www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Church of Greece's Scandals

Dear ByzanTN,

It seems that the Queen is playing it safe by not going to the wedding. Had she gone, she might have offended those that disapprove of Camilla becoming a royal consort. :rolleyes: Yet, had the Queen not allowed Charles to marry Camilla, she would have appeared harsh and unfeeling.

By Prince Charles not getting married in Westminster Abbey, and preferring a civil ceremony, the Queen is now in the clear ...Smart move!

Zenovia

Actually, the Queen will be attending the 'blessing' of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowle's wedding.

Small correction Zenovia It is not possible for Prince Charles to marry in any Anglican Church - Camilla Parker Bowles ex husband is still alive

All is still not clear here about the details of this civil Wedding Ceremony.

Prince Charles sister was extremely wise to get married in Scotland.

Now could we get away from the British Royal Family's problems and back on topic - distasteful though this one is.

I'm sure there are more edifying news stories than this one [ well either of the topics under discussion on this thread that is :p ]

Anhelyna

Can the moderator of the Church News section or the Administrator of the Byzantine Forum tell me which kind of Church News can we talk about in this forum and which not? Thank you very much.

From Kathimerini (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100012_24/02/2005_53349)
Vavilis connection confirmed
The Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem yesterday confirmed claims that Archbishop Christodoulos had sent a fugitive narcotics smuggler, Apostolos Vavilis, to help elect Patriarch Eirinaios in 2001. This was another heavy blow to Christodoulos�s credibility, as he has consistently denied involvement in Vavilis�s mission � although he has admitted writing letters of recommendation for Vavilis before and after his conviction for heroin trafficking.

A day earlier, court sources leaked the news that a senior member of the judiciary had testified in a Supreme Court investigation that another shady character was close to the head of the Church of Greece. The official, who was not named, reportedly said that Archimandrite Iakovos Yiossakis (who is in jail pending trial for antiquities theft and is allegedly implicated in a trial-fixing racket) had twice interceded for him to meet with Christodoulos. Yesterday, the Archbishopric acknowledged the meetings, adding that the archbishop was a victim of his good manners as he �did not make clear his displeasure at Yiossakis�s presence and did not tell the judges to send him away.�


COMMENTARIES


Self-destructive clergy
By K.I. Angelopoulos

New evidence is constantly coming to light, plunging senior Greek Orthodox Church clerics deeper into the ongoing crisis. The wide-ranging revelations and allegations about people or affairs related to bishops or their close aides, as well as the daily appearance of clerics on television programs � often shows of bad taste � have put egg on the faces of Church leaders. Some of the diseases that are currently plaguing the body of the Church were seemingly kept hidden from the general public.

The archbishop of Athens and the various bishops who are presently mired in the heart of the Church scandal have claimed in public, or in corridor talk, that the Church is the target of sinister forces seeking to undermine its leadership.

Some defenders of the Church have gone so far as to argue that the big powers, always keen to promote their own Balkan agenda, are out to tarnish the image of the Orthodox Church, an institution they see as a stumbling block to their regional aspirations.

Even if one were willing to believe at least some of these accusations, it is nevertheless hard to ignore the fact that the longstanding policies of the Greek Orthodox elite have themselves inflicted numerous wounds on the body of the Church and made the institution more vulnerable to outside attacks.

If Christodoulos, who is not exactly camera-shy, and the high-living bishops had done a competent job in exercising their pastoral duties in full understanding of their delicate responsibility, then no sinister force working through either Apostolos Vavilis or Iakovos Yiossakis could have exposed the heads of the Church to such public disgrace so easily.

I'm not the moderator, so I can only express an opinion. If you had posted about the UKRAINIAN Church, praise would be heaped on your name, tomes would be written that rival "War and Peace" in length, saints would be invoked in your honor (Ukrainian saints, of course), and the anecdotes posted would never end. It's all relative Francisco, it's all relative.

Alice, you are Greek Orthodox. How does all this look to you? All I know is what I read in press releases. Does it appear to you that the Greek Church is correcting the problems?

Dear Charles,

You are really mixing apples and oranges here.

All I've said is that it might be inappropriate to dwell on church scandals during this Lenten season.

I think we should leave those things alone - they're in the news and we've gone through a long period when that was the only real big thing in the news.

St Constantine the Great once said, "If I should ever find a fault in one of Christ's priests, I would cover him over with my royal cloak to protect the Church from the calumny that would ensue because of it."

It has nothing to do with any national church being preferred or anything else.

If you don't see that, or if you don't care, then that's fine.

Alex

Dear Myles,

I will disagree with you on King Charles I, Sir!

He was not overthrown for any noble reason - that is simply the way liberal history has chosen to view his period and by casting Cromwell as the harbinger of democratic freedom.

In fact, Cromwell was a despot who hated anything that smacked of "Romish" or "Catholic" popery.

This is why he cancelled Christmas and many other "outward" expressions of Christian faith in true puritannical style.

The Catholic Church had a chance under King Charles I - it had no chance under Cromwell.

And Charles II was more democratic in his time than any European monarch and especially the Romanovs.

