Στον Πατριάρχη Αλεξανδρείας το βραβείο Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων «Αθηναγόρας 2022» του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου

Orthodoxia news agency

Με τις ευλογίες του Σεβασμιωτάτου Αρχιεπισκόπου Αμερικής κ. Ελπιδοφόρου, το Τάγμα του Αγίου Αποστόλου Ανδρέα, οι Άρχοντες του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου, ανακοινώνει ότι το Βραβείο Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων «Αθηναγόρας 2022» θα απονεμηθεί στον Μακαριώτατο Πάπα και Πατριάρχη Αλεξανδρείας κ.κ. Θεόδωρο Β’. Ο Μακαριώτατος υπήρξε ακούραστος υπερασπιστής του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου και αποφασισμένος υπέρμαχος της θρησκευτικής ελευθερίας. Το βραβείο θα απονεμηθεί το Σάββατο 8 Οκτωβρίου 2022 στο ετήσιο συμπόσιο του Τάγματος, όπου αποδίδεται το βραβείο για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα «Αθηναγόρας». Η τελετή θα γίνει στο ξενοδοχείο New York Hilton στη Νέα Υόρκη. ...

Ο Μακαριώτατος Πάπας και Πατριάρχης Αλεξανδρείας και πάσης Αφρικής Θεόδωρος Β’ γεννήθηκε στην Κρήτη το 1954, όπου και ολοκλήρωσε τις σπουδές του. Είναι απόφοιτος της Ριζαρείου Εκκλησιαστικής Σχολής Αθηνών και πτυχιούχος της Θεολογικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης. Σπούδασε επίσης Ιστορία της Τέχνης, Λογοτεχνία και Φιλοσοφία στην Οδησσό της Ρωσίας. Στις 9 Οκτωβρίου 2004 εξελέγη ομόφωνα από τους Ιεράρχες του Αλεξανδρινού Θρόνου Πάπας και Πατριάρχης Αλεξανδρείας και πάσης Αφρικής.

Το Βραβείο Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων «Αθηναγόρας» καθιερώθηκε το 1986 από το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο του Τάγματος του Αγίου Ανδρέα του Αποστόλου, Τάγμα Αρχόντων του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου στην Αμερική. Το βραβείο πήρε το όνομά του από έναν από τους μεγάλους εκκλησιαστικούς ηγέτες του 20ου αιώνα, τον αείμνηστο Οικουμενικό Πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Αθηναγόρα Α’. Το βραβείο απονέμεται κάθε χρόνο στο Ετήσιο Δείπνο του Τάγματος σε ένα πρόσωπο ή οργανισμό που μεριμνά με συνέπεια για τα βασικά δικαιώματα και τη θρησκευτική ελευθερία όλων των ανθρώπων.

Archons.org/

ΣΤΟΝ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟ ΑΜΠΕΛΩΝΑ ΤΗΣ ΑΦΡΙΚΗΣ

Coronavirus: "As we continue practicing social distancing... Let us remain praying unceasingly" Kenya

Neofitos Kong'ai

In the Orthodox Vineyard of Africa

"As we continue practicing social distancing, self quarantine, 7 PM curfew hand washing and all manner of sanitation just but to name a few, let us also not forget that Christ is present and active. Let us keep our eyes set on him as we wade over this storm. I know we all miss being with our friends and families, we miss our church and church services particularly during this time of Great Lent, we miss the Eucharistic celebration, we miss school, we miss work, we feel deprived etc...but there is one thing that we need to know that; everything is being done for our own good and we need to show an act of responsibility, love, sacrifice, patience and humility knowing that there is one whom we cannot miss, the one who is in dwelling in us, our father in heaven who is full of mercy and compassion.

All these might be difficult to comprehend at this time, but we will come to realize at the fullness of time when he will reveal himself in totality.
The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has given us create insight to this that; “perhaps some of you feel that these drastic measures (that is closing of churches) undermine or harm our faith. However, that which is at stake is not our faith but the faithful, not Christ but the Christians, not the Divine-Man but the human being.”
 
Metropolitan Alexander of Nigeria my beloved brother in the lord also states; “ we are called to see the suspension of our participation in the liturgies as nothing else but as a pure act of responsibility, love and sacrifice for the safety of the other and the community which we live in. This is something new since we are not living in times of persecution.None of the Orthodox Christians believed or could ever believe and accept that the Holy Eucharist can become a source of transmission of a virus or disease. There inside the chalice is the total Christ, his body and His precious blood.”
I pray that we remain strong in Faith and be courageous with the hope and believe that we shall cross over the desert of despair and arrive in the promised land of hope and joy. We are pinned down but not crushed, We will resurrect again for Christ is fully present and active. Let us remain praying unceasingly." 

