EP "Spiritual Leader of 300 Million Orthodox"

[George Australia]

Christ is Baptized! Glory to Jesus Christ!

My Dear Brother in Christ, George,
I first must apologize for my tardy answer; my current bout with influenza has deprived me of my full ability to respond earlier.
As to your referenced letter from the EP to the Bishop of Rome, I see no direct offer to refute any Orthodox Doctrine, only an invitation to continue dialogue. Is this wrong? How are we to bring the apostate see of Rome back to orthodoxy otherwise? Certainly not by wishful thinking that they will regain the True Path without our blessed guidance.
As to the quotation of "two Lungs", frankly ---- It is merely extravagant HYBERBOLE For which His All Holiness has been roundly and correctly excoriated. Fortunately, this OPINION of his is not a TEACHING (DOGMA) and is pretty much ignored by most all Orthodox Christians (even within his see). Thankfully we Orthodox recognize that even saints (much less mere bishops) can have mistaken opinions. None are infallible! Orthodoxy has been blessed through the ages with a self-correcting mechanism which has been lost to the West. The concilar nature of the Church of Christ corrects such errors, eventually.
It is when certain groups of bishops organize themselves as separate synods in opposition to OPINIONS or changes not yet decided in Council that the Evil One truly finds a chink in our armour. When a jurisdiction (albeit understandably) forms itself and/or breaks with the rest of the Orthodox communion over these issues, the Evil One has a foothold in the Body of Christ. THIS I will not allow. (Burn me; flame me here as I'm sure many will; but that is my stance.) I am sure the papalists are enjoying the protestant-style fragmentation of the Orthodox over these issues. Shame be upon them - and upon this sinner's soul for allowing that to be.
ANY jurisdiction that separates itself from the Orthodox communion, for well-meaning reasons or not, deprives ALL of the Church of Christ with the full wisdom of the Holy Spirit and their needed input.

I have been, and still am, a Roman!

Demetri

Dear Brother in Christ Demitri,
I have only deleted one word from your quote above which I hope you will never use again in addressing me or another Christian.
You must look at what is happening at ground level. I live in the Diaspora in Australia. Here it is very difficult to find an Orthodox Church unless you live near one. There are only 5 Greek Orthodox priests on the east coast of Australia who have permission to hear Confessions. It takes me 45 minutes to drive to Church each Sunday- the EP Church I used to attend is even further. Any statement from a Church heirarch which states that papism is a Sister Church to the Orthodox Church is interpreted as permisiion for Orthodox Christians to attend Mass on Sundays. And don't say it's not, because it is HAPPENING Demetri. There are brothers and sisters who are weak in the faith who are losing contact with the Apostolic Tradition faithfully kept in the Orthodox Church. This is happening NOW, and has been happening for 40 years since Athenagoras.
I'm surprised at you, that you genuinely believe that it is acceptable and justifiable for the Chief Heirarch of an Orthodox juristiction to publically state that there is more than one Church. Come on Demetri, you can't honestly believe this to be acceptable. This is the same 'Branch Theory' stuff that Patriarch Demetrios and Athenagoras before him were condemned for by the Holy Mountain, Jerusalem, the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens, the Rizarios School and Orthodox voices around the world.
Of course the Branch Theory is "not a teaching (dogma) of the Church", so why does the Ecumenical Patriarch make public statements which show that he holds this theory to be correct? Why have three successive Patriarchs done so? Why does Bartholomeos consider Athenagora's "mutual lifting of the Anathemas" with the Latins to be valid? Surely, you, Demetri, who love the Concilliar nature of the Church as I do, cannot consider this "mutual lifting of the Anathemas" by Athenagoras and Paul VI to be valid. No one bishop or Patriarch can reverse the decision of an Orthodox Council. Yet, apparently they can if they are an Ecumenical Patriarch since Athenagoras. Apparently they can, in fact, act as the "Spiritual Leader of world Orthodoxy" and make unilateral decisions which affect all the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Local Churches.
If the current state of inter-Orthodox relations resembles that word which I deleted from your quote, I hardly think it's fair to blame those who are holding on to the Faith of our Fathers and the Conciliar nature of the Church.

In Christ,
George

[George Australia]

I am sure the papalists are enjoying the protestant-style fragmentation of the Orthodox over these issues. Shame be upon them - and upon this sinner's soul for allowing that to be.

