic succession is made from Andrew, Constantinople never existed during the time of the apostle. The Patriarch of Constantinople was an Imperial office with powerful political status with the Emperor’s of the East.

The Patriarch of Constantinople usurped the apostolic see’s of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. This Imperial patriarch made political moves to ursurp the power and prestige from the bishop of Rome. From this history onwards, leads up to the multiple schisms that reconciled and remain today.

We must not forget, that it was not until the ecclessiastical office of patriarch’s appear, is when the unity of the Church comes under attack, by the many Patriarch’s of the East kept falling into heresy and became heterodoxy to the Orthodox Patriarch’s of the East.

The Pope is the bishop of Rome first. When viewed as Patriarch of the West from the East is not until after 451 a.d. partly because both East and Western Roman Empire was united under one Emperor.

When the Eastern Emperor loses his political power in the West, the patriarchial status of the Pope of Rome loses it’s flavor and remains the bishop of Rome.

Although some Orthodox still maintain the Pope as Patriarch of the West. It was never so, until Constantine united the Roman Empire. Before Constantinople there was only one authority that all other apostolic see’s assured, and that was the bishop of Rome, Peter’s apostolic successor.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12: Thank you very much for your information concerning the Patriarchs. I knew some of what you provided but not all. I understood That the Pope as also Bishop of Rome was considered a Patriarch only by the east but not really in the West. I does seem to be an I have posted on other threads that it is more a political thing among the East and not in the West, as the Pope from the beginning with Peter was had of the Church as his successors. I do not know if having patriarchs are a good thing or not, but it does seem to me that because of the rise of Patriarchs especially in the East that rose due to the Emperor’s belief that he was the “Friend of God” leading to a Ceaserpapal type of rule with political overtones which I think at this point caused tension between the East and West, so far from what little history I have read on the subject, so could be wrong about it, if I am please let me know. Thanks and God bless

 

[spina1953]

Here it is:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Byzantium and the Roman Primacy

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.

Hi pablope: Thank you for the info you provided and I will look into it, to lean more. I agree with you that using the historical method might work best in gaining understanding of the issues on this thread. Again tanks God Bless

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel of 12: Thank you very much for your information concerning the Patriarchs. I knew some of what you provided but not all. I understood That the Pope as also Bishop of Rome was considered a Patriarch only by the east but not really in the West. I does seem to be an I have posted on other threads that it is more a political thing among the East and not in the West, as the Pope from the beginning with Peter was had of the Church as his successors. I do not know if having patriarchs are a good thing or not, but it does seem to me that because of the rise of Patriarchs especially in the East that rose due to the Emperor’s belief that he was the “Friend of God” leading to a Ceaserpapal type of rule with political overtones which I think at this point caused tension between the East and West, so far from what little history I have read on the subject, so could be wrong about it, if I am please let me know. Thanks and God bless

Your on the right path, although I wouldn’t put the “only” political emphasis on the Patriarch’s office. It is ecclessial with in the Church.

With the political emphasis, an Orthodox would place the same blame on the Pope crowning Charlemene Emperor in the Western Roman Empire. Which added to the tensions of the schism from the Eastern side of the Church.

It’s interesting to note when the Bishop’s of Rome were under persecution since the apostolic age, the authority of the Bishop’s of Rome was never compromised.

When the secular powers freed the Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome from lawful persecutions. Vie-ing for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome became a secular and patirachial career from Constantinople.

When the empire divided, the pope’s remained apart from Emperor’s rule and political influences, yet appointing Catholic bishop’s with out Church approval beacame a career of secular governments in the West to include Vie-ing for the selection of Popes.

Thank God today, the Popes are free once again from all secular powers, but is persecuted by non-catholic Christianity to include Orthodox church’s not in full communion with the popes, who remains persecuted by the world. Example, twice Pope JPII life personally came under threat and attack.

Jesus made it simple for the Church; Give to God what belongs to God and give to the Ceasar’s what belong to the Ceasar’s.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

Your on the right path, although I wouldn’t put the “only” political emphasis on the Patriarch’s office. It is ecclessial with in the Church.

