www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Greece's rebel monks in stand-off

All of Francisco's spin-doctoring does not change the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has overstepped the limits in the eyes of many Orthodox, moderates included. The polemics about Rome and the pope need not be discussed. The involvement of the present incumbent of the ecumenical throne - or his representatives - in interfaith worship are at the root of many problems apart from the Esphigmenou situation.

We should not forget that virtually the whole of the Athonite corpus did not commemorate, and was not in communion with Constantinople for some years and that the situation was only resolved on the election of Patriarch Demetrios. He dangled many carrots before the Athonite fathers and many followed them. The original reasons which tore the Holy Mountain away from the ecumenical throne pale into insignificance when one considers the policies of Patriarch Bartholomeus.

I should add that I consider myself a moderate in many ways. I love the mission of this forum and delight in building bridges with brothers and sisters who share in the Byzantine tradition. However, as an Orthodox monk I am bound to live according to the canons and Tradition of the Holy Church. The conclusions that many of us come to because of this are painful. We are not all baying for the Patriarch's blood and sowing the seeds of division, but we look on in helpless sorrow. We see the devil at work in both sides of this dispute. We see cultural and ethnic baggage causing needless hurt and offence. Curses and insults fly and the devil rejoices.

Orthodoxy is polarising rapidly and the Bartholomeuses of this world must take their share of the responsibilty. They must also remember that they speak for the Orthodox Church and not simply for themselves. This is often forgotten. I have Greek friends who are shocked and horrified by the direction that Patriarch Bartholomeus is taking, but they throw up their hands and say, 'What can we do? Who am I?' The laos are voiceless as the wolves ravage the fold.

In sorrow -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Forgive me, Holy Father, and bless!

Don't be too sorrowful!

Have a look at my commentary on Old Believer Saints in the "Town Hall" and let me know what you think!

(Where have you been, anyway?)

Hopefully that will cheer you up!

"Spin-doctoring?" We have those in politics too!

Even though you are a Monk, it is obvious you were not "born yesterday!"

Alex

Really? In so far as they issued canons on matters of faith, they do. Admittedly, these were more often than not dealing with issues which were very much germaine to the west only (such as the Reformation), but the definitions themselves are binding for all Catholics.

Eastern Catholics may not have really been in "need" of many of these definitions, but rejection of them is not an option.

Well, I don't see how ecumenicity is determined by whether or not schismatic communities are not represented (or given a vote). The sad fact (and it is most unfortunate) is that much of the Christian East (whether Byzantine, Copt, etc.) was (and remains) out of communion with the Catholic Church.

This seems incomprehensible to me.

Last I checked, they are all listed as "Ecumenical" in Catholic sources. As for what would be binding - everything that would be binding upon a "Latin" (for example, definitions regarding indulgences, purgatory, transubstantiation, etc.)

"First amongst equals" is a relatively modern notion, and a conflicted one even, coming out of Orthodox ecclessiology (something which still remains quite unfinished). While all Bishops are Bishops, the fact is one cannot speak of "equals" when it is quite obvious that the persons involved are not equal (whether as a result of canonical order, or by Divine Right - the former being true of Arch-episcopal offices, the latter true of the Papacy.)

That may be so, but this doesn't change the fact that said definitions are still binding upon all Catholics.

Augustine

Slava Jesu Kristu,

I am afraid you are mistaken Augustine. As part of our agreement to return to Rome, we are allowed discretion in matters of the local Roman Councils. Whether we actually do that or not is a matter of debate. However,it is a misunderstanding of Romans to assume otherwise.

Dmitri

Dear Augustine,

Sadly, your terms of reference for the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, are badly out of date, especially by contemporary Roman Catholic standards.

"Schismatic?" When was the last time a Pope or RC theologian used that term to describe the Churches of the East? The 19th century?

Have you wandered onto this forum from out of a time warp?

But be that as it may . . .

Can you indicate even ONE doctrine promulgated at the later Roman Councils that offers something that the Eastern Churches do not already believe?

We have our own venerable theological, canonical and spiritual traditions and we can teach Rome a thing or two when it comes to veneration of the Mother of God, prayer for the dead, reverence at Liturgy, beauty in liturgical prayer and ritual etc.

Rome has always been a "court of final appeal" for the East and that is how its role has largely remained for us.

As for the "Schism," how do you know that Rome is also not in "Schism" as well?

Division in the Church is sad and against the Will of Christ.

Are you saying that Rome is completely NOT at fault here with respect to what happened in 1054 and with the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 that solidified the break?

So, for you, what the Pope has said of late about the Orthodox East is something that applies to other people?

You have come here and have grievously offended all the Orthodox Christians here, in communion with Rome or not.

Alex

Dear Alex:

You asked of Revered Augustine:

Quote

Can you indicate even ONE doctrine promulgated at the later Roman Councils that offers something that the Eastern Churches do not already believe?

How about Vatican I's "Papal Infallibility?"

