I was going to post the release below a few days ago but decided against because, well, it had that ring of Constantinopolitan triumphalism to it. I’m jaded by Constantinople’s global warming initiative where the full moral force of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate (as well as the complete administrative resources of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese) was pressed into service on behalf of the global environmentalist lobby.
Even a rudimentary search at the time when global warming was heralded as “settled science” would have given the independent observer pause; too many questions about the veracity of global warming “science” were raised by qualified scientists, unqualified political celebrities (Al Gore and others) were elevated to champion what ostensibly was a project of the scientific academy, too many adherents viewed environmentalism in quasi-religious terms (employing a twisting of the traditional moral vocabulary to justify their beliefs), and so forth. That the Ecumenical Patriarch, his advisers, and the Washington lobbying firm orchestrating much of the Patriarchal response did not heed these indicators shows something was, and probably still is, seriously wrong. Further, that the EP urged the passage of the Copenhagen Protocols, an endorsement totally inappropriate for a man of his position, compounded the error. (At the time I tried to warn them of the danger.)
Clearly the plan was to ride the crest of a wave that seemed certain to break near shore in short order. That didn’t happen. Instead the emails from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked (a free press can be a very good thing) and the house came tumbling down. We haven’t heard a word about global warming from either Constantinople or the GOA Press office since and appropriately so. (Actually, not quite true. A sentence crept into a recent encyclical but it was buried so deep you needed a magnifying glass to find it – a message to true believers?)
So when Constantinople announced that union between Rome and Orthodoxy was much further along than it actually is, I concluded that it probably was more grandstanding, that is, positioning Constantinople into an appearance of prominence that it does not in fact possess. So I ignored it. Looking back, especially after the clarification by Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church that was released this morning, I see that was a mistake. These pronouncements are important — even when what is reported is a misrepresentation — and so it is important to post them along with my misgivings.
One more point, the fact that Reuters reported it also gave me pause. Reuters makes only a pretense of reportorial objectivity in matters of morals and religion, a problem that is compounded when religion is the sole focus of an article since they understand it so poorly. Still, it does not mean that the facts, even if skewed, should be ignored.
What follows below is the original report that I ignored. Immediately above this post is the clarification by Met. Hilarion.
Source: Reuters
Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians reported promising progress on Friday in talks on overcoming their Great Schism of 1054 and bringing the two largest denominations in Christianity back to full communion. Experts meeting in Vienna this week agreed the two could eventually become “sister churches” that recognize the Roman pope as their titular head but retain many church structures, liturgy and customs that developed over the past millennium.
(Photo: Metropolitan John Zizioulas (L) and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in Vienna, 24 Sept 2010/Leonhard Foeger)
The delegation heads for the international commission for Catholic-Orthodox dialogue stressed that unity was still far off, but their upbeat report reflected growing cooperation between Rome and the Orthodox churches traditionally centred in Russia, Greece, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Read the entire article on the Reuters website.
Really …. “customs that developed over the past millennium”? Let us see how the thinking of the infallibles “developed” over the past millennium. In the beginning they ordered bloody crusades aimed against Muslims, Jews, and “schismatic” Orthodox Christians. Today they are telling us that we all worship the same God. They promote the “same God cult”, or the religion of peace. Peace between the sons of darkness and the sons of light, peace between truth and lies. The Scripture offers two, —and only two—choices. One can serve God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Mammon. Christ said that He is the Son of God, not just a prophet.
Out there some people are desperately trying to have the Orthodox Church submit to “one titular head”. No, thanks. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Once one would became the titular head, he would start making changes, creating schisms, pain and anxiety. The Ecumenical Patriarchate already did that, and is still doing it.
Eliot, the Crusades were called by the Byzantines, let’s not forget that. And they were justified. Depredations against Jews did happen, but mostly by the rabble. In the Rhineland, Jews were placed under the protection of the local bishops and many thousands were saved from the riff-raff. As for the supposed atrocities against the Muslims, they were par for the course in Medieval warfare. The Ridley Scott view of Outremer in his terrible movie The Kingdom of Heaven was laughable. The Muslims gave as good as they got and they were anything but tolerant to the Christians, native or otherwise.
Otherwise, your critique about ultramontanism, papalism, etc., is right on the money. Unfortunately, many in the Ecumenical Patriarchate are veering dangerously down this same path. I wonder, what causes such supremacist over-reach?
George:
Also, crusaders were often offered an indulgence in return for participation in a crusade.
You say that the crusades were justified. I wonder if the rise and growth of the Ottoman Empire was a natural reaction to crusades. Later, the Orthodox nations served as a shield for Western Europe against ottomans.