With the political emphasis, an Orthodox would place the same blame on the Pope crowning Charlemene Emperor in the Western Roman Empire. Which added to the tensions of the schism from the Eastern side of the Church.

It’s interesting to note when the Bishop’s of Rome were under persecution since the apostolic age, the authority of the Bishop’s of Rome was never compromised.

When the secular powers freed the Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome from lawful persecutions. Vie-ing for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome became a secular and patirachial career from Constantinople.

When the empire divided, the pope’s remained apart from Emperor’s rule and political influences, yet appointing Catholic bishop’s with out Church approval beacame a career of secular governments in the West to include Vie-ing for the selection of Popes.

Thank God today, the Popes are free once again from all secular powers, but is persecuted by non-catholic Christianity to include Orthodox church’s not in full communion with the popes, who remains persecuted by the world. Example, twice Pope JPII life personally came under threat and attack.

Jesus made it simple for the Church; Give to God what belongs to God and give to the Ceasar’s what belong to the Ceasar’s.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12: Thanks for the reply. You are of course correct in your thinking. As for the political emphasis, I after reading what you said I thought of the religious political aspects of a power struggle within the east more so than in the West. That being said, The crowning of Charlemene as emperor I think due more to trying to make the West more stable after all of the barbarbains invasions, since the East did nothing to help the West and focused more on the east instead of the whole of the empire. Of course there are other things that lead to the schism. but it just seems to me that there was the power struggle in the east wanting to be equal billing with Rome. I also think from reading history and I maybe wrong but it more a thought at this point; but it seems that the emperor really wanted the Pope in Rome to move to Constantinople so that he could control the Church in a secular manor. Tat being said I agree with what you replied to. Thanks again and God bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

spina1953;11735622]Hi Gabriel of 12: Thanks for the reply. You are of course correct in your thinking. As for the political emphasis, I after reading what you said I thought of the religious political aspects of a power struggle within the east more so than in the West. That being said, The crowning of Charlemene as emperor I think due more to trying to make the West more stable after all of the barbarbains invasions, since the East did nothing to help the West and focused more on the east instead of the whole of the empire.

Dead on spot:thumbsup:

Of course there are other things that lead to the schism. but it just seems to me that there was the power struggle in the east wanting to be equal billing with Rome. I also think from reading history and I maybe wrong but it more a thought at this point; but it seems that the emperor really wanted the Pope in Rome to move to Constantinople so that he could control the Church in a secular manor. Tat being said I agree with what you replied to. Thanks again and God bless.

Actually history records the Sentiments of Constantine as shrinking from the intellectuals and ancient Aristrocatic families living in Rome, He feared their politics and did not socialize with this high society of Aristrocats. Maybe that is why God gave him the sign of the cross that conquers? He wanted to build his own city to rule from. He chose Constantinople due to military strategy.

I am not sure if he made any attempts at relocating the bishop of Rome, that would of proven difficult taking a Latin bishop to a Greek speaking community that already had a bishop of its own in communion with the bishop of Rome. (Although Pope Honorious was a Greek speaking Pope who defeated many of the Eastern heresies trying to infect the West. He is the one that was labeled a heretic 40 years after his death, judged from his personal letters, that were never taught to the whole Church). During this time, the sentiment from the East was a utopia, which, ultimately collapsed the unity of Bishop’s.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

Dead on spot:thumbsup:

Actually history records the Sentiments of Constantine as shrinking from the intellectuals and ancient Aristrocatic families living in Rome, He feared their politics and did not socialize with this high society of Aristrocats. Maybe that is why God gave him the sign of the cross that conquers? He wanted to build his own city to rule from. He chose Constantinople due to military strategy.