AmdG

Augustine,

With all due respect you have a very Latin centered view of things. This is quite different then being Rome centered.

Our choice not to incorporate these later Latin theological definitions into Byzantine theology is an option, one that even Rome respects and supports. Pope John Paul II has reminded us Byzantine Catholics on numerous occasions that we are not to reformulate our Byzantine doctrinal expressions to replace our authentic Byzantine theology and praxis with authentic Latin theology and praxis. The doctrinal expression of the Latin Church is not the measuring stick of Catholicism.

It is equally Catholic and true to state that Rome has been and remains out of communion with the Christian East. Have you not read the Holy Father�s letter �Light from the East� and the many other teachings he has given on the Christian East? He makes it clear that East and West separated from one another and equally shoulder the responsibility for the separation.

Byzantine Catholics profess the teachings of all Seven Ecumenical Councils. We respect and honor the later teachings by the General Councils in the West. While they are fully orthodox and good they simply do not reflect the way we in the Christian East do theology and live out our Christian lives. To prepare a checklist of what is binding and what is not is to miss the whole point.

Admin

Has Marcel LeFebre been reincarnated and started posting on this thread?

Mark, monk and sinner

Forgive me, Holy Father Mark, and bless!

Well, if Augustine Revere insists on calling us "schismatics" (I believe I'm included in that as well), then, with the revered Administrator's permission, can we join in anathematizing the "Latin Heretic and Frank?"

I think Marcel Lefebvre is a pussy-cat by comparison!

St Yuri Konissky, the Orthodox Archbishop from Belarus, was once told by his Eastern Catholic counterpart, Bishop Borecky (related to our Bishop Borecky in Eastern Canada), that the Poles, when they are angry, "Call us (Eastern Catholics) 'schismatics' as much as they do you (Orthodox)."

And Taras Shevchenko once wrote about how the Latins sat down to consider how to crush the "Schismatics" (Ukrainians).

Now will you go to the Town Hall and review my commentary on the Old Believer Saints - I ask this from one Schismatic to another?

(Don't you think the Administrator was too kind with AR?)

I'll get myself in trouble today yet!

Alex

Spasi Khristos Alex! A very good post. I only wish that more Old Believer iconography was available.

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Forgive me, Holy Father Mark, and bless!

(This is the proper Old Believer form, is it not?).

Thank you! Actually, there are Bila Krinitsa Old Believer Iconographers who will, for a fee, of course, write icons of any Old Believer saints or martyrs.

What I'm wondering about is the reference in the Bila Krinitsa Kalendar to "the Holy Hieromartyr AND CONFESSOR Avvakum?

If he is already an Hieromartyr, can he still be a Confessor?

Or is this used in the sense of "Confessing the faith?"

Alex

This is a good point Alex. This is not just true of the entry for him, but also the petition for him. The label ispoviednik is alo given to the likes of the Holy Hieromartyr Pavel of Kolomna. With the martyrs of Pustozersk we have to remember that they were confessors for the faith for fourteen years before their martyrdom. Their's was not a swift dispatch.

Regarding the Belayakrinitsa iconographers, some of them are not very good, so one has to be careful.

Spasi Khristos - Mark, monk and sinner.

Forgive me, Holy Father Mark, and bless!

Yes, I'm not rushing to order any icons just yet!

The really nice thing about the Old Believer tradition is that you really don't leave anything to chance or choice in terms of ritual etc.

I spend some time daily in reviewing the articles I have written on Old Believer practice and try to make as much my own.

Even my poor aunt who is in a home is now crossing herself the Old Believer way - she likes it!

Alex

Dear Friends,

I am familiar with the vow of "poverty, chastity, and obedience" entered into by Western monks and religious. In what way, if any, are the vows of the monks of the Orthodox Churches different?

Are not the monasteries of the East supposed to exist within the eparchy in which they were established, under the spiritual direction and with approval of their local Bishop?

You are right, Father, about the devil rejoicing in our divisions, but we must be aware of the consequences of casting aside the chosen leaders of the Church, i.e. the Bishops and Patriarchs. And in believing that we, individually or as a group, have the only correct understanding of something.

Mt. Athos is a rather unique place, due to its prominence and history, but is the Church to be made of monks passing their own judgements as to the worth of the discussions among Bishops and Patriarchs? It seems to me that the monks of Esphigmenou are somewhat in violation of a vow of "obedience".

This seems like a form of Orthodox "protestantism". --- "We have posted our '95 theses' and no Patriarch has authority to overrule us." --- Maybe it is more a problem of not enough respect for the Apostolic authority.

Do Bishops make mistakes? YES!!! But can any group break the Church into ever smaller fragments, because the Bishop who has Apostolic authority did some things they don't like? Not if they are following the Nicene Creed.

It seems to me that we must love our neighbors and have some respect for our Bishops {and the other Churches' Bishops}, even if they are jerks, or crazy, or weird. And maybe especially then.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck