There is much to praised in the “60 Minutes” profile of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and his tiny, yet historically significant, flock of persecuted Orthodox Christians in Istanbul. It’s worth watching, if only for the remarkable videos taken at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai in Egypt and the remarkable city of churches and monastic cells carved into the mountain cliffs in Cappadocia (video link here) in Eastern Turkey.
The report by correspondent Bob Simon also contains crucial details — with many missing, alas — about the political framework that surrounds the crushing of the ancient Orthodox Christian community in modern Turkey. The story covers the efforts to expel Christian believers from Turkey, but avoids issues linked to massacres and, yes, decades of verbal warfare about the use of the term “genocide.”
So, by all means, watch the report and then carefully read the text as it appears on the “60 Minutes” website.
However, please know that for most Orthodox believers this report is a good news-bad news situation. There are errors in the opening section that are painful — something like hearing very long, stiff fingernails scraped across a blackboard. Even though much of the content is solid, Simon and his writers have made a series of very basic mistakes, which I will underline shortly.
Here are some crucial pieces of the text:
(CBS) Would it surprise you to learn that one of the world’s most important Christian leaders, second only to the pope, lives in a country where 99 percent of the population is Muslim? His name is Bartholomew, and he is the patriarch of 300 million Orthodox Christians. He lives in Istanbul, Turkey, the latest in a line of patriarchs who have resided there since before there was a Turkey, since the centuries following the death of Jesus Christ.
That’s when Istanbul was called Constantinople and was the most important city in the Christian world.
But times change, and in modern Muslim Turkey the patriarch doesn’t feel very welcome. Turkish authorities have seized Christian properties and closed Christian churches, monasteries and schools. His parishioners are afraid that the authorities want to force Bartholomew and his church — the oldest of all Christian churches — out of Turkey.
His official title is impressive: “His All Holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, Ecumenical Patriarch.” “Ecumenical” means “universal,” and worldwide, 300 million Orthodox Christians look to him for spiritual guidance.
OK, let’s start with that “second only to the pope” phrase, attached to the word “important” — a term that is vague to the point of being meaningless. All kinds of historical issues swarm around this statement, but the basic problem is one that runs through the whole report, which is a ongoing attempt to equate Patriarch Bartholomew with the pope.
The big problem is the article “the” in that statement, “he is the patriarch of 300 million Orthodox Christians.” For the world’s Orthodox Christians he is certainly “a” patriarch. He also is a first among equals, when it comes to gatherings of the world’s Orthodox patriarchs. He is definitely a significant spiritual leader, a symbolic leader in many ways, but he is not “the” patriarch of the Orthodox.
It cannot be stressed too strongly: Orthodox Christianity is a conciliar church and Bartholomew is the symbolic first among equals, equals who would make ultimate decisions as a council and part of a larger community of faith.
And what about that claim that he leads the “oldest of all Christian churches”? That would make him the Patriarch of the Church of Jerusalem, correct? All kinds of issues swirl around that throne. And which came first, Antioch or Constantinople? Meanwhile, Roman Catholics would certainly believe that, since they claim the pope is truly the universal patriarch, Pope Benedict XVI is the leader of the “oldest of all Christian churches,” including the churches of the ancient Middle East.
So the basic problem with the “60 Minutes” report is one of storytelling as Simon & Co. try to find a way to let readers relate to the Orthodox crisis in Turkey. Note this statement:
60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon first met him in Istanbul. It was Easter, and worshipers from throughout the Orthodox Christian world had come to celebrate Christ’s resurrection on the holiest day of their calendar with the man who they see as their pope.
That final blunt statement is simply wrong. There needed to be language added stressing that Patriarch Bartholomew is not the pope of the Orthodox, but he is a very important figure on the Orthodox world scene and that, yes, millions of Orthodox Christian believers are deeply concerned about his fate and the fate of his tiny besieged folk in Istanbul.
That isn’t hard to grasp, is it? Reporters — me included — have often resorted to the “spiritual leader of the Orthodox” language, to capture that “first among equals” reality. But Bartholomew is not the literal leader of the global church, in the same way as the pope is for Catholics.
