Doesn't the Pope of Rome have an Icon that Russia has been wanting
back for ages, and he has withheld it...for whatever reason.
What I bet, is that if the EP and he do meet, he will give the Icon
to the EP...instead of the MP. What say ye?
Hope that doesn't happen, I would rather the MP get it back, but
these days, who knows?
Chrysostomos wrote:What I bet, is that if the EP and he do meet, he will give the Icon
to the EP...instead of the MP. What say ye?Hope that doesn't happen, I would rather the MP get it back, but
these days, who knows?
I don't think the Pope of Rome would risk ticking off the Russians any more than he already has. Giving the icon to the EP would be the most undiplomatic thing he could do after trying to use it as a carrot to visit Russia.
Demetri
Aristokles wrote:Chrysostomos wrote:What I bet, is that if the EP and he do meet, he will give the Icon
to the EP...instead of the MP. What say ye?Hope that doesn't happen, I would rather the MP get it back, but
these days, who knows?I don't think the Pope of Rome would risk ticking off the Russians any more than he already has. Giving the icon to the EP would be the most undiplomatic thing he could do after trying to use it as a carrot to visit Russia.
Demetri
Yes, that would be a slap in the face.
Bruncvik wrote:Expect to see even more "Ecumenical" surprises from Pope... er, Patriarch Bartholomew. While disheartening, this type of event is not shocking; it's to expected from "the green" Patriarch.
I may be in the GOAA but I have no qualms about criticizing the EP when he strays. But I can not see how this "green" moniker has been labeled in such a derogatory manner.
Especially from you, my friend, in WA state. I've lived in both OR and WA and the sight of logging clear-cuts and the following erosion devastation is unforgetable.
All bishops are pastorally charged with caring for all of the κοσμος- all of creation. No?
Demetri
Demetri,
I think it is all to easy to mix social concerns with the Gospel of Christ. This is what has happened to the Latins, the social/political gospel; and this is what is happening to the new-calendarists too.
A bishop cannot have pastoral concerns about dirt or trees. A bishop is a shepherd of souls, so that souls can be saved from the earth, which is going the way of darkness. He is not trying to save the earth, or help create a world where all of our social problems are solved and the stomach of every man will be filled. This is what the Jews are waiting for - this will be the Antichrist!
Christ said, "let the dead bury the dead", meaning, let those who are not alive in Him worry about their own worldly matters. Let Greenpeace take care of matters concerning the care of this world and preach enviromentalism, let the shepherds take care of the sheep and preach the Gospel. (and this is not to imply that Bartholomew is any kind of shepherd).
I partly agree with OOD. Wow.
Protection of God's creation, while certainly being a good thing, should not be the primary concern of our clergy. The salvation of souls and the transformation of individuals should be. This transformation can also serve to protect the environment. If an individual is transformed by Christ and His Church or is even just instructed in the ways of general piety and godliness by the Church, will he be selfish enough to destroy the earth for profit?
I too agree that the anti-christ will be an earth protecting, peace loving, philanthropist, doing good works in the name of "Christianity", but lacking that crucial message that Christ is our only salvation.