Bulgarian Orthodox Church withdraws from Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete

[buzuxi02]

They concelebrate with non-Orthodox? Neo-Eastern papalism? I must be out of the loop with this.

Eastern papalism is the (false) interpretation of canon 28 as saying all barbarian lands are automatically jurisdiction of the EP. It also describes Metropolitan Elpidophoros statements that the Ecumenical Patriarch is "first without equals". Recent innovations.

 

[All4Christ]

Interesting. Haven't heard of that happening before. I think I may be isolated from much of what happens in other jurisdictions outside of the States and missions areas (besides what I learn on TAW). I have wondered how that works at times with the mission areas, but never heard of it always being the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What situations show people considering the EP to be like the "first without equals"? Do you know of any particular times that has happened? Or is it just a mindset?

Thanks for the info.

 

[GregConstantine]

It's a mindset based on a lack of education and making assumptions that the Orthodox are just like the Catholics.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

It's a mindset based on a lack of education and making assumptions that the Orthodox are just like the Catholics.

Sadly this happens a lot, I first thought the same thing about how close we are when I first learned about Orthodoxy, but truthfully we are so far apart. The E.P. can't be pulling this "first among equals" nonsense, it almost like he wants to be the Pope of Orthodoxy.

 

[GregConstantine]

Perhaps, but I think its more about the fact that Constantinople is no longer the capitol of an empire and the EP does not have the power and influence it once had. The EP and others in the Phanar, and perhaps Greeks who immigrated elsewhere are clinging to a romanticized idea that the EP is still a see of power and influence.

 

[buzuxi02]

There have been times, for example there is an autonomous Japanese and chinese Orthodox church but EP set up his own Metropolitanate for the area.

But my concern is what has been promoted in ecumenical circles. Which in the end of the day means there really is no reason to convert to Orthodoxy or set up missionary churches in predominantly christian areas etc. As everyone already is a sister church in some sense, with valid gracefilled baptisms etc. And if anyone ever leaves Orthodoxy for a sect, means nothing, we shouldn't be concerned for their soul. As the one text implies we have always recognized christian churches and confessions outside us.

 

[GregConstantine]

I agree with you. Personally, I tell anyone about Orthodoxy regardless of what others may say about those other communities being or not being "Christian".

 

[jckstraw72]

Moscow's next http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94244.htm

 

[buzuxi02]

I agree with you. Personally, I tell anyone about Orthodoxy regardless of what others may say about those other communities being or not being "Christian".

I'm the same way as I'm obliged to pass down what has been accepted in the conscious of the Church. I do not know switzerland other than it being the cradle of protestantism. I know what the Church teaches by her praxis. But I will probably seek out a ROCOR parish to attend as I can no longer in good conscience attend a GOARCH church.

 

[gzt]

Careful, you might eventually end up too pious to go to church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Would it matter?

 

[E.C.]

The Antiochans have an agreement in place with the Syriac. They allow each other to use their churches, for example the Antiochans parish in Abu Dhabi doubles as a Syriac OO church. In the middle east proselytizing between the two churches is forbidden and when intermarriage occurs, the marriage is under the man's church.

I feel our Middle Eastern brothers get a pass on this one. The majority of the members of this forum are in free, stable places like North America and Europe where it is very easy to look at those far away and say "they're wrong". We are not in a society that is made up of 70% of people who are not only against us, but also actively trying to kill us. Knowing the clan-like nature of the Middle East this is also a very reasonable compromise. If Christians in the Middle East don't marry fellow Christians than there will be no Christians left in the Middle East. Allowing the laity there to look towards other Christian communities for a spouse will only widen one's prospects there and strengthen the Christian presence there. How is that bad?

