H
- Status
Q
Quintana
Guest
I think you should get a few more credible sources before condemning the EP. The San Francisco Chronicle from 18 years ago? C’mon – this doesn’t pass the smell test at first whiff.
His words may well have been taken out of context or it may simply be inaccurate reporting. If you cannot quickly come up with a half dozen sources on a matter so potentially incendiary then it’s probably a non-starter.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Nothing different really from Pope Vigilius who supported Monophystism before he became Pope, but then changed track as soon as he did. Bartholomew would then be the same, as he has not said anything in support of abortion since becoming Patriarch.I’ve heard of this, the information isn’t terribly easy to find. These words were allegedly spoken before he was Patriarch. To my knowledge, if he did say that, he hasn’t repeated such disgusting words, but neither has he repudiated nor retracted them. The Orthodox Church has never and does not teach that abortion is acceptable, and if he indeed said those things, it’s to his own shame and he has put his salvation in serious jeopardy. If it is true it is beyond outrageous.
M
MusicMan
Guest
The Ecumenical Patriarch is considered “First Among Equals.” While he is not the head of the Orthodox Churches in the same sense that Pope Benedict is the head of the Catholic Churches, where he leads, others may well follow. It is logical to seek His All-Holiness out first, as it will lead to inroads with the other Patriarchs of the other Orthodox Churches.
For the Pope to open this kind of dialog with Orthodoxy via another Patriarch would probably yield less fruit and runs the risk of insulting the other Patriarchs as well as Bartholomew I. It is simple logic and courtesy that causes the Pope to pursue Orthodoxy through this channel.
Furthermore, the quote in question is clearly taken out of context, and I would like to read the entire article. Indeed, His All-Holiness doesn’t really seem to be Pro-Choice as much as he seems permissive of artificial contraception. A couple moving towards abortion doesn’t mean they are going to do it, nor does it mean that His All-Holiness is in favor of it, only that he understands the perspective of a couple considering it.
Understanding why someone would do something is, to me, a far higher form of wisdom than just telling someone not to.
For the Pope to open this kind of dialog with Orthodoxy via another Patriarch would probably yield less fruit and runs the risk of insulting the other Patriarchs as well as Bartholomew I. It is simple logic and courtesy that causes the Pope to pursue Orthodoxy through this channel.
Furthermore, the quote in question is clearly taken out of context, and I would like to read the entire article. Indeed, His All-Holiness doesn’t really seem to be Pro-Choice as much as he seems permissive of artificial contraception. A couple moving towards abortion doesn’t mean they are going to do it, nor does it mean that His All-Holiness is in favor of it, only that he understands the perspective of a couple considering it.
Understanding why someone would do something is, to me, a far higher form of wisdom than just telling someone not to.
M
Milliardo
Guest
I would agree that he is taken out of context here, as such a statement would logically bar him from becoming Patriarch (much less a bishop).
E
eelpis
Guest
The unity of Christians is as serious as the unity of the body of Christ on the cross.
There he is, his body torn to pieces, he said, my peace I give to you.
The abandoned Jesus on the cross, he is the source of unity and faith.
There he is, his body torn to pieces, he said, my peace I give to you.
The abandoned Jesus on the cross, he is the source of unity and faith.
A
Aramis
Guest
It could, however, also wind up isolating His All-Holiness from the majority of Eastern Orthodoxy; it’s a two edged sword.
Patriarch Alexi II of Moscow has made some rather bold complaints about the leanings towards heresy of The Ecumenical Patriarch… It’s not yet clear just how upset Moscow is, but it is clear that HB Alexi isn’t happy with HAH. And it’s not just over the Baltic Churches, either.
The Muscovite Patriarchate is also not enthralled with the EO dialogging with the Catholic Church; their envoys seem to keep manufacturing reasons to walk out.
Ecumenism on the side of the Ecumenical Patriarch is double edged for him: The closer he comes to Rome, the further he is from the rest of the EO, at least by some EO standards (esp. Moscow’s).