If we are to follow the one true Holy Orthodox Catholic Faith and do so with seriousness, then we have to be realistic about the fact that there will never be a union between the supposed “two lungs of one body.” From the cult of mary and her alleged apparitions to purgatory, the immaculate conception, and altar girls, the continuing “developments” within the Roman Catholic Church it seems will never stop. The Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, as is His holy word (Scripture) and His bride (the Orthodox Church). There is plenty of evidence (and I could list many books) to suggest that the Orthodox Church is the one undivided pure faith from the very beginning that hasn’t changed over two millennia. Let’s face the fact that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are opposite sides of the same coin, and let’s stop playing games. Either the Orthodox Church is or it isn’t. There are an inordinate amount of theology schools, Bible colleges, theologians, religion professors, and denominations to confuse those who are sincerely seeking the Lord’s will for them. I can’t help but ponder C.S. Lewis’s very astute “Screwtape Letters.” I wish the Lord Himself would throw us a bone on occasion and cease this utter “Christian Denominational Madness!” That is my only Christmas Wish.
Alexis: Indeed, they work very hard to confuse the youth especially…
Christ Has Risen within Your Heart! – by Father George Calciu
Over at oc.net I’ve mused about the “Great and Holy Council” doing something useful about the diptychs and the “diaspora”: formally remove Rome from the diptychs (or set up an Orthodox pope in Rome), condemn Ultramontanism, and set up Orthodox Holy Synods in the EA regions in the Patriarchate of the West.
Hi Isa
Re: I’ve mused about the “Great and Holy Council” doing something useful about the diptychs
When I read the comment above, I thought to myself, “Like demoting some of these “patriarchates” and returning them to bishoprics?”
I wonder, do you think did Byzantium had more Christians in 324 AD than it does now? It was a simple bishopric then…
Just “musing”….
Best Regards,
dean
Hi Dean!
Possible. It had a population of 30,000 when Constantine chose it, and I doubt more than a third had already received baptism. I’m not much for demoting sees. I am for them doing their jobs, i.e. evangelizing.
A population of 30,000 — where the average age at death was 21 for women, 24 for men. So, you know, nothing’s changed and neither should we.
Is there a way to put Rome on “time out” instead of removing them from the diptychs entirely, ESPECIALLY instead of setting up a “parallel” OC Pope in Rome?
No, and there is no reason to put Rome on hold. There is a Romanian bishop of Rome (+Siluan) and a Greek Metropolitan of Italy (+Gennadios). That their jurisdiction overlap (the EP is the one who has canonical jurisdiction here, btw) is the problem, not that B XVI isn’t at their head.
Good George, the Catholic Church I think about the last decade has even condemmed some of the misbehavor of the crusades and the fourth crusade that sack Constantinople, on the other hand no Orthodox group mentions the accidental damage of the Byzantine-Goth wars in Italy in the 6th Century that did great damage to Italy and tax collectors and soldiers were not always good to the Italian population. Granted, the Goths behavior in the war was not always good either. This was Justinian’s dream of reviving the old Roman Empire and it failed since Constantinople was able to hold on to most of Italy and there was great damage like the destrucation of 14 aqueducts in the city of Rome. One reason why medieval Rome had a much smaller population than anicent Rome since it couldn’t support the population since water couldn’t be transported as much.
correction: was not able to hold on to most of Italy talking about the byzantine-Goth conflict.. The reason why Constantinople fell victim to the crusaders first and then the ottomaas later was that their military force by 1204 was much weaker. They had a great military force when they got a lot of peasant farmers to sign up for military service in order to receive farm land after military service this was similar to the old Roman concept of land for veterans that Julius Caesar’s uncle Caius Marius adopted in the 2nd century B.C., As for the Turks, I doubt the crusades were the only factor for their hosility toward Byzantium and then Western Europe, Muslems invaded the Byzantine Empire and the late Persian Empire as far back as the 7th century. Granted the Turks were not a main Islamic group in the 7th century. And of course the Muslems took parts of Italy from the Byzantines and North Africa by the early 8th century and Spain from the Visgoths I believe in the 7th century and in the 8th moved up to France and of course were defeated by Charles Martel. Theophanes describes in chronacle how they were defeated by the Franks but he thoought it was Pipin.
The 1204 A.D. debacle was sad, but watching EWTN makes me sadder. Voodoo theology begone! Thank you for Father Calciu’s article, Eliot.
We live fearful times …
The Communist atheists wanted to save man from the ‘delusion’ of religion using unthinkable cruelty.
http://www.apostle1.com/pascha_2006/valeriu-gafencu-saint-prisons-prisoners/valeriu-gafencu-saint-prison-prisoners1.htm
Now, a New Atheism is rising to ‘save’ mankind from God. They regard organized religion as a threat to world peace.
Sooner than later we’ll witness false miracles performed by means of demonic powers. “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect..”
A Fakir’s “Miracle” and the Prayer of Jesus. By Archimandrite Nicholas Drobyazgin
Dean, I heard, figures from 7 to 20 percent of the population christian in the eastern part of the empire around the early 4th century.