Greek Orthodoxy

 

I took your introduction(which I have put in bold) as implying somehow that the Catholic church condoned the violent actions that occured in that region precisely because Stepinac was beatified. I dont understand how I could have read it in any other light. This is exactly why I used the example of Theodora. She is a saint in the Eastern churches, but are the Easterns implied to have Monophysite tendencies because she has canonized Theodora? No, or at least I dont believe so. You may not like the parallel that I had provided but I dont see how you can discern any playground-type 'you too' recess banter out of it. Which is exactly what I have tried to avoid, regardless, in my opinion, of the open-invitation to do so by some.

 

God bless,

 

arch.buff

 

 

Heres my problem with the moniker, which is an official title of the patriarch of Constantinople. It is an overall confusing title. Here is a good case in point in how the language barrier between east and west can bear itself out to the forefront. Pope Gregory thought it all too bold of a title when the then patriarch John the Faster wrote to him continually stating himself as the Ecumenical patriarch. It is true that also other patriarchs were addressed in Greek oikoymenikos patriarches; the patriarch of Alexandria being so called by one of his bishops at the Robber-synod of 449. It is also true that others in the church had also addressed the patriarch as such but the patriarch officially adopted the label in his letter to Gregory, in which he states a number of time as him being the Ecumenical patriarch. The Latin translation of 'Universal Patriarch' is far more bold then the more modest Greek rendering, and this is precisley what Gregory disgreed with: "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" He also makes not found inhis Epistles: "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" Of course this whole situation depends on how the east interpreted ecumenical in the title, as we have previously discussed the different interpretations of the word. As far as the western interpretation, which is admittedly far more bold, Gregory expressly disclaims the name or 'universal' for any bishop including himself in the sense that it would reduce all other bishops: "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others so that he who calls himself oecumenic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor in the inhabited earth" (Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence)     Such is not Catholic theology, Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ. From this time on Gregory assumed the title that has been attached to his successors ever since- Servants to the servants of God.   The title Ecumenical directly relates to the disagreements between Moscow and Constantinople. From my understanding Moscow and Constantinople are in debate over whether Constantinople has the right to hear appeals from the enitre church(ecumenical) or just in its immediate patriarchate.

 

If you study the ancient Church, you will find that each of the Patriarchs bore many titles, and that these grew in number over the years. As Ware notes, for example, the Patriarch of Alexandria is referred to as "Judge of the Universe", and titles such as these are to be interpreted only within the tradition of the Church. Gregory was quite right to appeal to the rights of bishops in this matter, and there was indeed a danger that the title "Ecumenical" would be interpreted in a maximalist sense -- as, indeed, it was in the later Medieval period, and most egregiously by Anna Comnena. He erred only insofar as he followed his predecessors in the gradual expansion of a sense of jurisdictional primacy inherent in the Roman see.

 

To answer your question regarding the matter of appeals, when the canon was set down by the fathers, it referred to the orbis Romanus, but only as a last result. Rome had been granted this right in 343.

 

I think you may be a little confused. Carpathian stated that there was a canon that specifically stated: "there would be only one Patriarch per nation of people". Knowing of no canon or notion in the undivided church I asked for a specific canon; which he has not, reason being- there is no such canon. At least there is no canon in the Catholic church, I was asssuming he was refering to the 6th of Nicea but I wasnt sure. I also could not be sure if such a canon was ever developed in the east post-schism. So my asking for a specific canon was only to provide some clarity thereof.

 

I think you might be a bit quick to attribute criticism to me. Here I was not only criticizing you; in fact, I was agreeing with you, while recognizing that this particular matter you two were discussing missed the point entirely, especially since you should, by now, be familiar with the principle of territorial accomodation.