OLD PROBLEMS IN THE NEW WORLD: A Forum on Modern Slavery in the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Ecumenical Patriarchate (the title from here)

1. We, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, and Justin, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, co-sponsored a special international Forum on Modern Slavery titled “Sins Before Our Eyes” at the Phanar from February 6-7, 2017. The Forum, originally proposed during the official visit by the Ecumenical Patriarch to Lambeth Palace in November 2015, was a high-level gathering of distinguished scholars, practitioners and policymakers from around the world, invited to discuss the contemporary problem of human exploitation. The Forum also takes place within the context of 2017: The Year of the Sanctity of Childhood, as declared by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
2. For religious communities worldwide and for the global human-rights community, the protection of human dignity and fundamental human rights is of utmost importance. The role of the Church in the world is “to preach good news to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives and to set at liberty the oppressed.” (Isaiah 61.1, Luke 4.18) This was clearly articulated in the final Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, June 2016): “The Church lives not for herself. She offers herself for the whole of humanity in order to raise up and renew the world into a new heaven and a new earth.”
3. We are convinced that there is an intimate and inseparable link between preserving God’s natural creation and protecting God’s image in every human being, especially those most vulnerable to the myriad forms of human exploitation that comprise the sin of modern slavery. The same arrogance and greed are to blame for the oppression and exploitation of innocent victims – most often children and women – of human trafficking, human smuggling, prostitution, the sale of human organs, indentured labor, and the many other dimensions of modern slavery. Each and every person bears the burden and pays the price for the fact that there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in history.
4. In his keynote address, the Ecumenical Patriarch observed: “The Orthodox Church is often accused of neglecting the world for the sake of liturgical worship and spiritual life, turning primarily toward the Kingdom of God to come, disregarding challenges of the present. In fact, however, whatever the Church says, whatever the Church does, is done in the Name of God and for the sake of human dignity and the eternal destiny of the human being. It is impossible for the Church to close its eyes to evil, to be indifferent to the cry of the needy, oppressed and exploited. True Faith is a source of permanent struggle against the powers of inhumanity.” In his opening address, Archbishop Welby emphasized: “Slavery is all around us, but we are too blind to see it. It is in our hands, and yet we are too insensitive to touch it. The enslaved are next to us in the streets, but we are too ignorant to walk alongside them. It must not be relegated to a footnote in history. It is still a living reality in all of our communities, as I have seen from personal experience in the United Kingdom, not because we think it is acceptable, but because our sin lies in blindness and ignorance.”
5. Therefore,
   1. We condemn all forms of human enslavement as the most heinous of sins, inasmuch as it violates the free will and the integrity of every human being created in the image of God.
   2. We commend the efforts of the international community and endorse the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children.
   3. We pray that all victims of modern slavery may be liberated in order to rebuild their lives and that the perpetrators may be brought to justice.
   4. We repent for not doing nearly enough swiftly enough to curb the plague of modern slavery, acknowledging that our ignorance and indifference are the worst forms of tolerance and complicity. We are judged each day by what we refuse to see and fail to do for the most vulnerable among us.
   5. We appeal to local and national governments to pass and implement strict laws against modern slavery, with a budget and capability to ensure organizations are held to account for modern slavery in their supply chains, while also allocating resources and services for trafficking victims, who are exposed to and endangered by such injustice.
   6. We encourage our leaders to find appropriate and effective ways of prosecuting those involved in human trafficking, preventing all forms of modern slavery, and protecting its victims in our communities and promoting hope wherever people are exploited.
   7. We urge our faithful and communities – the members of the Orthodox Church and the Church of England – as well as all people of good will to become educated, raise awareness, and take action with regard to these tragedies of modern slavery, and to commit themselves to working and praying actively towards the eradication of this scourge against humanity.
   8. We commit to the establishment of a joint taskforce for modern slavery to bring forward timely recommendations as to how the Orthodox Church and the Church of England can collaborate in the battle against this cruel exploitation.

At the Phanar, February 7, 2017

✠ BARTHOLOMEW Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch

✠ JUSTIN Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England

A TREASURE REVEALED AT THE PATRIARCHAL LIBRARY IN ALEXANDRIA

Patriarchate of Alexandria & all Africa

On 7th August 2018, His Beatitude Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, welcomed to the Board Room of the patriarchal Mansion in Alexandria, the representatives of the Department of Preservation and Restoration of Manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, in order for them to return the 10th batch eight restored manuscripts of the Patriarchal Library, which were preserved and digitalized by kind sponsorship of the A.G. LEVENTI Foundation in Cyprus.

These are books dating back to the 15th century, among them the handwritten and signed "Dogmatiki", the work of st Meletius Pegas (1468 ["N": ?]) and the rare Evangelistarion in the Arabic language (1473), from the Mameluk era. 

