Greek Orthodox patriarch stages first visit to pope's inaugural Mass in 1,000 years

Hürriyet Daily News ^ | March 19, 2013

[NYer]

Fener Greek Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox world, attended the installation Mass for Pope Francis in Rome on Tuesday, March 19, for the first time since the Great Schism in 1054.

Acting Patriarch Archbishop Aram Ateşyan from the Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey also presented at the Vatican, with a delegation of clergymen. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ was also expected to attend the ceremony.

“The alienation of old times has disappeared. As two brother churches, we are getting closer each day. We also have a theological dialogue, and the position of the pope in the Christian world is at the center of this dialogue,” Bartholomew said in a televised interview before he left Turkey yesterday.

Fener Greek Patriarchate press secretary Father Dositheos Anagnostopulos told the Hürriyet Daily News, “The first meeting [between the East and West Churches] was in 1054. Nearly 1,000 years have passed since then.”

Asked whether the meeting would contribute to the relationship between the two churches, Anagnostopulos said, “Of course, it has symbolic importance in this regard.”

According to Anagnostopulos, Ioannis Zizioulas, metropolitan of Pergamon and co-president of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church; Tarassiocs, Orthodox Metropolitan of Argentina; and Gennadios, Orthodox metropolitan of Italy, accompanied the patriarch.

Dr. Lütfü Özşahin, a historian specializing in the history of religions, said the meeting was crucial in many aspects. Özşahin recalled that the Second Vatican Council, which was organized as a first attempt to create dialogue between the two churches, took place in 1965.

“[The meeting] also has a political dimension. Keep in mind that even though it is not officially mentioned, the EU is a holy alliance of Christians, while the Fener Greek patriarch is the spiritual leader of the Orthodox world. Whether Turkey accepts it or not, the Fener Greek Patriarchate is ecumenical, thus it has a primary importance for Orthodoxies,” Özşahin said. Turkey does not currently recognize the ecumenical status of the Fener Greek Patriarchate.

 “Greeks, Serbians, Georgians and Armenians have independent churches, which means the Fener Greek patriarch cannot represent the whole Orthodox world in every aspect,” Özşahin said, adding that the Russian Orthodox Church, which has had conflicts with the Fener Greek Patriarchate for centuries, is a good illustration of this.

 “This meeting also demonstrates the importance the pope gives to the Islamic world. After resolving the issues between Christians, the new pope might take action to engage in dialogue with the Islamic world,” Özşahin said.

Ateşyan said he welcomed the move. “The meeting is important in terms of resolving the problems between churches and sects, and improving relations between the Eastern and Western Churches.”

Professor İlber Ortaylı, a historian, on the other hand, felt it was misguided to read such far-reaching significance into the meeting. “They are going to congratulate [Pope Francis’ installation]; it shouldn’t be exaggerated.”

Meanwhile Turkey’s ambassador to the Vatican, Kenan Gürsoy, said they had observed a high degree of respect toward Bartholomew.

When asked for his views on the meeting, Gürsoy said it would be more appropriate to leave the comments to historians and experts on the subject.

[Pontiac]

We need a definition of terms here. For me, dialog with any and every one is good,

I believe you are referring to evangelism as dialog. You can evangelize individuals and only individuals because accepting Christ is an individual choice.

When you say you are going to dialog with the Islamic world you are referring to a couple billion people and what you are really referring to is speaking with the leadership of the Muslim community. I very much doubt that the leadership of the Muslim world is going to cozy up to the Catholic Church unless it is a strategy to destroy the Church. Not to mention that past leaders who made peace with west have risked assassination.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Please make the basic distinction between the "one flock and one sheherd" desired by Christ, and the worldwide deception fostered by Satan. They are not only distinguishable: they are in direct and hostile opposition to one another.

John 10:16-17, 19-21
"I have other sheep
that do not belong to this fold.
I must bring them also,
and they will listen to my voice.
So there will be one flock, one shepherd."

Again the Jews were divided because
of these words.
Many of them were saying,
"He has a demon and is out of his mind.
Why listen to him?"
Others were saying,
"These are not the words of one who has a demon.
Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

[knarf]

The flock is believers in the shepherd, Christ.

Preached many ways, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, etc.

Which is which ?

The Catholics think it's Catholicism and Peter, the non-Catholic think it's ecclesia and Jesus ..

Vanilla or chocolate, filter tipped or plain end .. etc., etc.

[SumProVita]

I’m sorry if this is offensive, but I’d be on guard for the chessmen to start moving towards that one world church the book of The Revalation of Jesus Christ (even in Douay Reems) talks about.

____________________________

Actually, THAT description is more likely to be the counterfeit of satan. I fully believe that what we are seeing with the Orthodox in this case is part of the answer to the prayer of Jesus that “they be ONE.”

;-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Correction: The Catholics think it's Catholicism and Peter, ecclesia and Jesus...

All baptized Christians are, by definition, part of the Catholic ecclesia, which is led on earth by the man to whom Jesus gave the keys, as foreseen by Isaiah:

Isaiah 22:21-23

"I will clothe him with your robe
and bind your sash on him.
I will commit your authority to his hand,
and he shall be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
I will place on his shoulder
the key of the house of David;
he shall open, and no one shall shut;
he shall shut, and no one shall open.
I will fasten him like a peg
in a secure place,
and he will become a throne of honor
to his ancestral house."