 

[buzuxi02]

I'm glad Antioch pulled out of this council and made their objections known. I understand their reasoning both for withdrawing from the council and having this agreement with the Syriac. But having priests not in communion with each other, yet officiating in celebrating each other's DL (and intercommunion by extension) is crossing boundaries and making a mockery of our saints. But there is also an irony. Antioch's primary objection is they don't want to concelebrate with JP clergy at the council. They promote middleeast arab christian unity when it suits them, they have agreements in place with heterodox but take a harsh stand over one church in Qatar with their fellow Orthodox. If I'm not mistaken they pulled the same thing here in America when the JP had a handful of palestinian parishes. Antiochan clergy were not to concelebrate with them over phyletism. Hence why I consider them and the EP to be two sides of the same coin. And now that a large chunk of their faithful have fled Syria, they too will hold tightly to their diaspora flock, so they will say they are entrusted with 'all the east' and 'all the Arab christians'. But I am extremely grateful they pulled out, this also has hushed the media and lapdogs of the EP that want to spin this as a russian conspiracy.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

I'm glad Antioch pulled out of this council and made their objections known. I understand their reasoning both for withdrawing from the council and having this agreement with the Syriac. But having priests not in communion with each other, yet officiating in celebrating each other's DL (and intercommunion by extension) is crossing boundaries and making a mockery of our saints. But there is also an irony. Antioch's primary objection is they don't want to concelebrate with JP clergy at the council. They promote middleeast arab christian unity when it suits them, they have agreements in place with heterodox but take a harsh stand over one church in Qatar with their fellow Orthodox. If I'm not mistaken they pulled the same thing here in America when the JP had a handful of palestinian parishes. Antiochan clergy were not to concelebrate with them over phyletism. Hence why I consider them and the EP to be two sides of the same coin. And now that a large chunk of their faithful have fled Syria, they too will hold tightly to their diaspora flock, so they will say they are entrusted with 'all the east' and 'all the Arab christians'. But I am extremely grateful they pulled out, this also has hushed the media and lapdogs of the EP that want to spin this as a russian conspiracy.

Thank you for this post, I been to a couple of these former Jerusalem Patriarchate parishes here in the states, Antioch not all innocent from what I heard.

 

[prodromos]

Thank you for this post, I been to a couple of these former Jerusalem Patriarchate parishes here in the states, Antioch not all innocent from what I heard.

Unfortunately, no one is innocent in regards to the diaspora jurisdiction issues.

 

[E.C.]

Palestinians, to quote an abbot, "are the Mexicans of the Middle East." Look at how Mexicans are stereotyped in the USA, multiply it by about 90 and that is almost halfway to how Palestinians are viewed in the Middle East; which is partially why Islamist groups like Hamas have gained the foothold they have. Not surprised at all by Antioch's treatment of the JP. Only real place where Palestinian and Syrian Christians really get along is, oddly enough, in the diaspora.

Unfortunately, no one is innocent in regards to the diaspora jurisdiction issues.

Probably the most true statement in this thread.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

Palestinians, to quote an abbot, "are the Mexicans of the Middle East." Look at how Mexicans are stereotyped in the USA, multiply it by about 90 and that is almost halfway to how Palestinians are viewed in the Middle East; which is partially why Islamist groups like Hamas have gained the foothold they have. Not surprised at all by Antioch's treatment of the JP. Only real place where Palestinian and Syrian Christians really get along is, oddly enough, in the diaspora.


Probably the most true statement in this thread.

Yeah I heard it said before other Arabs don't really like Palestinians at all, sad to hear this extends even into the Arab Christians not getting along with Palestinian Christians, you would think with Orthodoxy being a small remement from their past numbers over there, that all the Orthodox there would stick together, but it seems like Lebanese don't like Syrians, nobody like Palestinians, Arabs resent the Greeks, etc.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

So With Russia out, it looks like the Council is officially dead, whatever the EP, and a few small churches like Poland, and Albania attends. I was reading either on ByzTex blog, or the ad oreintem blog that the EP still insists on making the Council binding regardless who shows up, if cooler heads don't prevail, I'm a little worried about schism from this "Council".

 

[gzt]

I think that's being a little too sensitive.

 

[GregConstantine]

I think sometimes gzt, you're the sensitive one here.