During the handover, His Beatitude the Patriarch was astonished when the specialists announced that within the binding of the manuscript, a built-in Pastoral Circular signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II, called Tranos, was revealed.

His Beatitude praised the preservation, restoration and digitalization efforts of these manuscripts of the Patriarchal Library which is part of the Library of Alexandria, thanked the A.G. Leventi Foundation for its contribution, noting that the collaboration between the Patriarchal Library of Alexandria and the Library of Alexandria brings productive results that play a decisive role in preserving our cultural heritage.

Meletius I Pegas of Alexandria (from Wikipedia)

 

Meletius I Pegas (Greek: Μελέτιος Πηγάς; 1549 – 12 September 1601) served as Greek Patriarch of Alexandria between 1590 and 1601. Simultaneously from 1597 to 1598 he served also as locum tenens of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. He is honoured as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church,^[1] with his feast day held on September 13.^[2][3]

Icon from here

Meletius was born in Candia (Heraklion) in the island of Crete, at the time capital of the Venetian Kingdom of Candia in 1549,^[4] and he studied classical philology, philosophy and medicine in Padua. He became protosyncellus of the Patriarch of Alexandria Silvester, at whose death he succeeded on 5 August 1590.^[5]

Even if he supported the doctrine of transubstantiation, he was a fierce opponent of the Catholic Church, and worked for the reunion of the Greek Church with the Coptic Church. In 1593 he participated in a synod in Constantinople which confirmed the establishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow.^[1]
Without resigning as Patriarch of Alexandria, he served as locum tenens of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople between December 1596 and February 1597, and from end March 1597 to March or April 1598, when he resigned to go on dealing only with his Egyptian see.^[4]
He died in Alexandria on 12 September 1601.^[4]

  

MELETIOS PIGAS (1590-1601)

From the site of the Patriarchate of Alexandria

 
He was the Chancellor of the Patriarchate of Alexandria during the Patriarchal tenure of Sylvester, his predecessor, whom he succeeded to the Patriarchal Throne. He faced overwhelming financial debts of the Church to the Sultan. He also stood against the activities of proselytism by the Jesuit monks against the Orthodox Christians of Egypt.
He participated in the work of the Local Synod in 1593 in Constantinople , on the ratification of the establishment of a Russian Patriarchate. He tried to bring about the unity of the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia (Abyssinia) with the Orthodox, but also saw to more general pastoral, inter-Christian and inter-Church issues. He was also the “Supervisor” of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He died aged 52 and is honoured as a Saint of the Church.

Ecumenican Patriarch Jeremias II Tranos (from Orthodoxwiki)
 
Jeremias II Tranos was the Patriarch of Constantinople during the last quarter of the sixteenth century. He served as patriarch for three separate periods: from 1572 to 1579, from 1580 to 1584, and from 1587 to 1595. During his first term as patriarch, Jeremias engaged in correspondence with Lutheran theologians of the University of Tubingen concerning inclinations of the Patriarchate toward a union of the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches. He was a sound theologian, an ardent reformer, and a fierce enemy to simony (simony is the act of selling church offices and roles. It is named after Simon Magus, who is described in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9–24 as having offered two disciples of Jesus, Peter and John, payment in exchange for their empowering him to impart the power of the Holy Spirit to anyone on whom he would place his hands. The term extends to other forms of trafficking for money in "spiritual things.", from here).

In the year 1536 Jeremias was born into the influential Greek Tranos family in the town of Anchialos, Pontus, today known as Pomorie, on the southern Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. He was the pupil of three scholars of the day: Hierotheos of Monemvasia, Arsenios of Tirnovo and Damaskinos the Stoudite, who themselves had been students of Theophanes Eleavoulkos. He was also for a while the student of the scholar Matthew the Cretan.
At the time he was first elected to the Patriarchal throne on May 5, 1572, at the age 36, Jeremias had been Metropolitan of Larisa. When he was installed to that see of Larisa is unknown. After becoming patriarch, Jeremias set upon reorganizing the Church of Constantinople and embarked on a policy of reemphasizing the canons and existing ecclesiastical laws. He also strove to improve the financial situation of the Patriarchate. 
Jeremias maintained contacts with the noted Orthodox personalities of his day. He also was successful in obtaining certain privileges from the Sultan for the Greek minorities within the Ottoman Empire, particularly in establishment of schools. Through his influence seven schools were opened during the sixteenth century. In the following centuries another 40 schools were opened across Greece and Asia Minor.
During his first term as patriarch, Jeremias received a number of letters from the Lutheran theologians of the University of Tubingen that proposed union between the Orthodox Church and the Lutheran Church. This represented the first significant theological exchanges between the Orthodox and Protestants. The correspondence was initiated by a letter, delivered by Stephen Gerlach, the chaplain at the German Embassy to the Sublime Porte (Sultan’s seat of government), on October 15, 1573. This event began an exchange of theological positions over the next several years. 

