Unfortunately we cannot post either the transcript or video here since both are copyrighted.
View video here.
View transcript here.
Comments welcome.
Ecumenical Patriarch on Charlie Rose
by
Comments
11 responses to “Ecumenical Patriarch on Charlie Rose”
-
This was a very nice interview. Rose did make some mistakes in his intro. Its nice to see His All Holiness speak but after reading the transcript I have to say that Charlie Rose tossed alot of the usual Softball questions out for the EP to hit. We had Green questions, Turkey questions, interfaith dialogue questions, and Pope Questions. (Btw, that answer was a little weird as aren’t there more doctrinal issues involved than simple papal authority eg. the Immaculate Conception etc). There were no big social questions put on the table.
Many of the questions simply follow the usual script put out by 79th Street. This is disappointing. I was hoping….really hoping for this hour to showcase the intellectual and pastoral skills of the EP. In the end part of me gets the feeling this is more informercial than interview.
-
I thought this was a good interview although I missed the first
five or six minutes. I think the Ecumenical Patriarch did a good
job and the there were some good questions. While it is true
that there were no social issues discussed, Charlie Rose did ask
some good questions about the wars in the Balkans etc….The Patriarch I think came off pretty well and sophisticated. I
think this appearance did alot more for the Patriarchal visit than
his appearances at the think tanks. I was relieved that the
environment really was relegated to perhaps one question and left
alone.I think the Patriarch’s discussion on the various Patriarchates
and Autocephalous Churches was a very good way of introducing the
viewers to Orthodoxy and how it differs from the Catholic Church.What I was impressed with was the manner in which the Patriarch did
espouse the spirit of love from the Gospel by abhorring war and
hatred and emphasizing that all people of whatever religion are God’s
children. I am not an Ecumenist but I think he spoke well in
disavowing fanaticism.Religion is getting a very difficult reputation these days, and so
there are many people who view faith as simply being sectarian.Regarding the questions, they were coming from a journalist who is
not Orthodox and aimed at an audience not Orthodox. Since America
is also largely Catholic the questions about the Pope etc.. do
make sense. The viewers of the program are coming from this background
and so I think in this context the Patriarch was effective.The question on Turkey was a very good question, and here I think the
Patriarch generally handled as well as he could, although I did have
to cringe during the second part of the answer.Theodoros
-
-
I agree with Theodoros that the EP presented clearly the difference between the role of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church and that of the Ecumenical Patriarch within the “Orthodox family” of “local churches” (both terms, I like). But like Andrew, I was concerned that he insisted that papal primacy is the main issue perpetuating the Great Schism. He neglected to mention that there are doctrinal differences between the Catholic Catechism and Orthodox Tradition, as if the only obstacle to full communion were one of simple administrative prerogative.
I was further troubled that Rose’s reference to “Shiites and Sunni within the church” went uncorrected. This oversight by the EP, while on its own may be taken as graciousness toward his host’s factual error, was exacerbated by the EP’s reference to one God, “whatever we call him” … “Allah or Yahweh, and so on.” (I cannot even imagine which names “and so on” might refer to.) The EP is correct that there is but “one God and Father of all,” but with this comes “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As a Trinitarian monotheist, I hold the historical and doctrinal distinctions between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and so on) to be too important to obscure the Gospel in this manner.
-
It is my understanding that Islam does Not understand God to be Father. This to me is an indicator that the idea of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as the three Abrahamic faiths should be retired.
Am I correct in this regard?
-
I agree entirely. Ron made an excellent point.
What the Patriarch may have meant (and I wish he had expressed it
better) is that Muslims and Jews are also God’s creatures.Theodoros
-
Andrew, you are correct. “Allah” is a different deity than the Triune God of the Bible.
-
-
The Notes on Arab Orthodoxy blog has an interesting post today on The Word ‘Allah’
-
-
This (Turkey being a full member of the European Union) is a real and concrete aspiration of the present (Turkish) administration… We do expect for more quick reforms in the Turkish society… I wish I could see as soon as possible Turkey being full part, full member of the European society…
I am sorry to say that I think the EP’s wish is, at the present time, only wishful thinking.
Given that for 26 of “the 35 chapters of the acquis communautaire, the total body of EU law” (74%) the European Union assessment of Turkey is listed as either Very Hard to Adopt, Considerable Efforts Needed, or Further Efforts Needed – it does not appear that Turkey will be moving into the EU anytime soon.
Reference: Accession of Turkey to the European Union
-
Hi Everyone,
I’m in agreement with Theodoros – I think His All Holiness did a good job – came across very well. There were certain questions that one cringed at, but I thought HAH handled them as deftly as possible given the circumstances.
I had to laugh at one point though, when HAH said that the Orthodox should not be called an “ethnic” church…he doesn’t like that term and would prefer the term “local”. Everywhere but in America I guess.
That aside, this was unquestionably a better presentation than that picture with the Coke bear – which I thought was just plain embarrassing.
My real thoughts went to the lameness of his “handlers.” To snap it into consumer products terms – they have a good product, too bad they don’t have a clue about how to use it.
Best Regards,
Dean Calvert -
Dean,
I’m afraid his “handlers” are probably flunkies like Lambrianides who have no clue about America is about. I personally thought his oversight of the Orthodox experience before 1864 is appalling. To me, this means that the Phanar is not serious about America.
Otherwise, +Bartholomew could be a major force for moral authority in the world. To bad it’s squandered on Left-wing causes.
-
Dean, I caught that too. The Hellenism-Orthodoxy apologetic is the logic promulgated as the basis of Greek Orthodox self-identity in America, and functions as the rational for Constantinopolitan jurisdictional hegemony over the American Orthodox Church. Yet when Charlie Rose asks him to define Orthodox ecclesiology, the EP reverts back to the proper (traditional) definitions.
So what gives? Why is the apologetic (which is both historically and ecclesiologically untenable) being promulgated in-house, but proper Orthodox teaching explained to others? Why no defense of the idea that the EP, because he is Greek and Orthodox and thereby embodies the universal values of Hellenism and Orthodoxy* in his office (and person), has the authority to govern the American Church?
*In case anyone is wondering, the reason the apologetic is untenable is because Hellenism was reconciled to Orthodoxy through the Cappadocian Fathers in what we call the Cappadocian Synthesis. Hellenism does not exist as a parallel historical track running alongside Orthodox Christianity, which is what the apologetic asserts. In other words, to be Orthodox is to be a Hellene; to be a true Hellene one must be Orthodox. Positing two tracks has the effect of positing two starting points for the universal values — Mt. Olympus and Jerusalem, a problem the Cappadocians recognized and resolved. The reason for the two tracks however, is more pragmatic. It elevates ethnicity to the same importance as faith. While this is a political calculation, the ecclesiological effects are more pernicious: the ekklesia reverts back to synagogue.
Leave a Reply