So the report offers a fine picture of a large, important story. But the basic frame around that picture is warped, and that is sad. As you watch it, you will see that very little has changed since 2004, when I visited the Panar and wrote about some of these same, unchanging issues. I wish that Simon had mentioned the painful symbol of the two gates into the complex. The gates say it all:
ISTANBUL — There are two front gates into the walled compound that protects the home of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world’s 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Visitors enter through a door secured by a guardhouse, locks and a metal-screening device. They cannot enter the Phanar’s main gate because it was welded shut in 1821 after the Ottoman Turks hanged Patriarch Gregory V from its lintel. The black doors have remained sealed ever since.
A decade ago, bombers who tried to open this gate left a note: “We will fight until the Chief Devil and all the occupiers are chased off; until this place, which for years has contrived Byzantine intrigues against the Muslim people of the East is exterminated. … Patriarch you will perish!”
The capital of Byzantium fell to the Turks in 1453. Yet 400,000 Orthodox Christians remained in greater Istanbul early in the 20th century. That number fell to 150,000 in 1960. Today fewer than 2,000 remain, the most symbolic minority in a land that is 99 percent Turkish. They worship in 86 churches served by 32 priests and deacons, most 60 or older. What the Orthodox urgently need is an active seminary and patriarchate officials are convinced the European Union will help them get one, as Turkey races to begin the formal application process.
As I said, very little has changed. That is a tragic reality for the ancient church in Turkey.
 | Posted at 11:24 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (44) |
December 21, 2009, at 12:45 pm
The 60 minutes segment also failed to mention that the Orthodox Greeks in Greece are not under the jurisdiction of Constantinople so when Mr. Simon asked, “why don’t you go back to Greece?” it was a pretty ignorant question. He also failed to mention that Constantinople is considered the birthplace of Christianity before the Great Schism when Emperor Constantine split off from the Ecumenical Council and formed Catholisism to convert the pagans of the Roman Empire and beyond into Christians. Orthodoxy remains the closest interpretation of the Gospel, and has not changed to accommodate the modern world, which explains its minority following in comparison to other Christian branches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:16 pm
As a consequence, the church can’t train new priests - potential new patriarchs who, under Turkish law, have to be born in Turkey. It’s as if Rome closed down the College of Cardinals.
Please tell me he didn’t really say that. Oh, please.
He also failed to mention that Constantinople is considered the birthplace of Christianity before the Great Schism when Emperor Constantine split off from the Ecumenical Council and formed Catholisism to convert the pagans of the Roman Empire and beyond into Christians.
Excuse me? That’s one I haven’t heard before. Leaving aside the fact that Christianity started in Jerusalem, where did you get the idea that Constantine had anything to do with the differences between east and west? (That’s only partly rhetorical; I’d be interested in any sources you have.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:32 pm
Remember the nature of ignorance that will ALWAYS be present in secular coverage of Christian (particularly “Original” Christians) issues. Don’t let that aspect of the segment overshadow some of the beautiful structures, frescoes and oppression so overwhelmingly present in our world today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:33 pm
There are no sources. Conspiracy theories relating to Catholicism apparently exist in Orthodoxy as well as Protestantism. Especially odd since Constantinople and Rome were in communion for at least half of the first thousand years (when there weren’t Arians/Iconoclasts/other heretics running the church of Constantinople) so the idea that Constantine set something up outside of the rest of the church to convert pagans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:38 pm
Well, I’ve heard it often enough from Protestants, usually ones who barely know the Orthodox Churches exist, but I’d never heard such a thing from an Orthodox Christian.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:43 pm
The Orthodox patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch both predate Rome. This makes Orthodoxy the oldest Christian body on Earth. The Roman bishop never had an official presense in the Middle East until the Crusades. The newly independent (post-schism) papacy seeked converts there at the tip of a crusader sword. This was also due to the popes bald faced lies that told Western Europeans that Muslims were prohibiting Christians from worshipping at their Holy places. In fact Western Europeans found themselves out-of-communion with the churches in the Holy Land. The Muslim warrior Saladin took back the churches from the Latins and gave them back the Holy Places to the Orthodox Christians whom owned them in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 1:51 pm
