Persecution of Mount Athos' Esphigmenou Monastery by the EP

[Anastasios]

we did not sue them for control of the property.

Could you have? Wasn't the Church property owned by the parish?

The situation was quite complex with overlapping bishoprics owing to a reunification in 1985 that left two bishops in the same city as an economy. It could have been the case that the Metropolitan Paisios of that Church owned the church in his name--a practice that is unfortunately found to happen here in America. In fact, in retrospect, I am not sure that my example is an apt analogy to respond to yours. However, I am not so intersted in continuing this discussion, so I will just surrender now

Anastasios

[Priest Siluan]

Esphigmenou believes that there is no current ecumenical patriarch so what else is it supposed to do?

One option is to vacate the monastery and re-establish themselves on property owned by the juristiction of Chrysostomos II. As it stands, the Oecumenical Patriarchate holds that it has juristiction over the monastery grounds, buildings and metochia- and it's juristiction over Esphigmenou is recognised by all other Patriarchates. Don't you think it is unreasonable to expect that an ancient monastery under the ormorphion of a Bishop should simply be handed over by that Bishop to another Bishop whom he does not recognise as an Orthodox Bishop simply because the current monastics living there no longer recognise his ormorphion? How else should the Oecumenical Patriarchate interpret a takeover of Esphigmenou by Chrysostomos II? If Chrysostomos II is really concerned for the monastics of Esphigmenou, he should accomodate them in one of his monasteries- not steal one from another Bishop (even if he doesn't recognise him as a Bishop).
Let's say that a parish or monastery in the Juristiction of Chrysostomos II decides to place itself under the ormorphion of the Oecumenical Patriarchate (and it has happened). Should they be able to transfer to the Oecumenical Patriarchate the properties and buildings which they themselves did not found, build or aquire ownership of? The geographical area of the Penninsula of Holy Mountain of Athos is under the Juristiction of the Oecumenical Patriarchate. How would you feel if the GOA claimed "Juristiction" over St. Markella's Cathedral? By your logic, doesn't the GOA have the "right" to claim juristiction over St. Markella's since it does not recognise the Bishop under whose Juristiction it currently exists? From the GOA perpective, St. Markella's is a "sedevacant" Church in it's geographical juristiction, so I think it should be handed over with gentle good humour and graciousness by Chrysostomos II....
Like I said: Esphigmenou is a very messy situation.

Well, it seem the "Official Church of Greece" already had tried to steal a GOC parish, in the same way that the MP has stolen some to us.

[ioannis]

As it stands, the Oecumenical Patriarchate holds that it has juristiction over the monastery grounds, buildings and metochia- and it's juristiction over Esphigmenou is recognised by all other Patriarchates.

Gregory, you have no idea what you ae talking about. The belongings and property of each monastery is independent. Bart's only involvement according to the charter of the Holy Mountain is a "spritual jurisdiction", and that is gone when he is no longer Orthodox.

What he is doing on the Holy Mountain is the same thing he is doing everywhere, trying to consolidate his power, add to his power, increase his influence, and make unilateral decisions, all in places where he has never had such,and usually at the expense of the canons and the faith. It took the pope centuries to become whe he is now, I doubt it will take Bart nearly that long in a world looking for certainty.

[joasia]

ioannis,

What you say is true...it is an attempt of spiritual manipulation and basically trying to gain their obedience which is detrimental to their souls. I think this also overlaps to material possessions, since the evil one is the tempter of worldly concerns,like money,which is tied in to property.

And when it comes down to the way they work, they worship money and power,which in this world, equates to possessions of all kinds.

Joanna

[George Australia]

Gregory, you have no idea what you ae talking about.

Again with the "Gregory".....no matter how many times I correct you on this forum, and no matter how blatantly obvious my username makes it, and no matter how many other posters address me as "George" on the same thread- you still manage to call me "Gregory".
You can call me "Brenda" for all I care, but the point is: if you cannot manage to absorb a simple fact like my name in spite of the overwhelming evidence and prompts in front of you, how is it that you fancy yourself a being able to read the signs of the times? And why should anyone accept your understanding of a Stavropegial monastery?
You may be able to impress the already emotionally disturbed OOD, but until you present facts instead of emotionalism, you can colour me unimpressed.

[joasia]

Perhaps, he's playing with you Giorgiou. He seems to have touched a sensitive point.

[George Australia]

Perhaps, he's playing with you Giorgiou. He seems to have touched a sensitive point.

Do you think so Alice? I thinks it's just plain self-absorption.
And not surprisingly, the whole point is missed which was:

You can call me "Brenda" for all I care, but the point is: if you cannot manage to absorb a simple fact like my name in spite of the overwhelming evidence and prompts in front of you, how is it that you fancy yourself a being able to read the signs of the times? And why should anyone accept your understanding of a Stavropegial monastery?

So why not call me "Airplane" since I always seem to go over people's heads here?