His greatest crime as well as that of his brother, James II, had precious little to do with the preservation of democratic freedoms.

It had much more to do with the perceived threat of a reintroduction of Catholicism as the official religion of Britain.

And that, my friend, is an historical fact.

God Save The Queen!

Alex
Member, Society of King Charles the Martyr

This is a reasonably short history of Charles I.
Charles I [royal.gov.uk]
It seems an accurate history that is based on fact. He was not an effective ruler, and caused many of his own problems. Whether or not he was saintly is something others will have to decide for themselves. But his financial mismanagement and trying to force Anglicanism on Scotland were big factors in his eventual demise. One of my history professors often noted a basic similarity between the French royal family and the Stuarts - "they never learned a thing."

Dear Charles,

Actually, Charles was not a good ruler (neither were a number of your presidents, for that matter). And neither was Tsar St Nicholas II Romanov - but that doesn't prevent him from being honoured as a saint and passion-bearer.

St Charles' cult of veneration is in the Anglican Church and it is also shared by some others, including Catholics and Orthodox, and, I might add, by the great Catholic convert, Ronald Knox (and John Henry Newman).

He is a local saint and his cult continues to be fostered by today's converts from Anglicanism to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Alex

Alex when I said noble reasons, I meant for what THEY were trying to achieve. Did you really think I could support ANYBODY called Cromwell??? Thomas Cromwell engineered the destruction of over 300 MAJOR MONASTERIES IN ENGLAND. Their ruins are still scattered across the countryside as a reminder of what once was. His commissioners destroyed Our Lady's shrines, burnt the body of St Thomas Becket as a 'Papist' anti-royalist. These men destroyed all that was beautiful about the Dowry of Mary and replaced Our Lady's veneration with the idolatrous reign of 'Queen Gloriana' aka Elizabeth I.

As for the other in serious tones, since I just sent you a webpage to the Tridentine Priestly Fraternity of St Peter. What on earth made you think I'd support Puritans??? Have you completely lost your mind? Not that I think puritans are neccessarily bad people and all. They're just wrong. How could you posit that I could ever support such an extreme brand of Protestantism. Brigands who spent their time smashing altars and denouncing "the idolatry of the mass"

Charles I and his wife would've brought this country back. Same with James II. They would've brought this country back to the truth. Mary's dowry would've been restored to her. As it is though English history starts with 'Gloriana' and 'no Popery' and has continued thus until lapsing into liberal secularism.

How sad...

God save the Queen and convert her unto Rome

Great Lent is precious time for the Eastern Christian and for every Christian, on the one hand, a time of radiant sorrow, and simultaneously with this, it is a difficult journey, marked by struggle, to the shining and beautiful goal of the feast of the Resurrection of Christ--Holy Pascha---the Passover of the Lord.
Why have we called the time of Great Lent a time of radiant sorrow? We experience sorrow because we are conscious that we have ALL departed from the Father's house into a far country, that in our vain and distracted life we have not preserved the purity of our baptismal garment, in which we were clothed when we entered the Church. It is necessary to shake off that condition of numbness, those cobwebs of everyday life which suggest to us that the life of this world--which is in us and around us--is the only possible way of life. To yearn for another form of existence--the one revealed to us in the Gospel and in the experience of the saints and ascetics-means to commune with that radiant sorrow which is the beginning of spiritual renewal.

This yearning often includes a distancing ourselves from news, TV, radio...even computers and the normal daily communications that come into our lives. Certainly any kind of gossipy news that inflames the passions is to be avoided during this period of radiant sorrow. If we look within, we will find only TOO MUCH chaos and SUFFICIENT matter to repent over---it doesn't seem that we should need or desire news that could dishearten our attempts to restore the 'image' by seeing that our spiritual leaders, who have the 'fullness' have/are also fallen and sinners?

I would again suggest that most/much of what we consider 'news' is not helpful matter to meditate on during this period of the year.

Most Holy Mother of God...help us to concentrate on our own brokeness and need of change...and not so much on our brother's need...for each of us has enough work to do on himself.

In His great mercy and love for us all,
+Fr. Gregory

Myles, I think you have touched on something I have long believed. Much of the Protestant revolt was political. Religion was a cover for political insurrection. It's always seemed a pity that the Protestants could not have kept their Catholic faith, and overthrown only their bad governments, instead of overthrowing the Church. Of course, there is the sad factor that the Church was too much in bed with the governments of that time.

Dear Myles,

Please, I NEVER suggested you support the Puritans!

When did I say that?

If I did, then indeed I would have lost my mind.

You do not need to be offensive.

I know you are a Theologian attending OXFORD, but I am a Sociologist, having completed a Doctorate in Same.

You could ask me for a clearer understanding, if such is not to be had for you in a first reading of a post.

I was merely defending St Charles, King and Martyr, as a Catholic member of his Society.

St Charles not only laid the foundation for the flowering of the Anglo-Catholic and Tractarian movement in the 19th century, but also for Anglican converts to Catholicism and Orthodoxy today.

And, no, in saying that I assume nothing else other than what I've said.

So please mind your words next time.

I'm not your enemy.

Don't treat me as one, please.

God Save The Queen.

Alex