It is unconsciencenable that we Roman Catholics, and those of us in the West who have benefited from Western History and tradition, do not demand that Turkey, and Muslims in general, remove all restrictions on our Orthodox brothers and sisters, as well as allow access and worship in the Holy, historic churches of the East. Our elder brothers and sisters of the First Covenant, the Jewish people, have not confiscated nor restricted access to Al Aqsa yet, we see first hand the “tolerance” in practice, of Islam in the CBS piece. Islam IS NOT a religion of tolerance. It is a psuedo-religion cobbled together from Judaism, Christianty and Animism for the purpose of military conquest and social control. I have no problem leaving Muslims to practise their beliefs w/o interference if they would allow us to do the same in our Holy, historic Churches and our own countries! Once Turkey allows worship in Hagia Sophia, I will begin to consider Islam as a religion of tolerance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:06 pm
Okay, before some blog cop comes along and gigs us for getting off topic…
Did anyone else read as far as the “College of Cardinals” line and groan?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:15 pm
Terry, wouldn’t the Kurds be surprised to learn that Turkey is “99 percent Turkish”? You meant “99 percent Muslim”, no?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:16 pm
Jason forgets about Pope Honorius I and the 3rd Ecumenical Counsels anathamas of him as a Monothelite heretic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:27 pm
What has always frustrated me about the press’ inability to understand and use language like “first among equals” is that they have a model—the Archbishop of Canterbury. His role in the Anglican Communion is similar to that of the Patriarch of Constantinople’s role for Orthodox Christians. Stories about Canterbury usually get this correct. It is such an obvious parallel, in fact, that it leads me to believe that the confusion about the Patriarch’s role is sustained by the Patriarch himself. I would suspect that he does little to disabuse anyone of the mistaken impression that he is the “Orthodox Pope.” A little Orthodox conspiracy-theorizing there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:42 pm
The West can only compare Orthodoxy with the pope as they know nothing else but the pope. It is no conspiracy theory to say that even the church history in the West has been compromised. The pre-schism Church was concilliar. Nobody ever questioned the authority of the pope as nobody had ever heard of it. The terms, catholic and orthodox were the two natures of the undivided church. Universal-for-all, and that which has been belived by all since the beginning and the true-faith right worship. The east wrote the creed with the words, catholic church, this was not written about the Roman Patriarchate, which would become the Roman Catholic Church after the Great Schism but about the entire undivided church.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:51 pm
That was a very good lesson (history). You had enough people from all the Catholic and Orthodox churches give their point of view. I know I can start digging and find the whole story, as this is a shortened version. Instead of me digging deeper maybe you could come out with a long Chronological version.
Iam of the understanding that Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church through the apostles in Jerusalem. This is where Christianity began, Yes or No?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:58 pm
Yes, and the Jerusalem and Antiochan Orthodox Churches go back to the beginning. They were there first, before the Crusades. Long before the great schism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 2:58 pm
The Orthodox Church believes itself to be the true Catholic Church.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 3:00 pm
The Latin Church was there nasmuch as she was in communion with the East. After the great schism Rome needed to insert herself through the crusades into the holy land.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 3:32 pm
Arthur, go here for a timeline of church history. http://www.antiochian.org/orthodox-church-history
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 4:25 pm
The timeline is quite good from http://www.antiochan.org. However, it uses the term “Roman Catholic” when it should really just use “Catholic” (or even Church of Rome), as Roman Catholic/Latin Rite is a liturgical rite within the Catholic Church. For example, Maronite Catholics have a tradition that they were always in communion with Rome (Holy See), even though they were “rediscovered” in the 12th Century during, or after, one of the Crusades.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 4:51 pm
I’m assuming Orthodox4Life’s comment was a joke, which is the only way it makes any sense, unless Constantine’s centuries dead corpse showed up in 1054 to cause trouble. Even leaving aside the mistaken notion that the Great Schism occurred in Constantine’s time, the very idea that he unduly influenced the Church in Rome but not in the Constantinople, the city that he built, named after himself, and made the capital at the height of his power, is more than a bit odd. Constantinople didn’t become a great city and one of the Metropolitan Sees until after the Second Ecumenical Council, the others having been confirmed at the Council of Nicea (which predated Constantinople/New Rome’s erection).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 4:54 pm
Yes, I agree with you that it should say Church of Rome. The Maronites simply misunderstand. The Orthodox Churches were all in communion with Rome before Rome seperated herself from the Orthodox Catholic Churches in 1054 AD.
This term “rediscovered” in the 12th century in simple terms means that they converted to Roman Catholic during the crusades. The Maronite Christians before redsicovering papalism at the tip of a sword were with the Holy Orthodox See of Antioch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:02 pm
FRIENDS:
I apologize for this thread spinning out of control.
I have, somehow, been cut off from receiving email alerts about comments on this one. I don’t know how that happened.