I am not sure if he made any attempts at relocating the bishop of Rome, that would of proven difficult taking a Latin bishop to a Greek speaking community that already had a bishop of its own in communion with the bishop of Rome. (Although Pope Honorious was a Greek speaking Pope who defeated many of the Eastern heresies trying to infect the West. He is the one that was labeled a heretic 40 years after his death, judged from his personal letters, that were never taught to the whole Church). During this time, the sentiment from the East was a utopia, which, ultimately collapsed the unity of Bishop’s.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel of 12: You are of curse correct in what you said. It was just a thought as to Constantine wanting the Pope in Rome t move to Constantinople, I think I read it somewhere many years ago so do not know if it was even true that he wanted to. That being said, I do think that as religious interests entered the political arena, the conceptual distinction between religion and politics increasingly blurred. Of course from an imperial perspective, religion had always been intertwined with politics. When Constantine legitimated Christian worship, he affirmed the importance of religion for politics in terms that would have been familiar to any Roman emperor. According to Eusebius “The Christian emperor ruled on earth as a divine king just as the Word of God ruled over the heavenly realm.” Eusebius also thought that. the emperor by fitting his subjects into the pattern of the divine kingdom, the Christian emperor established a perfect harmony between the order of heaven and the order of the earth."

The merger between religion and politics celebrated by Eusebius had definite consequences for the Christian Churches under Constantine,. Embracing his role as "an interpreter of the “Word of God” the emperor intervened directly in controversies over Church leadership and doctrine. This according to David Chidester’s Christianity a Global History.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

spina1953;11739172]Hi Gabriel of 12: You are of curse correct in what you said. It was just a thought as to Constantine wanting the Pope in Rome t move to Constantinople, I think I read it somewhere many years ago so do not know if it was even true that he wanted to. That being said, I do think that as religious interests entered the political arena, the conceptual distinction between religion and politics increasingly blurred. Of course from an imperial perspective, religion had always been intertwined with politics. When Constantine legitimated Christian worship, he affirmed the importance of religion for politics in terms that would have been familiar to any Roman emperor.

What is interesting the Emperor’s of the Roman Empire were given the title Pontifex Maximus as pagan Romes head religious leader. Later a Christian Emperor would pass this title over to the Bishop’s of Rome not the Patriarch’s of Constantinople. That in itself gives credence to the authority of the bishop’s of Rome being recognized by the whole Empire.

It should be noted here, that when ever the Roman Emperors’ were Christian there was peace among the whole of Christendom recognizing the authority of Peter’s Chair over the whole Church in the bishop’s of Rome.

Whenever the Emperors’ were pagan or heretics, there was tension, power struggles, exile, and persecution towards the bishop’s of Rome from both the pagan Emperor’s and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople. When you see the Church in disaray during this history, the Emperor’s are generally pagan, or holding to heretical views and forcing it’s power over the bishop’s of Rome. These Emperor’s required the yes vote from the bishop’s of Rome over the Church. When these Emperor’s or the Patriarch’s of Constantinople under the heretical Emperor’s could not get the bishop’s of Rome approval, the Popes came under persecution.

According to Eusebius “The Christian emperor ruled on earth as a divine king just as the Word of God ruled over the heavenly realm.” Eusebius also thought that. the emperor by fitting his subjects into the pattern of the divine kingdom, the Christian emperor established a perfect harmony between the order of heaven and the order of the earth."

For quick clarification there were two Eusebius’s. One Eusebius was a great theologian which you are referencing, who was the one that spread the sentiment of Utopia, now that the Church was set free by Constantine. Not to be confused with another Eusebius who was a bishop or Patriarch in the East.

The merger between religion and politics celebrated by Eusebius had definite consequences for the Christian Churches under Constantine,. Embracing his role as "an interpreter of the “Word of God” the emperor intervened directly in controversies over Church leadership and doctrine. This according to David Chidester’s Christianity a Global History.

That’s a good point you make. There is a flip side to that side of Church history. For one many of the Catholic Saints saw the danger of Eusebius undertakings and resisted the Utopia and Constantine by renouncing their Patriarchial position’s and left their offices into the desert to begin living the monastic life as monks. These great Early Church Fathers would not have nothing to do with the Emperor’s politics in the Church and left their wealthy positions under the Emperor’s.

The bishop’s of Rome with other Saints from the East battled the influence of the Emperor over the Church. Thus the councils convened.

This was a difficult period for the free Catholic Church, because many Patriarch’s were excommunicated and left the full commuion with the Bishop’s of Rome and Orthodox Patrirachetes who remained in full communion with the Bishop’s of Rome. These Eastern Patriarch’s were officially excommunicated by the Catholic Church due to their heretical views.

