Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 7, 2014 in Apostasy, ecumenical patriarch bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Ecumenism, Ecumenism Rome, Eighth Ecumenical Council, Moscow Patriarchate, MP, mp and ecumenism, MP RC, World Orthodox | 23 comments

Phanar “First Without Equals” Holds Ecumenist/Modernist Synaxis

According to the website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the heads of the various Ecumenist and/or Sergianist ‘World Orthodox’ groups have met at a Synaxis that will last from March 6-9 (NS).  The Phanar website states:

At the invitation of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the First-Hierarchs of all the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches will gather from March 6-9, 2014, for a Sacred Synaxis at the Phanar in order to deliberate on matters pertaining to the entire Orthodox Church throughout the world and procedural issues for the convocation of the Holy and Great Council, whose preparation is coming to an end.

Prior to this, from March 4-5, 2014, a Preparatory Committee for the Synaxis was also held at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, chaired by His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, in order to formulate the program of proceedings and draft the Message of the First-Hierarchs, who will conclude the Synaxis with a concelebration on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the venerable Patriarchal Church of St. George, thereby also visibly expressing the unity of Orthodoxy.

During this festive Divine Liturgy on the occasion of great feast of Orthodoxy, the Message of the First-Hierarchs will be read from the Patriarchal Ambon to the faithful of the Most Holy Churches throughout the world.

 

A number of confirmatory photos were also taken. The meeting of the various heterodox hierarchs was preceded by not only a preparatory meeting, but, by the new position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as expounded by the New Calendar titular Phanar Metropolitan of Bursa, Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, a professor of theology at the University of Thessalonika. The position, summed up by Met. Elpidophoros states:

The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing to do with the diptychs, which, as we have already said, merely express this hierarchical ranking (which, again in contradictory terms the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concedes implicitly but denies explicitly). If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of such primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople, and thus as Ecumenical Patriarch is the first without equals (primus sine paribus).

The constant harking of this new teaching is a thinly veiled attempt at not only gaining power for the Ecumenist/Modernist heretical Ecumenical Patriarchate, but, it is a preparation for unity with Papism.  By establishing new rights and privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (presumably based upon ancient tradition), and stating that these accrue to the ‘highest-ranking’ prelate of their communion, it will be only a slim transition to recognition of some transference of these rights to the Papacy.  Indeed, Met. Elpidophoros himself states:

In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople. In the case of the archbishop of Constantinople, we observe the unique concomitance of all three levels of primacy, namely the local (as Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome), the regional (as Patriarch), and the universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch). This threefold primacy translates into specific privileges, such as the right of appeal and the right to grant or remove autocephaly (examples of the latter are the Archdioceses-Patriarchates of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo, etc.), a privilege that the Ecumenical Patriarch exercised even in cases of some modern Patriarchates, not yet validated by decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the first of which is that of Moscow.

This proposed three-fold primacy reflects the long held Papist argument that the Pope of Rome held three levels of authority. Whether it came before or after, the 14th century tiara of the Western Popes, was also interpreted in a similar fashion. The Papists held the Pope to be Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, and, at last, Universal Pontiff. Thus, upon the next council, for which this current synaxis is also a preparation, when universal formal union is proposed (as opposed to the current mix of informal and formal union held already), there can be no objection upon the issue of Papal primacy, as the Ecumenical Patriarch has already had the above enunciated position accepted. At that point, it will only be a matter of ‘giving back’ the so-called ‘primacy’ to the Pope.

Indeed, many were initially saying that the MP would be some firm resister to the Neo-Papal Pretensions of the Phanar, since Met.  Elpidophoros wrote the official response of the Phanar in response to points made by the MP offering a seeming resistance. However, as evidenced by Pat. Kirill’s attendance at this meeting, it seems that such resistance was and is token only.  All of this, the faux fight between the MP and the Phanar, was simply another “Only Nixon can go to China” strategy.  If the MP is built up as the paragon of “World Orthodox conservatism”, and the MP proclaims that some ‘middle-ground’ has been reached, it will seem to both sides (the superficial ‘Orthodox’ public), as if both have gained.  Or, better yet for the Ecumenists/Sergianists, the MP totally gives in (which is just as likely, it appears).  This way, through this process, the MP can assure itself that there will be only a trickle, at most of persons leaving it for True Orthodox Churches. In an evil manner, it is an excellent political move.

Related posts:

  • Ra’al Dara

    This is truly diabolical! The antichrist will soon be revealed!

    • Jason

      -Said the Old Believers over 300 years ago, and says those today who are caught in the same sectarian delusion.

      • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

        Awesome. Our hope in our Lord’s return after the coming tribulation has been replaced by a cynical semi-chiliasm.

    • HmkEnoch

      Perhaps he will. But, nevertheless, Ra’al Dara, many believed this with the apostasy of the Roman Church and the West; St. Gregory Dialogus 500 years earlier feared its quick arrival for many reasons. Our purpose is, while not at all questioning the Orthodox Christian patristic teaching on the Antichrist, etc, is to nevertheless continue.

