Posted on 03/20/2013 3:37:00 AM PDT by 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.
Ping!
Ping!
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.
He really isn’t the spiritual leader of the Orthodox world.
The first sentence creates more misunderstanding than understanding.
Who is then?
Are you sure about that?
Plus the divisions among Christians is really a scandal that hurts the witnessing for both Jesus and the good news of the Gospel.
About what ?
Jesus Christ.
Orthodox are Synodal.
Thanks for these posting keep up the good work
Christ founded one Church for the whole world. What the Bible warns about - according to some - is a one world counterfeit religion. That’s entirely different.
Satan fears seeing the Catholic Church totally reunited more than anything other than the return of Christ.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded whipped Satan and his well entrenched demons once already by leading the world to Christ and could do it again. Satan knows that even though the Self Alone crowd are too blind to see it.
That would set Satan back to the same point he was at when he pumped up Iz Lame to counter Christianity with violence instead of faith in the demons behind pagan gods that had worked so well for so long prior to Christ. A setback like that would mean while Satan has been keeping a lot of people out of heaven, he hasn't made any progress other than that for fourteen hundred years.
So, of course if Satan can he will raise up a counter religion. He tries all the time to do so. People who one minute brag about how many people are leaving the Catholic Church and the next blabber about the Catholic Church being used by Satan are really funny.
Satan will use whatever is most effective and according to the same people who see the Catholic Church as evil, what's most effective isn't the Catholic Church. It's the very anti-Catholic emerging/evangelical/spiritual Churches. So, that's what Satan will use, whatever markets best in the ten major mega churches. It would be far easier for Satan to merge mega churches that ignore most sin and that appeal to Mooze Lames for a number of reasons than to use the Catholic Church. Especially since those mega churches all grew out of the Protestant and Protestant derived heresies of Self Alone.
If it's possible, it'll be possible because of Satan raising up some new, super spiritual, Televangelist who can heal right through your big screen TV to prophecy that Christ isn't going to Rapture Christians, he's going to return and rule rather than judge just any day.
Schisms, factions and divisions are inevitable in any organization that grows above a very small number of individuals. It in man’s nature to form factions and alliances.
Religions act much as political parties. Think of the American Revolution. Once the external threat of England had dissipated the former revolutionaries formed opposing parties. One favored a strong central government the other favored a weak central government.
If you are looking for scandal look here:
“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.
There can be no dialog with the Islamic world. How do you dialog with an entity who’s dearest wish is to cut your throat?
So what is your solution against the Mega Churches???
Schisms, factions and divisions are inevitable in any organization that grows above a very small number of individuals. It in man’s nature to form factions and alliances.
Religions act much as political parties. Think of the American Revolution. Once the external threat of England had dissipated the former revolutionaries formed opposing parties. One favored a strong central government the other favored a weak central government.
If you are looking for scandal look here:
“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.
There can be no dialog with the Islamic world. How do you dialog with an entity whose dearest wish is to cut your throat?
For all the bestselling trash about the End Times that's out there, how much of it ever points out that it isn't the Catholic Church that is the most media savvy, media friendly, and secular society friendly church. Nor have any of those End Times books that brag about Catholics leaving the Catholic Church and warn about the Catholic Church being evil bother to mention that it's the mega churches that thrive on the same approach as MTV and are acceptable to all the queers and abortionists, not the Catholic Church. It is, in fact, the Catholic Church that the media and secularists go out of their way to slander which begs the question, why would Satan be attacking his own?
It seems to me any serious consideration of what Satan might use to build a new false church on should at the very least look at what Satan is attacking and what Satan is ignoring and even embracing. Instead, we see the same old trash that's been repeated ever since the lies that underlie it were dreamed up by propagandists five hundred years ago.
I’ve made quite a study of the Turkish treatment of the Greek community in Constantinople. Its a long history of very harsh treatment and sever economic sanctions designed to strip the few remaining Greeks of wealth, property and sustenance in an unending effort to drive them out. Recent census figures indicate only about 2,500 remain in Turkey and fewer than 100 live in the Fener district of Constantinople.
All that being the case I find it extremely remarkable that 1) the Patriarch would leave the city; they’ve always feared denial of the right to return and 2) that the Turkish PM would accompany the Patriarch. Remarkably weird that!
If it's a strategy, they'll be pushing hard on all sorts of little things that they think might convince the EU to let them into the club instead of keeping them at arms length. Besides, the groups that have power within Turkey look at the ME falling apart and into constant chaos where every Mooze Lame country over there may become a whole country like the city of Beirut was at it's worst and they figure they need to be nice to the EU and others in case they need help to avoid that same fate at the hands of idiots like King Barry and his crowd.
We need a definition of terms here. For me, dialog with any and every one is good, provided it conforms to:
Mark 16:14-16
King James Version
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
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.
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?"
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.
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.”
;-)
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."
(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 ?
Well ... read a little further down and you’ll see God pulls the sure nail and Eliakim falls
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.
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.
I'll give you an A for originality and color
Glad when we can contribute to each other's fund of knowledge (Link).
A long, long winding road .. imo.
Quite straightforward.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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)
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?
Where did THAT come from ?
Jesus said that Simon did not get this knowledge from flesh and blood, but from His Father in heaven. Thus Simon Peter spoke the truth he was given by the Father.
As is given to all whom believe (the job of the Holy Spirit)
all authority within the Christian religion lies with the Pope...Christ founded one church, gave her authority to teach and interpret scripture....she has done so for about 2013 years There was a schism and there was a revolt, neither of which changed the original authority of the church. Christianity, all Christianity, has one leader, the vicar of Christ on Earth....the Pope.