 

As I stated earlier, I am glad you have addressed the accusations in this thread; regretably your simplistic overall outlook has stopped there. Heres the difference in the nature of the accuastions. I assume when you state "you were the first to lob an accusation" you are refering to my post regarding the prevalence of nationalism in the Orthodox church and more specifically the Serbian Church, for which I have provided two sources that would attest to the same. This 'accusation' can be directly responded to, which it has yet to be, in a number of ways mainly because it has historical and theological implications. In other words, to the objective eye it is a valid point. The ideological values of Nikolay Velimirovich have never been addressed or condemned by any of the Eastern churches to my knowledge. He is also canonized as a saint by the Easterns. Nicholas Afanassieff notes:   "the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine of church government. And although we have a doctrine concerning Ecumenical councils as organs of governmant in the Church, we shall see presently that our doctrine is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy." (Meyendorff, Primacy of Peter)   Now, on the other hand, I will provide some of the accusations that were drawn against the Catholic church that are to be found in this thread:   If you want to point a finger at adding church and nationalism together you don't need to look any further then the Ustashe regime of Croatia where clergy sawed Orthodox children alive, and spread their blood over others. This action was directly backed and allowed by the pope himself.- Carpathian Wolf Here's the problem with what i see in the papacy simply from a secular point of view. When your pope makes a mistake, the whole church is in error. When the pope turned a blind eye to Hitler, that brought the whole papal church into error.- Carpathian Wolf   Is there any theological foundations in any of this? Seems more to me to say: Your church did a lot of sinful things. As if there is a church on earth that is innocent in any regard. If you have reviewed the thread as you have stated, then you should have noted that I have never attempted to slander the Eastern church for the attrocities that accompany their history, the only time I refer to them are in conjunction with histrocial analysis (refer to 1182 in the beginning of this post). For instance, one could have drawn a parallel in the Western church to the sexual scandals that recently surrounded the clergy and how those unfortunate instances were lead in direct conjunction with the western tradition of clerical celibacy. That justified paralled would have been fair. But to simply state -Your church has done a lot of bad stuff- is, in my opinion, more derogatory and useless then anything else. I would have assumed you could make such a distinction in the nature of the accusation in this thread, however given our topic of discussion it comes as no surprise.

 

I actually believe you are sincere in your assertion that you believe me to be unfair or simple in assigning to you the primary responsibility for beginning this sordid dialogue. This saddens me; I do not wish you to feel singled out or persecuted. Nor do I deny that every church is guilty of many offenses, and has been guilty of many more; indeed, it is a reality that is all too present. It is, however, my responsibility to note that you were the one who first singled out the Serbian Church for criticism in this thread. You did this in your response to Nestorian, in which you took a simple observation that he made about the Russia Georgia conflict, and interpreted it in such a way that it served as off-topic criticism. Everything that came after was simply a response. The reason conversations about crimes of various churches not related directly to matters of faith are unprofitable is that they always turn into these "you too" affairs; after all, the only way to show the unfairness of the first criticism is to highlight the fact that the person who made it is in no position to criticize. After the first accusation, the resulting fruitless conversation was inevitable, and we could continue it ad infinitum -- we have certainly continued it ad nauseam.

 

You may wish to view all of these undesireable qualities- viz. objectivity- long in the rear view mirror; however, in leu of your latest post, it should not be rendered indefensible if some were to come to the conclusion of the contrary. The main goal of your last response may have been to highlight certain bias' prevalent in this discussion, however it appears you have not forseen that in so doing you have inadvertently highlighted your own. I can only asssume that you will interpret this post and label it a "you too" response. The only thing I can tell you is if are to continue employing such a shallow reading of our discussion you will only be engaging in a great disservice to yourself.

 

arch.buff, believe me when I say that I would not think to encourage you to be objective if I did not struggle with the concept myself; the reader may judge what measure of success, if any, each of us have gained in this particular thread. You may think me simple, you may think me unfair; you may think me blind, or biased,  or petty. You may think that I only encourage you to be objective in an effort to subvert you away from your faith, or as some sort of childish rhetorical gambit. I honestly don't care; I know my purposes, and my Lord knows my heart. No matter how base you think me, and in spite of the style and tenor of discourse you have chosen, you shall have my love, my concern, and my prayers; the one thing you will not have -- and it is with a sorrowfully heavy heart that I say this -- is my conversation, for nothing fruitful could come of it.

 

God bless, arch.buff; may He watch over and guide you in your journey.

 

-Akolouthos