Bartholomew's power play

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


OrthodoxyOrDeath

Bartholomew's power play

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

This from Kathemerini...11-28-03

No respite in holy turf war
Ecumenical Patriarch Vartholomaios and his senior bishops met in Istanbul yesterday to formulate a response to the latest move by the Church of Greece in an increasingly bitter turf war concerning control of 36 Greek bishoprics.

Although no official announcements were made on the decision taken at the meeting — other than that it would be conveyed to Athens next week — sources in Istanbul said Vartholomaios rejected a Church of Greece compromise proposal. Under the deal advanced by Archbishop Christodoulos, Vartholomaios could look at a list of candidate bishops for Greek sees liberated from the Turks after 1912, but final approval would lie with the Church of Greece. The patriarch wants to edit the list.

The question of ultimate control of appointments in the 36 bishoprics became acutely relevant after the death, in the summer, of two northern Greek bishops. The replacement process will be difficult unless the two churches reach an agreement. The government ruled out legislative reform to solve the dispute, unless both parties agreed.


Why would Bartholomew possibly want control over who is going to be a Bishop in Northern Greece?

To answer that question I recollect that it was the State churches bishop in Thessoloniki who sabbatoged one of Bartholomew's ecumenical gatherings there this last summer. Now he is reposed.

I would estimate Bartholomew, a walking anti-Christ, would like to see more ecumenically minded people in control of those areas. It is another thin edge of a wedge that will further delude and destroy God's people.

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

Who do you feel is in the right here? Do you reject tradition?

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

I suppose this could be looked at from many different angles:

1) The State Church of Greece is autocephalous precisely because they did not want Greek affairs controlled by a Turk under outside influences. This practice should also then be good for the New Territories.

2) This is not "tradition" in any sense other than there was an agreement in the 20's. If any tradition with regards to canonical territories means anything at all to these people, then I suppose we should first talk about why Estonia and Finland are under "Constantinople". It’s about power - and these people only bring up the canons when it is convenient to do so.

3) Speaking of tradition, it is tradition for the people to elect their Bishop, or, as has been done for the most part, the Synod elects them. There are not quasi-joint synodical elections.

4) And does anyone think all of this is because these sick men are concerned about who can tend to Christ's flock the best? Nothing of the sort, they only care about who will favor their own political agenda’s? That is my own opinion.

Of course all of this is outside the Church so I suppose it is similar being concerned about how loud the wind is blowing outside.

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by TomS »

I agree with your analysis of the situation.

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

Anastasios
Sr Member
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu 7 November 2002 11:40 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC-Archbishop Kallinikos
Location: Raleigh, NC
Contact:

Post by Anastasios »

My opinion is those territories belong to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Bartholemew is smart to make a move for them before he loses them forever due to inactivity.

The Church of Greece was stolen from the Pat. of C. by the Greek secular revolutionaries. 150 years later we should not support the final dissolution of any real congregations in the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople--otherwise it will be left with 2000 people in Const. and its sattelites around the world. At least if it has the NOrthern territories it is still a real (in a worldly sense) patriarchate.

anastasios

Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

Anastasios,

Greece under the Patriarchate, theres a thought.

Could you imagine no confession, pews, organs, choirs, and churches that look exactly like a spaceship in Greece?

:)

Makis
Jr Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat 22 November 2003 8:15 pm

Post by Makis »

Dear OOD,

Could you imagine no confession, pews, organs, choirs, and churches that look exactly like a spaceship in Greece?

Practically all churches in Greece have pews, and most cathedral churches have choirs (because in my opinion a protopsaltis with a group of psaltades is a choir).

I do not know of ANY church in Greece which has organs or which looks like a space ship, also not in the Northern/new territories, which are under the EP.
Furthermore, i do not know ANY priest or bishop that opposes confession, also not in the Northern/new territories, which are under the EP.

Perhaps these things happen in the US, in the GOA.
Greece is not the US.
Explain me please why this should be the case in Greece, either under the Omoforion of HB Christodoulos, either under the Omoforion of HAH Bartolomew?

Now, concerning the problems between Athens and Phanar, the situation is quite complex.
As in most disputes (and especially those of a non-theological nature) both sides are partly right, and both sides are partly wrong.

Yes, HAH is right to say that it is the right and duty of Phanar to appoint the bishops in said territories.

On the other hand, it is an anomaly to have in a country (especially a country as Greece) seperate jurisdictions.
The liberated territories where liberated in 1913, so it would be about time that they would be incorporated in the Church of Greece.

This whole issue could have been prevented when both parties would have sat down together and discussed the issue in a normal, Christian manner.
Now that tensions have ran so high, we can only pray that God's Will be done, and not political aspirations from either side.

In Christ,

Makis

Post Reply