  • Fr. Michael Azkoul

    Ecumenists either do not know or do not care what constitutes Orthodox ecclesiology. It was first cast aside with when half century ago Patriarch Athenagoras presumptuously and arbitrarily negated the Anathemas against Papism. He seemed unaware that that only the entire Church has the right to abrogate the Anathemas. Athenagoras altered the traditional idea of the Church when he pretentiously played the role of an Orthodox pope. That was his heresy. Now look at the fruit of his arrogance. Unforgiveable! Now the world believes that no religion may claim to be the true Church, the Church established by Christ Himself. Multi-culturalism, multi-churchism! The odious concept of socialist “egalitarianism” has crept into the minds of too many people. I may not be here when the physical persecution of the Church becomes public and widespread.

    • HmkEnoch

      Indeed, Fr. Michael; the Ecumenical Patriarch even has the false Pope of Rome commemorated liturgically.

      • Jason

        Do you have proof of this that you can share?

        • HmkEnoch

          Of course. Video here:

          Go to time index 19:36; the Priest during the ecumenical doxology at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, commemorates Pope Benedict first and then Patriarch Bartholomew.

          • Jason

            Yes, I recall this ridiculous and unfortunate service. You said, however, that the EP “has” the Pope commemorated liturgically, not “once had”. Many in the Church expressed their indignation at this betrayal when it occurred. Do you have evidence that the EP *has* the Pope commemorated in liturgies as a matter of course or was this an isolated event?

          • NFTU

            Ludicrous. Not every Papal/Phanar liturgy has made it to YouTube, but this practice has been documented for years now with witnesses.

            The fact that it makes it to YouTube now only confirms what witnesses have in fact said for decades. Treating it as an isolated event when this has been occurring since the 70′s isn’t just wrong– it’s illogical.

          • Jason

            “Treating it as an isolated event when this has been occurring since the 70′s isn’t just wrong– it’s illogical.”

            It is not illogical to wonder if this was an isolated incident when I have only seen one isolated incident. Not every liturgy at the Phanar makes it to YouTube, but certainly there is more than one that you can point out. Such evidence must truly abound if, as you claim, the Pope has been commemorated at every liturgy at the Phanar since the 1970s.

          • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

            These are a few listed examples from the 70′s. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/commem_pope.aspx

            Of course, back then the claim was to deny it and claim we were extremists.

          • Jason

            If the Pope was commemorated, then why was he not permitted to commune at the Phanar? This is ecclesological schizophrenia.

          • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

            Deniability, deniability, deniability.

        • Fr. Michael Azkoul

          Follow the course of “Orthodox” ecumenism. Do you not see that with the elimination of the Anathema, the question becomes — what prevents reunion. One step follows another in the process of reconciliation. Now we are “two lungs” and “sister churches.” The Orthodox did not talk that way at Oberlin.

          • Jason

            Most Orthodox do not talk that way today, nor do the “lifting of anathemas” seem to have any significance, outside of the EP. The EPs have isolated themselves through these scandalous words and acts which are not accepted or endorsed by the other Patriarchates. Hopefully the others will help put a stop to this madness.

          • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

            And the Antiochian madness, the Alexandrian madness, the Finnish madness, the neo-nationalist Russian madness…. putting all the blame on the EP just isn’t honest.

            Ecumenism did its job in World Orthodoxy. It created a world of “relativist Orthodoxy”, and while you say “most [world] Orthodox don’t believe that way”, ask them if they believe in different ways to get to heaven.

            You’ll get a variety of answers on that question.

    • Jason

      “Now look at the fruit of his arrogance. Unforgiveable! Now the world believes that no religion may claim to be the true Church, the Church established by Christ Himself. Multi-culturalism, multi-churchism! ”

      This is the way things have been going throughout the works since before the 1960s. To attribute these developments to the “fruit” of Athenagoras’ unfortunate gesture is quite a stretch.

    • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

      Evlogite!

      Why is “mullti-culturalism” always thrown in with multi-churchism? Flipped on its head, there’s an implication of a “superior race” I find deeply disturbing. Unless we are talking about the Christian race, which supersedes all fallen human cultures.

      Without Christ, all men of all nations, races, and colors are just dust.

  • Fr. Michael Azkoul

    Do you remember that after WWI an attempt was to form a WCC in imitation of the League of Nations. Both fizzled but after WW2 a similar attempt was made once more. In truth, there is a an attempt to form one world government and one world religion. Such ideas were born of 19th century monism and development.

    • Deacon Joseph @ NFTU

      I am obviously not a fan of one-world government but I believe a healthy level of multiculturalism in fact protects against the need for interculturalist policies which are in fact what most people are against.

      Regardless, as Christians we have a responsibility to attempt to bring all men to Christ– if we fail in that mission we have only ourselves to blame.

      When it starts looking like global government is the order of the day, I’m running.

      • HmkEnoch

        By ‘multiculturalism’, Fr. Joseph, I assume you mean the peaceful co-existence of, let’s say, in one town, of Mexican, Chinese, Bolivian, etc languages, foods, etc. You can have Orthodox Mexcians, Chinese, Bolivians, who speak their own languages, have their own traditional foods, etc, as long as these things do not offend against Orthodoxy. I believe, unless I’m mistaken, that Fr. Michael believes it is impossible for an Orthodox culture to exist where there is not a dominant culture that does away with others (like, say, Greek culture abrogating the use of Spanish, Portugese, language, food, etc).

  • Fr. Michael Azkoul

    “Multiculturalism” is relativism, a concept with socialist presuppositions; it is cultural Marxism.