The letters in reply were written for Patr. Jeremias by his notary, Theodosios Zygomalas. At first, Jeremias’ replies were compilations of the Church Fathers and more recent writers. A second letter of September 15, 1574, followed by a third dated March 20, 1575 from Tubingen included a Greek translation of the “Augsburg Confession” and Greek translations of sermons by Jakob Andre, the chancellor of the University of Tubingen that defined the Lutheran creed. Jeremias’ reply of May 15, 1576 summarized those points upon which there was agreement between the Orthodox and Lutheran doctrines and those on which there was no agreement, with explanations on the Orthodox views on each question. In the correspondence during the following years until 1581 it became clear that the theological differences were not reconcilable and the correspondence came to an end. 

Patr. Jeremias, as other patriarchs of the Ottoman era, was caught in the intrigues and politics that surrounded the Patriarchal office under the Ottomans. He came to the office after his predecessor, Metrophanes III, was removed from office, allegedly for pro-Roman tendencies and the desire of the Sultan to limit the duration of a patriarch’s time in office. Jeremias was replaced for a short period again by Metrophanes III before he was re-elected a second time. Jeremias was then deposed a second time from office in 1584 through the intrigues of Pachomius, who succeeded him, before returning as patriarch in 1586 after the deposition of Theoleptus II who had succeeded Pachomius.
With the issuance of a new civil calendar by a papal decree on February 24, 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, bearing his name, its consideration and rejection was the subject of three councils in Constantinople convened by Patr. Jeremias. The councils and principal members were:

The 1583 Council of Constantinople held on November 20, 1583 with Patriarchs Jeremias II (Tranos) of Constantinople, Sylvester of Alexandria, Sophronius IV of Jerusalem, with other hierarchs. Issued Sigillion of 1583

The 1587 Council of Constantinople with Patriarchs Jeremias II of Constantinople and Sophronius IV of Jerusalem and Meletius Pegas, representing the Church of Alexandria.

The 1593 Council of Constantinople held in February 1593 in the Church of the Mother of God of Consolation, with Patriarchs Jeremias II of Constantinople, Joachim of Antioch, and Meletius I Pegas of Alexandria, and Sophronius IV of Jerusalem.

In 1589, Jeremias, acting on a request of Boris Godunov during reign of the Tsar Theodore (Feodor I) of Moscow, and with the concurrence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, formalized the autocephaly of the Church of Russia as a new patriarchate by installing Metropolitan Job of Moscow as the first Patriarch of Moscow during a visit to Moscow in January, 1589, thus recognizing the independence of Russian Church that it had declared since 1448.
In 1595, Jeremias II reposed in Constantinople while still patriarch.

Legacy

Jeremias II is thought to be probably the ablest patriarch to have sat on the Patriarchal throne in Constantinople during the Ottoman period. He had surrounded himself with able and learned men who were knowledgeable in Greek and Latin thought during times of intrigue and Ottoman subjection. Recognizing the importance of the newly invented printing press, he founded the first publishing house in Constantinople. ^[1]

Click

Bibliotheca Alexandrina: Home
 
The Orthodox Church of Alexandria & the Patriarchate of Alexandria 

How “White” is the Orthodox Church?

Orthodox Mission in Tropical Africa (& the Decolonization of Africa)

Ancient Christian faith (Orthodox Church) in Africa  

Theosis (deification): The True Purpose of Human Life 
 

2nd International Conference on ‘Digital Media and Orthodox Pastoral Care’ - Open Invitation to Participate in the Conference

Living water

In our own time, which is characterized by the prevalence of electronic means of information and communication, the life-giving message of the Resurrection must be present in the language used by our contemporaries. Today, when expression and communication between people is undergoing a seismic shift, with web pages, social networks, e-mail, the abolition of distances of time and geography, distance learning and digital identities, the need for an authentic spiritual validation of human life is even more imperative.

Interested parties who wish to contribute an academic paper at the 2nd International Conference on ‘Digital Media and Orthodox Pastoral Care’, which will be held from 18 to 21 June 2018 at the Orthodox Academy of Crete, Kolymbari, should submit a summary of the paper in Greek or English or Russian to the following electronic address: papers@dmopc18.com

The summary should not exceed 1000 words and it is important that it be accompanied by key words and a CV of the speaker.

Final date for the submission of summaries and CVs is 28 February 2018.

An International Academic Committee will assess the submitted summaries and will decide which will be presented at the Conference.