The EO are not a tightly knit hierarchy… they are a confederation, really. Meanwhile the Catholics are a Monarchy. The EO “leadership” isn’t the EP, but the Pan-Orthodox Council.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
First, what is the context of this statement?
Second, no where does it say that he is pro-choice.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
FWIW, it is worth remembering that B16 and Patriarch Bartholomew are friends, and have been since BEFORE either achieved their position.
Yes Virginia, Catholics and Orthodox really can be buddies.
Yes Virginia, Catholics and Orthodox really can be buddies.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Sometimes our fight for Christian Civilization will entail compromises. The problem with Russia has always been its general weakness of Christian conversion. Christianity began there in AD 977, when Vladimir personally ‘chose’ Eastern Orthodoxy as his people’s religion (he chose it over Judaism and Islam because he liked the splendor of its services and artwork), and tried to impose it on them, against popular, pagan resistance. Tragically, the only two things that have ever come close to unifying Russia have been brutal violence and Communism, which of course based itself on the former. Russia is troubled, and always has been.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Another reason to be talking to the Patriarch of Constantinople is that he is willing to talk.
M
MusicMan
Guest
After almost of century of being hidden behind the Iron Curtain, and ostensibly having itself compromised by the Soviet Regieme, the Russian Orthodox Church has really only been available as a player on the world stage for just about the last 20 years.
The Church is 100x older than that, thus things move slow within Her.
Also, with having a West German Pope, despite the current openness with Russia, it may be difficult for him to pursue relations with the Muscovite Patriarch.
Lastly, has His Grace Alexy II shown any interest at all with relations with Rome? His All-Holiness has, and he is still, for Western understanding, the “Senior” Patriarch.
Perhaps the Holy Father has, indeed, chosen the best path to positive consideration of Reunification after all.
The Church is 100x older than that, thus things move slow within Her.
Also, with having a West German Pope, despite the current openness with Russia, it may be difficult for him to pursue relations with the Muscovite Patriarch.
Lastly, has His Grace Alexy II shown any interest at all with relations with Rome? His All-Holiness has, and he is still, for Western understanding, the “Senior” Patriarch.
Perhaps the Holy Father has, indeed, chosen the best path to positive consideration of Reunification after all.
B
Barbieflausa
Guest
Wow…I am glad I found this thread…glad to see it IS possible for OUR family to sit together at the Lord’s dinner table and not throw “verbal” peas at one another.
Bravo! Opa!
A
Aramis
Guest
His Beatitude Alexi has not only shown little interest in dialogues, but has allowed his senior representatives to walk out of pan-orthodox dialogs with the Catholic Church. For some fairly specious reasons, in a few cases.
From here, The Moscow Patriarchate is apparently not interested in serious dialog, as a corporate body. It’s not Just His Beattitude. It’s the senior clerics of the Moscow Patriarchate, bishops and archpriests alike.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
From here, The Moscow Patriarchate is apparently not interested in serious dialog, as a corporate body. It’s not Just His Beattitude. It’s the senior clerics of the Moscow Patriarchate, bishops and archpriests alike.
The Patriarchs of Moscow, Georgia, Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria are "Holiness."
The Patriarchs of Moscow, Georgia, Romania, Serbia, and Bulgaria are "Holiness."
H
Hesychios
Guest
As a matter of fact, it seems that a German will get much more mileage than a Pole.
Far less ambiguity.
In Orthodoxy the ‘seniority’ does not imply anything more than respect. The Patriarchate could potentially disappear some day, but that would not have disastrous implications for the rest of Orthodoxy.
Yes, he has. However he has expressed very strong preconditions. That is not popular reading for most Catholics, who are generally looking for news to reinforce their own worldview much of the time.