These Eastern Patriarch’s now labeled heretics and heresies do not enter the history of the church until the placement of Patriarch’s within the Catholic Church, after Pagan Rome freed the Church of it’s persecution laws.

It has been a long while since I have visited this history of the Church, and recall it is a fascinating read.

Peace be with you

 

[spina1953]

Hi Gabriel of 12: What an large amount of info. great stuff from you!!! I did not know of Pontifex Maximus was given to the Bishop of Rome (Pope). It seems that when the emperor Constantine died in 337 AD and after some months of political maneuvering, along with the execution of several members of his family by other family members, he was succeeded by his three sons, Constantine II, who became Caesar in the West, Constantius II, who ruled in the East, and Constans, who had responsibilities for Italy and North Africa. Politics was a bloody business in those days, and it was hardly an arrangement that could last. In 340AD Constantine II was killed. For the next ten years there was relative peace between the brothers, but Contans was killed by a usurper in 350AD and Constantius II became sole ruler until his death in 361AD.

   Even though Constantine's sons were Christians, they parted company on the issues that divided the Churches after the Council of Nicaea. Constans supported the Nicenes, but Constantius sided with the council's critic's and sent into exile proNicene Bishops, including Athanasius, the most resolute and articulate defender of the Council. Only after the death of Constantius was the Nicene party able to gain the upper hand. But Constantine's most fateful legacy was to arrange the marriage of a Cousin, the son of a half brother of Constantine, named Julian, to his sister Helena and to appoint him caeasr with the charge of Gaul and Britain. When Constantine died, Julian became became sole emperor.

  It seems that Julian gave up the faith as a Christian and embraced paganism with an enthusiasm bordering on fanaticism. Julian wished not only to restore the traditional forms of worship, most notably animal sacrifice; his aim was to subvert the influence of Christianity and eventually purge the society of this new religion. The Christians born of the persecutions under Dioclettian, the new status of the Church seemed fragile. A Christian future was not assured. Policies could change, and as one Bishop observed late in the century, "unbelievers could again be our rulers."
   
   Julian it seems also believed that animal sacrifice was the highest form of worship, and he was promoting the renewal of sacrifices at the temples across the empire. The Roman empire in the fourth century was not the world of Byzantium or medieval Europe. Christianity was still in the process of finding its place in society and was torn by internal strife, mercurial loyalties, and strident critics such as Julian.

I think that sometimes we forget that the times were very much different and that a lot of things were going on that, that Christianity was not what it is in our day and age. History of those times in early Christianity and the Roman empire lend much to understanding why we believe as we do and why doctrines needed to be defined in a way that unity and united in one belief and not several beliefs and misconceptions that caused much harm as it does today in our times. As it has been said, if one does not look to the past ,history has a way of repeating itself.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think that sometimes we forget that the times were very much different and that a lot of things were going on that, that Christianity was not what it is in our day and age. History of those times in early Christianity and the Roman empire lend much to understanding why we believe as we do and why doctrines needed to be defined in a way that unity and united in one belief and not several beliefs and misconceptions that caused much harm as it does today in our times. As it has been said, if one does not look to the past ,history has a way of repeating itself.

If anything, this history paints God separating the goats from the sheep, and although the gates of hell came against the Catholic Church, the gates of hell has never prevailed over the Church. Pagan Roman powers and many other secualr kingdoms have come and gone, yet the Catholic Church still remains Rock unmoved.

Peace be with you

 

[Expatreprocedit]

We must not forget, that it was not until the ecclessiastical office of patriarch’s appear, is when the unity of the Church comes under attack, by the many Patriarch’s of the East kept falling into heresy and became heterodoxy to the Orthodox Patriarch’s of the East.

Actually the first time the unity of the Church came under attack was in c. 180 AD when Pope Victor attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East for failing to observe Easter on the date he decreed. Of course, his attempt was rebuffed soundly by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among other bishops.

 

[prodromos]

Actually the first time the unity of the Church came under attack was in c. 180 AD when Pope Victor attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East for failing to observe Easter on the date he decreed. Of course, his attempt was rebuffed soundly by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among other bishops.