The organizers will fully cover the costs (fares, accommodation, meals) of all the speakers who participate in the Conference.

The working languages are Greek, English and Russian. Papers presentations should last no more than 15 minutes. Time will be allotted for a 5 minute discussion after each paper has been delivered.

Information regarding the acceptance of papers and the participation of the selected speakers at the Conference will be sent by 30 March 2018.

The International Academic Committee consists of:

Protopresbyter Christopher Metropoulos, President of the Hellenic College and the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (chairman of the Academic Committee of the DMOPC18 Conference)- America
Metropolitan Porfirije (Perić) of Zagrab and Ljubljana, head of the web-site www.mitropolija-zagrebacka.org, Croatia
Georgios Mantzaridis, Professor Emeritus of the School of Theology, the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Protopresbyter Vasileios Kalliakmanis, Professor of the School of Theology, the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Protopresbyter Constantin Coman, Professor of the School of Theology, University of Bucharest, Romania
Protopresbyter Pavel Velikanov, Reader at the Theological Academy of Moscow, editor-in-chief of the scientific/theological portal bogoslov.ru, Russia
Protopresbyter Jivko Panev, Professor of the Saint-Serge Institute of Orthodox Theology and head of the French web site www.orthodoxie.com, France
Protopresbyter Nicolae Dascălu, Coordination Adviser at the Department of Communication and Public Relations of the Patriarchate of Romania and General Director of the Basilica Press Centre in Bucharest, Romania
Fr. Dr. Bassam Nassif, Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology and Marital Counseling at the St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology, University of Balamand, Lebanon
Fr. Nektarios Mamalougos, Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, University of Athens. Head of the websites nektarios.gr, papadiamantis.org, porphyrios.gr
Rev. Dr. Demetrios Harper, Visiting Research Fellow, University of Winchester, UK
Dr. Elena Zhosul, Dean of the Media and Public Relations Department of the Russian Orthodox University (Moscow), advisor of the Chairman of the Synodal Information Department of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Prof. Nikolaos Koios, University Ecclesiastical Academy of Thessaloniki, Greece
Dr. Jaroslaw Charkiewicz, Secretary of the Publishing Department of Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, Co-founder of www.cerkiew.pl and www.orthphoto.net 

SUGGESTED THEMATIC UNITS

A. Christian Ethics and Orthodox Anthropology in the Face of the Challenges of the Digital Ecosystem

• The dialectic between Christian anthropology and the human person in the digital age
• The niptic tradition and digital living: Patristic positions on the functions of the intellect and the soul, in the face of the digital challenge
• The Patristic concept of fantasy and the digital world
• The dialectic between theology and digital iconicity
• Is there a locus and means for an ascetic life with digital media? Can monastic stillness (hesychasm) be combined with the digital life?
• Christian Ethics as an ethos of communication: the digital world as a sphere for the reiteration of Pentecost and the “living word” of Saint Paul the Apostle
• Considering the digital world from the point of view of Media Ethics and the discourse of Christian Ethics
• Personal ethos in the digital ecosystem in the light of the Personal Ethics of Orthodox Tradition
• Digital ‘sharing’ and the Christian virtues of common use and common possession.
• What it means to share from the point of view of Christianity and how to apply it consciously in the logic of the network
• The notion of the ‘neighbor’ through the dimension of proximity in the digital ecosystem. “Who is my neighbor on the net?” And “how to become a neighbor?”(Cultivating and understanding the right dimension of proximity with the dynamics of the Net.)

B. Digital Media: Opportunities and Problems

• General strategy for the use of digital media by the Church, especially social networks. What kind of steps should be taken? What should be borne in mind? Which aspects should not be countenanced?
• The well known fact that social networks and digital media generally not always “forgive” ignorance and light-mindedness should increase our awareness on our behavior to avoid the risks of the Net.
• Strategy for the creation of content. How do the subjects ‘germinate’? How should they be formulated in various ways? How to publish them? Where to publish them?
• Consideration of the structures and repercussions of the language of social networks:
• The language of the media (the language of persuasion “to put in”, the language of the imaginary “to move out”…)
• How to make good communication (Clarity, terseness, concreteness).
• From Top-Down Communication to contextual communication.
• The importance of storytelling.
• Neologisms and social networks: the need to name new behaviors gives rise to neologisms, new words or new meanings of already existing words. Social networks have changed our habits and the language with which we express ourselves.
• Data and person in cyberspace: here we talk about the value of information in the connected society, in the data itself and in the way in which they are used. This theme has economic, social and human impact on the importance of digital identity. (This is about privacy, the hidden continent, and “social engineering” that manipulates the user’s perception.
• Qualitative and quantitative opportunities in the digital ecosystem which drastically differentiate the past from the present.
• Digital and natural life- digital anthropology.
• Hidden content and ‘social engineering’ by the manipulation of the perception of the user and expression by real examples.
• The cyberbullying, or rather the uncontrolled use of social media to vent violence and malice against people, is now an uncontrollable phenomenon with which we have to deal.