The fact is, all Orthodox including His All-Holiness Bartholomew view the Papacy as (in reality) little different from a Patriarchate…which then does not possess some of the authority it claims for itself. His Holiness Alexy and the Russian church in general appears to be a bit more forceful in making the point, and Catholics don’t want to hear that. Patriarch Bartholomew is being diplomatically pleasant. (Also, as Simple Sinner has pointed out, the two are longstanding friends on a personal level.) Another point to make here is that Patriarch Bartholomew probably sees that a strong relationship with the vastly larger Latin Catholic church with a strong presence in Europe can be of some help in dealing with the Turks. No one, excepting perhaps the Turkish state, really wants to see the last vestiges of Christianity fade out from view in Istanbul. His All-Holiness may benefit from this good press.
Pope Benedict is a very bright man, and very realistic. He knows all of this. He also knows that all Orthodox churches are either autocephalic or missionary dependencies of an autocephalic church. They continually deal with one another on this basis and are not expecting to change this arrangement in the future. Orthodox will theoretically accept the Papacy as another autocephalic church among several, but that is not what most Latin Catholics think of when they hope and pray for “reunification”.
This is why the Russian church sometimes seems so difficult. It is basically stating that if you want relations to improve, it would help if your church started acting like an Orthodox church and respect it’s canonical territory. The Russians are not saying this to any other western “church”, they are holding the Papacy to a higher standard. A standard they expect a real church can actually achieve if it has expectations of being part of the same communion in the future.
M
MusicMan
Guest
The real issue, regardless of which Patriarch the Holy Father is talking to, is the Papacy and the current power it possesses, power that is historically in dispute.
The vast majority of “traditional”/“semi-traditional” Roman Catholics will not accept anything less than the Pope of Rome maintaining the full power which he enjoys today.
The vast majority of Orthodox Christians will accept, at most, the Pope of Rome returning to pre-Schism status as First Among Equals.
Further, from what I have read here and on other legit sites, it seems as if Orthodox Christians might accept First Among Equal status in time, but should we come in to Communion with each other, the Pope would have to spend some time as just being “Equals” with the other Patriarchs and the EP would remain First Among Equals. Whether or not that would change in time would remain to be seen.
It is an impasse that may never be forded.**
The vast majority of “traditional”/“semi-traditional” Roman Catholics will not accept anything less than the Pope of Rome maintaining the full power which he enjoys today.
The vast majority of Orthodox Christians will accept, at most, the Pope of Rome returning to pre-Schism status as First Among Equals.
Further, from what I have read here and on other legit sites, it seems as if Orthodox Christians might accept First Among Equal status in time, but should we come in to Communion with each other, the Pope would have to spend some time as just being “Equals” with the other Patriarchs and the EP would remain First Among Equals. Whether or not that would change in time would remain to be seen.
It is an impasse that may never be forded.**
H
Hesychios
Guest
M
Milliardo
Guest
I like the last two posts here; they are exactly my sentiments. I still see the Catholic Church as having Apostolic succession, though along the way it has adopted some irregular notions especially in the role of the bishop of Rome. And yes, it will be hard for staunch Catholics to accept a more limited scope of the Pope’s authority, but that was how it was in the early Church.
M
malphono
Guest
I will not dispute the bulk of the post, (in main I agree), but the bolded portion is another matter. How very typical of Moscow thinking, whether religious or secular. They’re so worried about others respecting their territory, but they neglect to note that they have done the exact same thing. In the case of the Moscow Patriarchate, it has established its own eparchies (whether autocephalic or missionary dependencies, it doesn’t matter) in the the canonical West. Supposedly this is to seve the Russian Orthodox faithful, but the fact remains that they are territorially and geographically out of their canonical jurisdiction. (One could draw a few secular parallels, whether from Imperial Russia, or Soviet Union, or post-Soviet Russia, but there’s no reason to go that far off topic and I will not do so.)
Don’t get me wrong: I have no quarrel with the extra-territorial foundations per se, but please: one Patriarchate should not accuse another Patriarchate of doing what it itself does, especially when both are guilty of the same type of violation of canonical territory. Just MHO, though I fear I’ve knocked down a hornets nest.
- Status