I honestly do not recommend getting involved in these threads now just as we are heading into Holy Lent. Many of the historical ‘facts’ posted seem to be deliberate attempts at trolling Orthodox forum members and you would be far better off spending the time in prayer or reading spiritual books than wasting your time posting rebuttals.
Have a blessed Lent and Pascha.

John

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Actually the first time the unity of the Church came under attack was in c. 180 AD when Pope Victor attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East for failing to observe Easter on the date he decreed. Of course, his attempt was rebuffed soundly by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among other bishops.

Interesting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually the first time the unity of the Church came under attack was in c. 180 AD

According to who?

Seems to me Theodotus of Byzantium produced the first heresy of the Church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodotus_of_Byzantium

prodromos advice above is sound.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually the first time the unity of the Church came under attack was in c. 180 AD when Pope Victor attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East for failing to observe Easter on the date he decreed. Of course, his attempt was rebuffed soundly by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among other bishops.

Sorry your wrong if your using Church disciplines as being a device of disunity, I referenced doctrinal and full communion. Easter is a disciplinary action that is subject to change.

You error history here, because the first time a disunity of disciplines occurred in the Church was between Peter and Paul and the council at Jerusalem. But these never affected the full communion.

You used the Word “attempted”, that points to an action not a result of the Church. Nice try though:thumbsup:

We are not discussing heroics like the Bishop of Rome Pope Leo, who single handed the onslaught of Attila the Hun to run for fear of his life from Pope Leo and died. While the Eastern Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople left the defenseless Pope to defend for himself from the conquering armies of Attilla the Hun.

The subject is Patriarchetes and schism.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I honestly do not recommend getting involved in these threads now just as we are heading into Holy Lent. Many of the historical ‘facts’ posted seem to be deliberate attempts at trolling Orthodox forum members and you would be far better off spending the time in prayer or reading spiritual books than wasting your time posting rebuttals.
Have a blessed Lent and Pascha.

John

Thank you for using the term “historical facts” posted. The purpose of these threads is to learn and grow from one another. I hope it’s never to prey on smaller fish.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

I honestly do not recommend getting involved in these threads now just as we are heading into Holy Lent. Many of the historical ‘facts’ posted seem to be deliberate attempts at trolling Orthodox forum members and you would be far better off spending the time in prayer or reading spiritual books than wasting your time posting rebuttals.
Have a blessed Lent and Pascha.

John

I don’t I would have thought of that specifically, but I generally believe that posters (be they Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant) should “vote with their feet”, i.e. frequent the better blogs and whatnot and ignore the worse one. By extension, within the CAF microcosm we should each try to read and respond to the better threads and posts and disregard the worse ones.

 

[spina1953]

Although there are lots of reason from the historical as to why there is a schism, it is really trying to learn and understand the why of it and maybe, just maybe come to a better understanding of those reasons and hopefully begin to try and resolve those issues that have caused the schisms in the first place. I think that some of us who are not all that familiar with the Eastern way of thinking and understanding who are willing to learn from our Eastern brothers and sisters and come to some sort of agreement on the issues instead of fostering arguments that tend to drive a wedge between a them and us would or might be a better way. For me it is more trying to learn and understand the differences that have kept us apart and look for ways in which one can come to understanding and agreement as Christians. The only I see this is by leaning what the other thinks and believes and the why. trying to force the other to believe or make one think they are wrong does not seems to me to work all that well.
What I see is a richness of tradition and faith that the East and the West have that each side does not either see or understand. If we are not willing to learn and understand the other why are we even trying? it would not make any sense to me. I am not saying this is true of everyone but only a few from reading some of the threads on CAF.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I don’t I would have thought of that specifically, but I generally believe that posters (be they Catholic, Orthodox, or even Protestant) should “vote with their feet”, i.e. frequent the better blogs and whatnot and ignore the worse one. By extension, within the CAF microcosm we should each try to read and respond to the better threads and posts and disregard the worse ones.

Can you give an example between the difference of a better thread discussing Patriarchates and Schism and a worse one?

Does learning and giving an answer for your faith have to always come during a season? Or are we called to give witness for our faith in or out of season?

So that the Orthodox are not falsely accused of shutting down postitive threads by changing the OP.

Do any of the Orthodox have anything to add to this better or worse thread? particularly on the subject of the OP?