Please cooperate and get back to the journalism issues, while I try to find out what happened!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:06 pm
Misha, you mention Honorius I, but you fail to mention the circumstances surrounding his anathema. Honorius answered some Monothelite questions posed by Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Sergius took the pope’s answers as evidence of Monothelitism, and had a new creed (for lack of a better term) drawn up. He sent a copy to Rome for approval. Honorius had died, but his immediate successors condemned the new creed for being heretical, and the author of the new creed recanted upon word of this. Through the efforts of the Roman Pontiff, the 4th Council was called (which initially condemned Monothelitism), and it was only through the approval of the Pontiff that the 5th Council was called (the Emperor sought to end this heresy once and for all, and so petitioned Rome for a Council).
Answer me this: if the pre-schism Church was concilliar, why did Sergius appeal to Rome and not call a Council? Why did Sergius send the new creed to Rome, if Roman superiority was non-existent? Why did it fall to the Roman Pontiff to declare the idea that Christ had one will (not two distinct wills: Divine and Human) to be heretical?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:19 pm
I don’t understand why the various Patriarch’s of the orthodox faith have a meeting with the Pope, to discuss it’s various problems! I mean meet at a starbucks and have a christian conversation and put all the politics and rubish aside! Pride! Bitterness! Hatred! Deceit! Not Trustworthy! Catholic and Orthodox we need to work together!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:29 pm
First, considering the series of gaffes in the 60 Minutes piece and the fact there was no news deadline involved—why couldn’t they have run the script past someone clearly knowledgeable in the subject of the report??? They didn’t have to give any right to edit to some “outsider” ( a real hang-up in media culture—letting the subject(s) of your completed story read and give suggestions for changes no matter how ignorant some of the stuff in the story might be.
As a Catholic I didn’t catch some of the things in the report many Orthodox rightly found ignorant or wrong. However, I do think 60 Minutes was trying to be sympathetic.
As for who separated from who and when—this seems to be a real cancer of a topic, but in my opinion totally irrelevant except for those on either side who seem to want to keep hard feelings alive. Who cares about that if the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church can come to doctrinal agreement and forge a union around orthodox doctrine TODAY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:32 pm
All of the Holy Ecumenical Councils were ratified at the next council. It took all of the patriarch’s signatures on the documents of the council, not only the bishop of Rome’s. Every bishop had the right to appeal to the Synod to convene another council. Patriarch Sergius was a heretic like Pope Honorius. Two birds of a feather. Of the 1,199 bishops that attended all 7 Holy Ecumenical Councils, 1,189 were from the east, only 10 came from the Latin West. Rome played a very minor role when you see it from this perspective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:44 pm
Take the debates about church history to some other site, folks, UNLESS they directly relate to journalism issues in the CBS report.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:49 pm
Okay sorry! Merry Christmas!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 5:50 pm
Bob Simon really said that!!!!
I don’t think he understood that there was no Constantinople until Constantine built it at the site of a small place call Byzantium in the 300s.
It was not one of the three original patriarchies, recognized “by ancient custom” at the Council of Nicea as Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. Jerusalem was added when pilgrims began travelling to the Holy Land after many years of few Christians abiding there. Then in 381 at the Council of Constantinople and later the Council of Chalcedon, New Rome - Constantinople was added.
And Simon compared the closing of a seminary to the closing down of the “College of Cardinals”???? He must not know what the College of Cardinals is.
Why the need to compare the Patriarch with the Pope? Like an earlier commenter stated - there is a somewhat similar situation with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
And - did Bob Abernathy not understand that Constantinople was once part of Greece? Or that there was a forced exchange of Turks and Greeks after WWI like there was between India and Pakistan?
Travelling all the way to Turkey, you would think there would be time to read up on some of these basic points on the plane.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 6:00 pm
Patriarchates.
sorry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 7:28 pm
With religion reporting in the media, I think we all need to keep one thing in mind. Ask yourself “how accurately does the media report on and portray my faith?”. Usually the answer is “not very well”. Ergo, we should not expect media reporting on the Ecumenical Patriarch to be free of inaccuracies, and we should not use the news media as a source of reliable information on doctrines or histories of any religion or faith.