C. Expression, recording, evaluation and proposals from the experience of service of the Divine Word in digital media

• Description and evaluation of the presence of priests in digital media, their witness, the balance between maintaining a high profile and the concept of common use, effective communication with young people in the digital domain, the opportunity to offer an indirect role to these same young people with reference to social communication in church and the systematic organization of ‘digital catechism’.
• The presence of the Church in digital media, not only as an instrument for providing content, but also as a locus of common use and expression.
• Why should the Church be involved with social media? The manner in which the presence of the Orthodox Church is expressed in social networks. Is there an effective presence on the part of the Church, or do social networks continue to be thought of as simply a means of distracting individuals from reality and encouraging them towards indiscriminate use?
• Definition of the AIMS, NEEDS, CONCERNS and OPPOSITION of people at whom the presence of ecclesiastical discourse in social media is aimed.
• The institution of spiritual paternity and its ability to function in a digital setting. Expression of pastoral practice and experience thus far.
• The way in which a metropolis or parish expresses and organizes itself on social networks. Practical advice and instructions for the creation of a Facebook page: graphic care, conversation management, listening to criticism and adding value, monitoring communication.
• The spiritual presence of priests on the web (their testimony, the balance between keeping the high profile and the concept of sharing … etc).
• Live video streaming in Facebook as real mediated communication.
• The problem of Church being on the Internet not only as a simple “broadcaster of content”, but also sharing. Not using the social network form with the 1.0 strategy).
• How can theology become more ‘attractive’ through the use of digital media?
• How can those who serve the divine word in digital media be protected from the spiritual dangers of the digital ecosystem?
• The encounter between niptic anthropology, pastoral psychology and the psycho-sciences, with digital living as the common denominator. From spiritual and psychological problems to the search for pastoral and therapeutic proposals.
• Do we listen to everyone? How can we ensure the validity of digital pastoral content?
• Towards an Orthodox Code of Conduct for the running of Digital Media: Can life in the digital ecosystem be the object of Canon and Ecclesiastical Law?
• Orthodox Mission at the dawn of the digital era.
• ‘So that all may be one’: the need for Orthodox Ecclesiology to become more relevant in the digital era.
• Liturgical Life in digital media

D. The reception of Christian Discourse by Digital Generations

• The reception of the digital era by pedagogical science on the basis of the life in Christ.
• Orthodox Digital Literacy: How can we educate the new Orthodox generations? Identity and the building of the self in new relationships, the pain of the conflict between existing and the need to be, the development of identity between dependence and autonomy.
• The moving picture, the documentary and the cinema in the digital ecosystem: new opportunities for the reception of Christian discourse by digital generations.
• The achievements of Orthodox culture in the digital ecosystem. Pictorial art, Church music, literature and so on.
• The use of digital technology (smartphones, smart tvs, tablets and so on) as a place and means of bringing together Christian discourse and the younger generations.
• Υoung people 2.0 (generation 2.0) and their identity, on the construction of the self in new relationships.
• The identity: the suffering of the conflict between being and having to be
• The development of the identity between dependence and autonomy
• Digital media as a meeting-place for Orthodox youth from all over the world.

Nikos Gouraros
Head of DMOPC18 Organizing Committee
President of St Maxim the Greek Institute
Executive Director of Pemptousia

FOR MORE INQUIRIES PLEASE SEND MAIL TO:
d.iliopoulos@pemptousia.gr or contact@dmopc18.com

Racism: An Orthodox Perspective

Public Orthodoxy
Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
In the Orthodox Vineyard of Africa

by Aristotle Papanikolaou

Photo: Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos of USA with M.L.King, Selma (from here)

The primary goal of the Orthodox Christian is to struggle toward theosis — deification. The word theosis often conjures up images of a super hero like Thor or a Greek god like Zeus. When St. Athanasius proclaimed that “God became human so that humans can become gods,” he was not envisioning super-human strength, nor was he envisioning a life of moral perfection. To become like God is to love as God loves, which means, as Jesus proclaimed, even the enemy and the stranger. The struggle for theosis is one that entails a learning how to love. It is often so very difficult to love even our parents, siblings, friends—imagine now learning how to love the enemy and the stranger.

This learning how to love ultimately entails seeing all human beings as created in the image of God. This is not as easy as it seems. It’s one thing to declare that all humans are created in the image of God; it’s another thing to form oneself in such a way that such a belief is evident in our thoughts, feelings, actions—our very being toward the other person, especially the one who is different from us.

