Is a schism about to occur?

[vanshan]

I was just reading about the actions Patriarch Bartholomew took against Archbishop Christodoulos. The AP makes it sound like the Church is in crisis and a schism could occur. What do you think?

There are several articles at: www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com .

 

[Rilian]

Aren't there various "schisms" now anyway between the various traditionalist churches and everybody else?

 

[Orthosdoxa]

There's nothing new under the sun.

 

[Moros]

Bartholomew has already caused several this YEAR.

Orthodox Christians need a Conservative Ecumenical Patriarch! Actually, scratch that; we shouldn't have EPs.

 

[Rilian]

What schism happened this year?

 

[nicodemus]

There haven't been any true schisms, just grumbles and disagreements. The AP like most media blows things totally out of proportion.

 

[Moros]

What schism happened this year?

The excommunication of a group of traditionalist Athanite monks who opposed Bartholomew I's liberal ecumenism and papal hand-kissing.

While not technically a schism, it severely disrupted a lot of Orthodox' view of not only Bartholomew I, but of ecumenism in general, not to mention the amount of power this guy has and sent a lot of negative waves rumbling through the Church.

Now he is screwing around with Archbishop Christodoulos.

This guy is starting to appear to not care about ecumenical relations within his own faith, but rather how many Jewish leaders and Papal envoys he can meet with.

 

[prodromos]

This guy is starting to appear to not care about ecumenical relations within his own faith, but rather how many Jewish leaders and Papal envoys he can meet with.

"This guy" is the Patriarch of a good many Orthodox christians and deserves to be addressed in appropriate terms, regardless of how you personally feel about him. Please keep that in mind

John.

 

[Moros]

Yeah, all of them, according to Patriarchate.org , AND the newsmedia which, BTW, still has not been explained, which is odd as most people here deny this. (including myself, but I'm still learning.)

So, would somebody explain?

 

[Rilian]

This guy is starting to appear to not care about ecumenical relations within his own faith, but rather how many Jewish leaders and Papal envoys he can meet with.

I guess I've always thought there's a difference between "ecumenism" and dialogue with a specific group or church. Is there a different understanding in Orthodoxy?

 

[countrymousenc]

The excommunication of a group of traditionalist Athanite monks who opposed Bartholomew I's liberal ecumenism and papal hand-kissing.

While not technically a schism, it severely disrupted a lot of Orthodox' view of not only Bartholomew I, but of ecumenism in general, not to mention the amount of power this guy has and sent a lot of negative waves rumbling through the Church.

Now he is screwing around with Archbishop Christodoulos.

This guy is starting to appear to not care about ecumenical relations within his own faith, but rather how many Jewish leaders and Papal envoys he can meet with.

Bruncvik, while I understand your frustration with this situation, I question whether it is as simple as you make it out to be. Unless you can tell us what canon law says about whose jurisdiction the regions in question are under and thereby show that the EP is clearly in the wrong, I wish you would tone down your responses. As a catechumen, I'm really uncomfortable about all this. It isn't helping. None of us have anything much to go on besides hearsay, including you.

Also, just so you know (even though this is off-topic for this thread), I invited HunterJon to visit TAW and ask questions on the basis that the Moravians trace their roots to the Orthodox Church. Please think twice before you type.

Please, shall we pray for each other? This is not the Osel I remember. I'm confused.

Love,
Dianne

 

[Axion]

Yeah, all of them, according to Patriarchate.org , AND the newsmedia which, BTW, still has not been explained, which is odd as most people here deny this. (including myself, but I'm still learning.)

So, would somebody explain?

Nobody seems to have answered your question.

As far as I am aware, the Ecumenical patriarch is the first patriarch of the Orthodox Churches, excluding the Oriental Orthodox churches, (Copts, Armenians, Syrians etc) . He directly controls several sees and churches including the ones causing the trouble in Northern Greece, Mount Athos, many Greek Islands and some Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, America and elsewhere.

Elsewhere Autocephalous Patriarchs in Greece, Bulgaria, Russia, Cyprus, Romania, the US and elsewhere owe him a primacy of honour as First among equals, but are otherwise independent of his authority and can make their own decisions on most matters.

 

[Oblio]

He directly controls several sees and churches including the ones causing the trouble in Northern Greece, Mount Athos, many Greek Islands and some Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, America and elsewhere.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by sees. Unlike the Catholic Pope, A Patriarch, Ecumenical or not, does not control anyone or any Bishop outside his jurisdiction.

IIRC, Ecumenical, when applied to Orthodoxy, is used in the same sense as the Councils, that is, universal. This does not mean that he is the Patriarch that is over everybody, but that in honor he represents the Orthodox Church. This honor is given to the Patriarch that who's jurisdiction resides at the center of Christendom. A case could very well be made that Constantinople no longer fulfills that role which she took from Rome in the 5th century, but that is a subject for another thread.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

I guess it all depends on what you mean by sees. Unlike the Catholic Pope, A Patriarch, Ecumenical or not, does not control anyone or any Bishop outside his jurisdiction.

IIRC, Ecumenical, when applied to Orthodoxy, is used in the same sense as the Councils, that is, universal. This does not mean that he is the Patriarch that is over everybody, but that in honor he represents the Orthodox Church. This honor is given to the Patriarch that who's jurisdiction resides at the center of Christendom. A case could very well be made that Constantinople no longer fulfills that role which she took from Rome in the 5th century, but that is a subject for another thread.

The primacy of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople among was fixed by the Second Ecumenical Council and does not depend on whose jurisdiction resides "at the center of Christendom". There is no "center of Christendom" except Jesus Christ.

 

[Oblio]

The primacy of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople among was fixed by the Second Ecumenical Council and does not depend on whose jurisdiction resides "at the center of Christendom". There is no "center of Christendom" except Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the correction WRT to the Council proclamation, I was speaking of course geographically, not theologically when I said 'center'

Why was the EP chosen to be the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Second EC ?

 

[Sergius_Lucius]

Patriarch of Constantinople was called ecumenical (i.e. "of the universe") because Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire. Ecumena means "all inhabited world" rather than "all the creation", which is cosmos, and the people of the Roman Empire thought that all the nations, ideally, should be subjected to the Empire. So they regarded the Empire and its institutions as ecumenical. E.g. chief teacher of the Patriarchal school in Constantinople was called "teacher of the universe".

 

[Moros]

"Spiritual Leader of All The World's Orthodox Christians" is a pretty bold statement.

 

[Matthias]

You guys are just a wealth of information!

 

[Moros]

Thank you Axion