As any good librarian will tell you, one needs to be information literate today more so than ever, and news reports, from an information literacy point of view, have never been looked upon as authoritative sources of information. A prime example is how the main stream media fails to properly explain papal infallibility - they don’t understand that very, very few popes ever pronounce a new doctrine and that even then, those are done in consultation with the bishops. I’ve never seen that explained anywhere but in Catholic publications.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 7:49 pm
I think we all noticed the wrongs within the piece. The differences between East & West, everything from hesycasm to the filioque can be argued back and forth with both sides scoring points against the other. And this helps the problem how? I’m not sure this piece should be the catalyst for such discussions, there is a time and place for that and this isn’t that time or place. The question that begs answering from a piece like this is what can be done to help stop the persecution? What can we in the West (and yes I am a latin) & East do to help the Patriarch, his Patriarcate and his flock? Don’t we, via brotherhood in the cross, have a responsibility to help? Can anything be done? Naturally, we pray! Let’s not lose ourselves in the purist arguments. Let’s discuss solutions (if indeed there is one).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 21, 2009, at 8:39 pm
Still spiking away.
Stick to the journalism issues, people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 1:13 am
Sorry for a second mistake I just noticed. Bob Abernathy would have been much better informed, I’m sure.
Gotta wait longer to hit “submit comment”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 2:51 am
I think the topic was how the press dosen’t get religion. Every year there are the two great feasts of journalistic ignorance, otherwise known as Christmas (“What Really happened at Christmas?”) and Easter (“What Really Happened at Easter?”). The feasts are steeped in tradition. They have never changing recitation of the same tired drivel from one year to the next, the same attempts to find something hidden for centuries but ONLY NOW being brought to light by this year’s crack team of writers. A snipe hunt twice a year. It’s boring to watch but it does make one take a sober look at journalism in general. It’s easy to imagine how many spectacular blunders the press makes on every other subject there is. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything’s a nail, right? If the only religious framework you have (And a pretty lame idea of it at that) is Roman Catholicism, everything is a Vatican, right? The journalists are just as well informed about Christianity east of Italy as the Crusaders were.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 2:43 pm
What was good in the report?
1. A major news program actually went to the Phanar (which the majority of people in the U.S. have never heard of.
2. Given that we Orthodox are NOT a protestant denomination, I was fine with the comparison to Rome, Vatican City, the Pope’s office…it was quite eye-opening, especially when one considers how beautiful/elaborately decorated our churches are and how humbly the E.P. lives. I think that, despite the obvious & valid frustration with likening him to the Pope, it is an easier comparison for most people I know than to be compared to Anglicans.
3. What? Christians have been and are being forced out of a Muslim country even while Muslims are being forbidden from building minarets in Sweden? Who knew? Thank you, CBS, for opening our eyes to the injustice taking place in Turkey against Orthodox Christians!
4. Did we catch a glimpse of the fact that the Turkish secular government has closed a seminary and put restrictions on the purely Christian religious tradition of training priests, monks, future bishops, AND who is allowed to succeed His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew when the time comes? Not fully, but yes, CBS gave us that glimpse.
5. Did we actually get to see the edict by the Prophet Mohammed with HIS signature, housed at St. Catherine’s Monastery, granting protection and peaceful cohabitation with Orthodox Christians? I saw it for the first time.
6. Did CBS allow His All Holiness to speak boldly and bravely to millions of viewers about his plight, and the plight of Orthodox Christians and their institutions in Turkey, in his own words? Sure seemed that way to me.
All in all, despite some of the bad reporting, I really enjoyed this segment, and am recommending it to everyone I know. And may God help and protect the Orthodox Christian in Turkey right now, in the aftermath of this CBS story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 5:34 pm
Gilad suggests a solution for our ecumenical problem:
“I mean meet at a starbucks and have a christian conversation and put all the politics and rubish aside!”
That could make things worse, you know.
There was a fire at a certain large brewery in Dublin earlier today, sowe may have to stick with Starbucks, after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 6:32 pm
Oh those Christmas and Easter specials -as bob pointed out— on the MSM, the History Channel, and Discovery. They interview the most off-the-wall historians and unorthodox religious professors and writers possible—then treat their inane, inaccurate, fraudulent rantings as Gospel Truth.
In both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the official teachers of Gospel Truth are the bishops (or, in the Catholic Faith, the bishops in communion with Rome).
Someday I would like to see bishops interviewed and treated with the same reverence shown to sensation mongers and professional media “iconoclasts” with regard to Christian beliefs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 22, 2009, at 7:02 pm
Here it comes—-some Catholic internet sites are reporting that the Turkish government is furious at some of the truthful things Patriarch Bartholomew said on 60 Minutes about the persecution of Christians in Turkey, especially his comment about feeling crucified there.