My dear brother,
It would be better for the papists if Orthodoxy was a monolithic race of 'expedient', irrational sheep who simply follow the lead of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the sake of a 'visible', (albeit artificial) "Unity".
The Unity of the Orthodox Church is a unity of faith, not of administration. It is precisely the attempt to create an administrative unity which poses dangers to Orthodoxy, because then, one man will be able to presume to act on behalf of Orthodoxy throughout the world (Which, Until 1964, has never before happened in the history of the Church.)
Don't worry about the administrative disunity. It was precisely this 'administrative disunity' in the time of St. Markos Eugenikos (who's Icon I see you display) which allowed him to bear the whole of Orthodoxy on his shoulders. He too, broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, over a related issue. The same St. Markos said:

"For I am absolutely convinced that the more I distance myself from him and those like him {Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory III}, the closer I draw to God and all the faithful and Holy Fathers; and to the extent that I separate myself from these people, even so am I united with the truth and the Holy Fathers and theologians of the Church." —St. Mark of Ephesus, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. clx, cols. 536c and 537a.
.

I wonder how he would act in our own day, when the last three Ecumenical Patriarchs consider papism to be a "sister Church"? Would he seek to display a "united front" in the form of "administrative unity" to the papists, or would he rather, break communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, as he did in his own time in order to preserve Orthodoxy?

In Christ,
George

[Aristokles]

Dear Brother in Christ Demitri,
I have only deleted one word from your quote above which I hope you will never use again in addressing me or another Christian.
You must look at what is happening at ground level. I live in the Diaspora in Australia. Here it is very difficult to find an Orthodox Church unless you live near one. There are only 5 Greek Orthodox priests on the east coast of Australia who have permission to hear Confessions. It takes me 45 minutes to drive to Church each Sunday- the EP Church I used to attend is even further. Any statement from a Church heirarch which states that papism is a Sister Church to the Orthodox Church is interpreted as permisiion for Orthodox Christians to attend Mass on Sundays. And don't say it's not, because it is HAPPENING Demetri. There are brothers and sisters who are weak in the faith who are losing contact with the Apostolic Tradition faithfully kept in the Orthodox Church. This is happening NOW, and has been happening for 40 years since Athenagoras.
I'm surprised at you, that you genuinely believe that it is acceptable and justifiable for the Chief Heirarch of an Orthodox juristiction to publically state that there is more than one Church. Come on Demetri, you can't honestly believe this to be acceptable. This is the same 'Branch Theory' stuff that Patriarch Demetrios and Athenagoras before him were condemned for by the Holy Mountain, Jerusalem, the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens, the Rizarios School and Orthodox voices around the world.
Of course the Branch Theory is "not a teaching (dogma) of the Church", so why does the Ecumenical Patriarch make public statements which show that he holds this theory to be correct? Why have three successive Patriarchs done so? Why does Bartholomeos consider Athenagora's "mutual lifting of the Anathemas" with the Latins to be valid? Surely, you, Demetri, who love the Concilliar nature of the Church as I do, cannot consider this "mutual lifting of the Anathemas" by Athenagoras and Paul VI to be valid. No one bishop or Patriarch can reverse the decision of an Orthodox Council. Yet, apparently they can if they are an Ecumenical Patriarch since Athenagoras. Apparently they can, in fact, act as the "Spiritual Leader of world Orthodoxy" and make unilateral decisions which affect all the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Local Churches.
If the current state of inter-Orthodox relations resembles that word which I deleted from your quote, I hardly think it's fair to blame those who are holding on to the Faith of our Fathers and the Conciliar nature of the Church.

In Christ,
George

My new friend George,
My expletive, deleted by you, was not directed at any person but to an idea.
I am not familiar with the situation "Down Under"; North America has its own challenges. While I live in a most rural area, within the one-hour drive I must make to attend church, I have the luxury of 6 parishes of various Orthodox jurisdictions from which to choose. Taking the drive to 2 hours, I have available 9 or 10 jurisdictions' parishes. I am unaware of any encyclical being read out in my parish from my metropolitan or the EP concerning the appropriateness of praying with the heterodox. Hence, I cannot confirm or deny your report of "interpretation" of syrupy utterances given by our Patriarch. Indeed, when the subject is brought up here to my experience, the Christian is first questioned heavily as to why they would move so far from an Orthodox parish to even motivate such a request, and then told to travel as often as possible to an Orthodox parish for confession and Divine Liturgy while maintaining the fasts, proper daily prayer, and correct Christian living. But NO permssion is given to attend any but an Orthodox parish.
I am surprised at you for even thinking I "genuinely believe" such utterances are justifified. Where did I state that? I am sure that was stating this sentiment of the EP needs correcting.
Of course I do not adhere to any "branch theory" of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that some apostolic churches have departed Orthodoxy does not apply. As to the appropriateness of the EP expounding such nonsense, he needs to be corrected. If you maintain that breaking communion is the best path for the Church, that is your opinion. IF all bishops who disagree (rightfully) with His All-Holiness, break communion, then the error will not be corrected as only the easily led (misled) will be providing needed input. The result is a diminished church.
You appear to be well studied on Church history so I am certain you are aware that many times in past the Church in Great Council affirmed or denied finding of interceding local councils thereby correcting the errors or affirming the findings as Ecumenical. Heretical teaching were so handled as well.
And we both greatly respect and venerate St. Mark; he was most active in council, not by throwing rocks from the outside until necessary.
I am NOT placing BLAME. You mis-read my feelings. To the contrary, Orthodoxy needs ALL of its bishops fully participating to defend the faith. Perhaps you and I (my grandmother was from Το Πὀλις as well) disagree, but I don't think so.