[knarf]

Are you REALLY trying to imply;

(The preceding verse, 22:20)

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:

Is Peter ?

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, not that Eliakaim "is" Peter, but that Eliakim is a "type" for Peter; foreshadows Peter; by being made suzerein, sets out how suzerainty works as a model for tributary governance; illustrates --- this is the central point --- "the power of the keys."

[knarf]

Well ... read a little further down and you’ll see God pulls the sure nail and Eliakim falls

[knarf]

I have no idea what suzerein is, nor does google.

Whatever ...

God didn't write a mystery book, nor a davinci code ... He wrote what we need to learn and know without playing mystery games.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry, knarf, my typo. It's suzerain

This is not word games or Da Vinci Code. Far from it. It's the first principle of Biblical interpretation.

Did you ever wonder what that "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" actually means? The most basic way to find out is to search the Bible itself for other instances of a person being given keys, or given authority under a king, and get a solid grasp of the Biblical culture to which it refers ("Interpret Scripture through Scripture.")

A suzerain is a viceroy who reigns in the king's stead when the king is away. He holds the keys to the Kingdom -- actually, the king's household and what would he his administrative offices --- and makes sure thigs are done properly according to the king's decree.

Eliakim isn't the only one who has this sort of delegated position. In Genesis, Jacob's son Joseph had this level of authority in relation to the Pharaoh of Egypy.

Each of these are images --- not exact duplicates or prescriptions, but images --- of delegated authority.

This is the kind of situation Jesus Christ, heir to the throne of David, was talking about when he entrusted the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter.

It is essential, when trying to understand Biblical teachings, to understand Biblical culture. It's not code: knowing the culture is an exegetical requirement.

[knarf]

I don't know where you came up with another word for Hermeneutics ... but you did.

I'll give you an A for originality and color

[Mrs. Don-o]

Seriously? You never heard of exegesis?

Glad when we can contribute to each other's fund of knowledge (Link).

[knarf]

Of COURSE I have, but we were discussing ... rather, you were attempting to foist upon me suzerain, which I countered with a sarcastic (though humerously given) attempt to ridicule the word and the discipline you claim it is that determines Peter was the Pope.

A long, long winding road .. imo.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It determines that Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom of heaven BY JESUS, as Jesus explicitly said (Link) (no long winding road here); and it illustrates what that means by adverting to Biblically-derived Israelite and Ancient Middle East practice.

Quite straightforward.

[knarf]

Catholics are the only ones that make that claim thus determining the rules by which the game is played and no one plays by the rules that the rule maker makes .... we learn that as kids.

We all agree or we don't play.

And if you insist it's your ball and if we don't play by your rules you'll take your ball and go home ... well ... we always let you go home.

[Keeblerninja]

Yes, at least according to the Orthodox Church, the ecclesiastical leadership is Synodal. But Christ left behind an ecclesiastical leadership (John 20:23), and worship of the Trinity is done in a corporate setting (church). Not to say that private prayers are invalid, but as Christ was both fully human and fully divine, he left behind an institution that, according to the Early Church Fathers and tradition, is both also human and divine. The Orthodox Church (as I’m sure you know from your choice of screen name) is NOT a church in which the worship is void of sacraments and only direct person to diety communication is valid. So yes Jesus Christ, as one person of the Trinity with the same substance as the rest of the Trinity, could be said to lead the Church, he also referenced another person of the Trinity, the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) that would aid in establishing the Church. All this is to say that there are divine and earthly elements to the leadership of the Church, and those earthly (ecclesiastical) leadership elements that grouped themselves synodally did so recognizing that there was a first among equals, even back in the earliest days of the Ecumenical Councils. There one person with “primacy” over the Church Sees, but from the earliest stages of the Church, there was indeed a type of respectful leadership in the synod. As the Patriarch of New Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch would be the easiest to reference in any media communication. Otherwise, we’d have to explain a whole lot of church history to the world every release that’s done. :-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't actually get what you're saying here. Are you saying that quoting the Bible, and interpreting Scripture with Scripture, are exotic rules and out of bounds?

How would you use some different, and more legitimate, rules to interpret Matthew 16:18-19?

This gives you a chance to illustrate better rules of hermeneutics. I'm here to learn.

[Mount Athos]

Calling him the spiritual leader of the Orthodox World is simply misinformation.

It implies a whole series of things that are not true at all.

[knarf]

16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Jesus pulls all the disciples aside and asks, "What are people saying about me ... who am I? "

A couple of answers until Peter hits on the correct answer, ":You're God"

Yep, says Jesus, and THAT'S the rock (cornerstone) of your faith. Matter of fact, I'm telling you it will be the basis for the ecclesia to even gather as a body ... one faith ... that I am God"

Now, gather 'round me and let me hip you to some things.

(rough translation from the original Aramaic ... or my imagination ... one or the other)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"A couple of answers until Peter hits on the correct answer, "You're God"...Yep, says Jesus, and THAT'S the rock (cornerstone) of your faith

Good! We're in agreement here. Flesh and blood did not reveal this to Simon, but the Father in Heaven, Who willed for Simon to be the spokesman of God's truth.

Now, what did Jesus mean to signify by changing Simon Bar-Jonah's name to "Kephas," ("Peter," "Rock")? And what did He mean to signify by saying He was giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?