What comes next????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 23, 2009, at 1:41 am
If they are not allowed to run their school, that is indeed persecution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 23, 2009, at 8:10 am
Who is among “Equal” with the Pope? The various Patriarchal See’s? Are they still functional and communicating? ex. Coptic, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russian, Greek, who speaks for these Orthodox and why don’t we hear from them or at least be a voice with the Pope! Growing up my mom would always sign herself when she passed a Catholic Church, and then she would look at me and say Jesus is there, i am much older now and make the same gesture when passing not only a Catholic Church but also any Orthodox Church that i know of, as my mom would say “Jesus is there”! Blessed Christ-mas to All!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 23, 2009, at 10:04 am
Stick to the journalism issues, people.
Well, that certainly cuts out discussing anything about Bob Simon and 60 Minutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 23, 2009, at 3:06 pm
If the bishop of Rome returned his Roman Church back to the Orthodox fold he would have the position of “Ecumenical Patriarch” now held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The bishop of Rome would be “first amongst equals”. This is a position of honor, not of power or jurisdiction. In simple terms all of our patriarchal bishops are equal to the pope.
I am under the Patriarch of Moscow. I respect and honor His Holiness Bartholemew but he is not my patriarch. I only have to abide by what my patriarch tells me to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 24, 2009, at 2:36 pm
The difficulty the Press has in reporting on Orthodox Church matters is to get on to the idea that a bishop is a bishop to Orthodox. To Roman Catholics a short way of putting it is that there is exactly one bishop, of the Diocese Of Earth. The Orthodox urgently remind people that at an “Ecumenical Council” every bishop has one vote no matter how great or small the flock. There is one vote, period, to Roman Catholics.
Having talked about the Patriarch in Istanbul, the Press hasn’t done a story about more than one (dwindling) flock and its former status as a great big flock, though the bishop there continues to wear the uniform of his predecessors. Do one next week about any other ancient city that once had a big Christian presence but has been overrun by Muslims (Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Smyrna, Ephesus) and you get the rest of the pathetic history of Eastern Christendom in the east. The ancient sees are popular sentimental ornaments for the Orthodox. They are our pyramids. The actual living churches are in Russia, Greece and the west.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 29, 2009, at 12:49 pm
The Ancient Holy Sees and their dwindling flocks is indeed a sad event. This is due to the intolence of the Turkish populace. Yes, one bishop one vote. This is the concilliar nature of the church. This is properly “catholic” as the church has been concilliar since the beginning. To quote Timothy (Kallistos)Ware, “The four ancient Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. As discussed here, though greatly reduced in size, these four Churches for historical reasons occupy a special position in the Orthodox Church, and rank first in honor. The heads of these four Churches bear the title Patriarch. There are eleven other autocephalous Churches: Russia, Romania, Serbia (in Yugoslavia), Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Poland, Albania, Czechoslovakia and Sinai. All except three of these Churches — Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Albania — are in countries where the Christian population is entirely or predominantly Orthodox. The Churches of Greece, Cyprus, and Sinai are Greek; five of the others — Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland — are Slavonic. The heads of the Russian, Romanian, Serbian, and Bulgarian Churches are known by the title Patriarch; the head of the Georgian Church is called Catholicos-Patriarch; the heads of the other churches are called either Archbishop or Metropolitan. There are in addition several Churches which, while self-governing in most respects, have not yet attained full independence. These are termed “autonomous” but not “autocephalous”: Finland, Japan and China. There are ecclesiastical provinces in western Europe, in North and South America, and in Australia, which depend on the different Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches. In some areas this Orthodox “diaspora” is slowly achieving self-government. In particular, steps have been taken to form an autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, but this has not yet been officially recognized by the majority of other Orthodox Churches. Among the various Churches there is, as can be seen, an enormous variation in size, with Russia at one extreme and Sinai at the other. The different Churches also vary in age, some dating back to Apostolic times, while others are less than a generation old. The Church of Czechoslovakia, for example, only became autocephalous in 1951. Such are the Churches which make up the Orthodox communion as it is today.”
Today in the US the Antiochan Church in America is growing by leaps and bounds. These churches are filled to the brim with converts from the Roman Catholicism and every stripe of Protestantism. Non Orthodox visitors in regular attendance.
Saying that the actual living churches are in Russia, Greece and the west without mentioning what is said above
is grossly inacurate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0