Demetri

[George Australia]

Perhaps you and I (my grandmother was from Το Πὀλις as well) disagree, but I don't think so.
Demetri

Dear brother in Christ,
I don't think we disagree so much. As I said earlier, I did write to the Ecumenical Patriarch (twice in fact) when I was in the GO Archdiocese of Australia about such statements, as well as the concerns I had about the "Balamand Agreement" (which my own Bishop was cheif signatory to). I stated in the second letter that unless he changed his course, I would no longer commemorate him. He didn't, and I am a gentleman of my word.
I don't think it is 'wrong' to remain in the Ecumenical Patriarchate if you disagree with it. People on this forum would probably call me a 'moderate', however, I don't think even St. Markos Eugenikos was a 'strict', but acted out of love.
I love the Phanar, which is why I expect better from it.
Breaking Communion with Bartholomeos until he retracts his belief in the Branch Theory, and withdraws from the cacophony that is the World Council of Churches is not, I think, that radical or unprecedented.
I don't think the Church under the EP is 'deprived of Grace', only that it's First Heirarch is holding some heterodox ideas about ecumenism. The EP may be an ailing part of the Church, but it is still within the Church. I believe it is ailing unnecessarily. It doesn't need to be in the WCC; it doesn't need to play the 'diplomatic' game of Branch Theory politics- because it is The Church, the only Ark of Salvation, and Christ is the Helmsman. Playing the diplomatic game of 'Branch Theory', and 'the-Church-is-divided-so-lets-reunite-it' shows a lack of faith, I think, in the promise of Christ that the Church will never be divided and will continue until He returns.
So you see, my argument is with Bartholomeos, not with you.

In Christ,
George

[Aristokles]

As I said earlier, I did write to the Ecumenical Patriarch (twice in fact) when I was in the GO Archdiocese of Australia about such statements, as well as the concerns I had about the "Balamand Agreement" (which my own Bishop was cheif signatory to). ...
George

Ah, "Balamand Agreement" - Please don't get me started! How a group of Greeks and Arabs let the Latins outflank them with this Trojan Horse still amazes me. What may have seemed like a truce or sorts has merely allowed Rome to continue its 'divide and conquer' tactics.

If I had better command of Greek I would fax His All -Holiness directly on my views, but I feel that he would ignore a missive in English.

Demetri

[George Australia]

If I had better command of Greek I would fax His All -Holiness directly on my views, but I feel that he would ignore a missive in English.

Dear in Christ, Demetri,

I have only ever written to the Ecumenical Patriarch in english. He only replies in Greek, but his command of english (and several other languages) is excellent.
How someone as intelligent as he can come out with some of the inane stuff he does is beyond me!

In Christ,
George

[George Australia]

IF all bishops who disagree (rightfully) with His All-Holiness, break communion, then the error will not be corrected as only the easily led (misled) will be providing needed input. The result is a diminished church.

Dear in Christ Demetri,
I have been thinking this over the past few days, and I've come to the conclusion that I disagree. I certainly don't think that breaking communion should be anywhere near the first recourse, however, if an heirarch does not hear the "first and second admonition", I think breaking communion is the only choice. Take Nestorios for example. When he taught that the Panagia was not the Theotokos, the people left the church and walked away from him to complain to the other Bishops. In other words, they broke communion over a dogmatic error. The EP has again been admonished many times over the Branch Theory error displayed in it's statements and by it's membership in the WCC. It is a dogmatic error, so people and clergy are walking away. One can't say the error won't be corrected because people walk away. Retrospectively, the error of Nestorios was corrected at a Council prompted precisely because the people and clergy walked away.

I am certain you are aware that many times in past the Church in Great Council affirmed or denied finding of interceding local councils thereby correcting the errors or affirming the findings as Ecumenical. Heretical teaching were so handled as well.

I am aware of them, and as I try to say above, if there is no dispute, there is nothing to resolve, and no need for a Council. Perhaps it is the nature of the apophatic approach in Orthodox Theology- we arrive at Truth by examining and cutting away untruth.

And we both greatly respect and venerate St. Mark; he was most active in council, not by throwing rocks from the outside until necessary.

Perhaps we disagree that it is now "necessary". I think it is because we are dealing with dogmatic error which many other attempts at correction 'from within' have failed.

Thank you for making me think more about my position.
In Christ,
George