On the surface, then, it would seem that, of course, Christians are against racism—we should never think someone is inferior because of race. But theosis calls us to a deeper level. The struggle to learn how to love is one that includes rooting out racism in our own hearts and in the very structures that constitute the political, cultural, and economic matrix within which we locate ourselves. The first requires incessant self-reflection; the second requires action.

Racism today looks different that it did prior to the 1960s, when there were actual visible signs that proclaimed that Black persons were inferior to White persons, especially through segregation of bus seats, drinking fountains, restaurants, sidewalks, hotels, etc. Those signs are, for the most part, gone, but there are other, less visible signs such as the disproportionate incarceration rate of Black and Latino Americans—even when charged with the same crimes as White Americans—the continued segregation of schools, the continued and widening gap between White household incomes and the incomes of people of color, the decision of persons to opt for prison as a way of avoiding gang culture because there are no other options, or the need for high school kids in Chicago to train themselves to walk in the middle of the street in case of a drive-by shooting—one could go on and on. 

Photo (from here): five orthodox bishops in Africa: Jonah of Uganda, Innocentios of Burundi & Rwanda, Makarios, Athanasios & Neophytos of

These disparities, as well as others, such as access to loans or the best public schools, evince clear signs of privileging of White persons, notwithstanding the fact that lower- to middle-class White persons have suffered economically over the past two decades. It also points to the reality that although the visible signs of racial segregation are not as evident, or that overtly racist actions are not as socially acceptable, racism is still operative in the complex social matrix in which we are embedded, and which undoubtedly forms and even deforms our judgments and beliefs in ways that we are not aware of.  If that is true, then it requires incessant self-reflection in our struggle to learn how to love or to identify how we may be contributing to this structural inequality, even when we consciously condemn racism. This type of self-reflection may give us courage to act–to create structures that would facilitate for all people the lived experience of irreducible uniqueness—of being created “in the image and likeness of God.”

There has been much resistance to the slogan, “Black Lives Matter,” even (sometimes especially) by Orthodox Christians.  The rhetoric of sweeping demonization—often against police offers—that issues from a few persons identified with BLM does not help.  In our struggle to learn how to love—theosis—it is absolutely the case that “all lives matter”; those associated with BLM do not deny that “all lives matter.”  However, BLM is attempting to bring attention to the fact that within the current political and economic structures in the United States– all lives, in fact, do not matter equally.

What our struggle for theosis most demands is a politics of empathy. What can this look like? We can, for example, attempt to imagine what it is like to live as a Black person in the United States of America. For some Orthodox Christians in this country, this imagining shouldn’t be difficult: Greek and Arab Christians living in the South once found Klan crosses burning in their own yards because of their dark skin. But black history, unlike Orthodox immigrant history, is in part founded on the back of slaves.

 

Fr Themi Adams & Africans Orthodox Priest in Sierra Leone (from here)

There is no erasing that tragedy from our history, whose traumatic effects still endure. In imagining what it is like to be in the body of a Black person in the USA, perhaps we can see more clearly the structures in place that facilitate the inequality among persons. Those Orthodox Christians who say that Blacks should just “improve their culture” (yes—I’ve heard this), do not have a sufficiently theological understanding of sin and its insidious and lingering social effects. Is it really that easy, as an example, to will a better life for those who find themselves judged unemployable for a job or unworthy of a promotion because of their skin color–much as some Orthodox Christians in a not so distant past?

Racism has gone underground in this country in the sense that it has moved to the realm of the unconscious—with both personal impacts and structural effects. As Orthodox Christians, the challenge of our spiritual life is to incessantly self-reflect on what blocks our own growth in love of our family, friends, stranger and enemy. If that self-reflection is successful, then it will get us to see that there is, in fact, a privileging of White persons in this country; it will get us to see how we may—even unintentionally—be contributing to this privileging; and it will empower us ultimately to non-demonizing action that attempts to transform the structural matrix that facilitates treating all persons as being made in God’s image. 

That action may take many forms—prophetically calling attention to injustice, educating parishioners, mobilizing a parish, political involvement, participating in and facilitating racism training, to name simply a few. We must act to excise structural injustice in order to make America—in the immortal words of Martin Luther King Jr.—“to be true to what it said on paper,” to realize the ideals symbolized by the American Flag, in every crevice of American society, including our individual hearts and minds. King’s pursuit of justice for all, in the end, is grounded in the call to holiness, to become godlike, to love as God loves, which means to facilitate the lived experience of irreducible uniqueness—of being created in God’s image.

---

Aristotle Papanikolaou is the Archbishop Demetrios Chair in Orthodox Theology and Culture and the Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.
Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.
  