Flesh and blood did not reveal that same thing (and more) that was revealed to Paul, either, whom was as much a spokesman for God's truth as was Peter. Paul was not subordinate. He did not learn what he knew, at the feet of other Apostles.
By the by, in case anyone doesn't know, Simon is the Aramaic word for "a grain of sand", so "a grain of sand" became, "Rock".And yet, people try to pretend there's nothing significant about Christ changing Simon's name to Peter even though they place a great deal of importance on any other case of God giving someone a new name. That's without a doubt one of the many beam in the collective eye of the anti-Catholic crowd.
I really like the fact that Christ mentions that we should build on Rock and not Sand after renaming Simon and I think people ignore that fact mostly due to the strong delusion that blinds them.
Paul said that through Jesus Christ our Lord, he "received grace and apostleship," just as had the Twelve. Peter himself confirmed this (Galatians 2; 2 Peter 3).
Paul's says God's household, the Church, is "built on the foundation of the apostles, with Christ the chief cornerstone. Peter says that "commands are given by our Lord and Savior through the apostles."
Here's a question: are all believers apostles? Paul wrote, "God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues," and then asks, "Are all Apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?"
The answer is "No." There are diverse gifts given to diverse people, and "apostleship," while "first," was one gift, but not given to all.
The gift of the Spirit was and is given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands (Acts 8); it was and is likewise being transmitted to a new generation of successors by the laying on of hands: to Timothy (2 Timothy 1), Titus, those who were appointed by the Apostles (not self-appointed; not popularly elected, but appointed by the Apostles) to plant local churches and to teach and govern them with authority.
False prophecy also abounded. Paul says there are many "false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ."
So, another question: how does one tell one from the other? Paul goes on, "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles."
So we have these truths: that those who have the gift of apostleship are the foundation of the Church; that Christ gives commands through the apostles; that true apostles are accompanied by signs and miracles; that they appoint new apostles by the laying on of hands.
Paul had the commission of apostle to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jews. Peter also had the “keys,” a Biblical sign of office for an official who should rule in his Lord’s household until He returns. Because Peter loved the Lord more than the rest (John 21:15), he is given, more than the rest, a share the Good Shepherd's ministry of “feeding the lambs and the sheep,_ a shepherd of shepherds --- and, after he recovers from his stumble, he is appointed the ministry of “strengthening (or confirming) the brethren” (Luke 22:32).
It is Peter who confirms that Paul’s apostleship is correct (Galatians 2, and 2 Peter 3). This is true even though Paul on one key point has to correct Peter! Paul is not correcting Peter’s doctrine, --- Peter knew, directly via a vision from the Lord (Acts 10) that there was no distinction between eating “clean”: and “unclean” animals --- but Paul corrected Peter for his behavior, his waffling, his cowardice, for not acting in accord with what had been directly revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.
Thus we have the ministry of the Apostles, which continues to this day. Christ has not left us orphans.
Amen to that. The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Mary, John the Evangelist, Peter: we all receive different gifts from the same Spirit.
But are all apostles? The answer is "No." There are diverse gifts to diverse people, all in ivin ontact ith each otherand working together as one Body. ("If they were all one part, where would the body be?" 1 Corinthians 12). I would rather rely on the apostles, and on those who received the Spirit from them by the laying on of hands, than on anyone else's oinions, including mine.
I don't know how you'd derive "grain of sand."
But etymology is tricky, puns in to languages are trickier still (the Bible is just full of puns, it;s amazing )--- and I'm no scholar.
Kēphâs --- Κηφᾶς --- a Greek transliteration of the original Aramaic word, definitely means "rock," and not any old rock, but a building block hewn and ready for construction of an edifice or monument..
I'll put what you say in the mental coffee grinder with everything else, dig around and see what comes up. I'd especially like to find the lecture where it's expanded on a good bit because that's what impressed me the most due to it involving Hebrew root words and such as well as the way the name sounded like another or something like that. Thanks, this will get me digging back through old lectures I haven't heard in a while if nothing else.
I may have several links around so I'll look see if I can find the stuff that impressed me the most. I do recall reading roughly what you're saying as well as other things that disagreed, but there was something that convinced me in the end and I"ll see if I can find that. The only link I kept and can find quickly is to this (reproduced below) and other reading that site a good bit I don't know why that's the one I can find quickly.
_____________________________________________________________ Re: Does the name "Simon" mean "shifting sand"?
I've heard this many times, and upon researching it, I too was disappointed when I discovered that Simon does not mean "shifting sand", however the teaching is true when you discover what his name means is based on his earthly father's name, Jonah. Simon bar Jonah (Simon son of Jonah). The name Jonah has etymological roots that can indeed mean mud or wet sand or shifting sand. If you do a casual search, you'll find Jonah means "dove", but search on etymological roots of Jonah's Hebrew name meaning and you'll find such as the following:
"First there is root (ywn). It yields the masculine noun (ywn), meaning mire, which is wet or soft mud (Psalm 40:3, 69:3)."
So it could be implied that Peter's original name meant, "He who hears" but is founded on "shifting sand" in the flesh based on his sin nature inherited from his earthly father, however, now that He has made His profession of faith, He is now founded on The Rock, His Heavenly Father and His Lord Jesus Christ, and as such is now a rock himself, not merely someone who casually hears, but effectually does.
So, if a little digging is done, his name does really imply someone who hears but is like a reed that is just blowing in the wind or has no firm foundation because he's here and there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.