See also

Ferguson, MO vs. Malcolm X: Are We Chasing Our Tails? - It is time for us all to come home...

Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos of USA, Martin Luther King Jr. & Reverend James Reeb
Grace and “the Inverted Pyramid”
The Heresy of Racism
Racism (tag)

The Kingdom of Heaven, where racial discrimination has no place

Orthodox Mission in Tropical Africa (& the Decolonization of Africa)

Orthodox Church and Torture

Fr. Moses Berry, a descendant of African slaves, Orthodox priest and teacher in USA
Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black
St. Mary of Egypt Multi-Cultural Orthodox Christian Church - Kansas City, Missouri
Christians and the immigration issue (& Orthodox Church of St Nicholas of Japan in Johannesburg)
Racial Identities and Racism by Mother Katherine

How “White” is the Orthodox Church?

Ecumenical Patriarch Opposes American Slavery in 1862

A Letter from an Orthodox Christian to our Native Americans Brothers 
Native American Pathways to Orthodoxy 

Latin America: Peoples in Search of Orthodoxy

African Initiated Churches in Search of Orthodoxy...

 

Three popes and a patriarch

Khanya (Orthodox Christians from South Africa) 
 
A unique occasion ignored by the media — how often do you see three popes and a patriarch gathered together at the same place?
Someone posted this picture last night on Facebook, with no caption, no comment. I expected to see some news item about it, perhaps with a better picture, but if there’s been one I haven’t seen it.

Pope Theodoros II, Pope Francis I, Pope Tawhedros II, Patriarch Bartholomew

The three popes represent three different streams of Christianity that have been separated for hundreds of years, so seeing them all together in one place is quite something.
Here’s some historical background:
Some time in the first century St Mark arrived in Alexandria as a missionary for the then-new Christian faith. Alexandria had a large Jewish population then, and so he probably started among them. After his death Mark was succeeded as Bishop of Alexandria by Ananias (AD 61-82), Abilius (83-95), and so on. The historical record is sketchy, but the church grew among the Greeks and Romans and the native Egyptians. The Greeks had conquered Egypt under Alexander the Great, and ruled it for several hundred years (the Ptolemy dynasty), and they had in turn been conquered by the Romans.
By the end of the second century the Holy Scriptures and liturgical texts were being translated into at least three vernacular languages, and the church had grown so much that more bishops were needed. It was about then that the bishops of Alexandria began using the title “Pope”, since theirs was the senior bishopric.

Within the next hundred years or so, almost the entire Egyptian population was Christian. They had abandoned the religion of their ancestors (that of the Pharaohs) and become Christian. Many of the Greek and Roman population remained pagan, however. Over the next century (250-350) the monastic movement arose in the Egyptian deserts, and soon spread throughout the Christian world.
In AD 451, however, at the Council of Chalcedon, there was a split. There was a dispute over the relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ. The council said one thing, and Pope Dioscurus of Alexandria said another. The council deposed Pope Dioscurus, and he was replaced by Proterius, who accepted the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. The next Pope, Timothy, did not accept the decisions of the council, however, and for the next century the two parties, Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian, fought to have their candidate elected as Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria.
In about 550, a century after the Council of Chalcedon, there was a final split, and since then there have been two Popes and Patriarchs of Alexandria — a Chalcedonian one and a non-Chalcedonian one. The Chalcedonian one remained in communion with the other churches that had accepted the Council of Chalcedon — Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem being the main ones, and it is referred to as the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate. The non-Chalcedonian one is referred to as the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. So after Dioscurus, there are two separate lists of Popes and Patriarchs of Alexandria.

In the 7th century Egypt was conquered by the Muslim Arabs. They favoured the Coptic Pope, because the Greek one was in communion with the Patriarch of Constantiniople, which was then the capital of the Roman Empire, which had ruled Egypt until the Arabs conquered it (not quite, there was also a brief Persian interlude). But all Christians in Egypt, no matter which Pope they supported, became second-class citizens under Muslim Arab rule.
The Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria remained in communion with Rome (whose bishops had by now also assumed the title of Pope) until the 11th century, when there was a dispute between Rome and Constantinople, which led to a breach of communion between them. The breach was not healed, and eventually the churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem sided with Constantinople, and were no longer in communion with Rome.
So the appearance of three popes and a patriarch together is something the like of which has probably not been seen since AD 550, if at all.
Incidentally, the English version of the name of both popes of Alexandria is Theodore, and both are Theodore II.

See also

Regarding the visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew & Pope Francis to Egypt (2017, April 28 and 29)

"Oriental Orthodox"

Patriarche Bartholomée : «La religion, élément clé du processus de paix»

Patriarche Bartholomée : «La religion, élément clé du processus de paix»

Orthodoxie.com

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ εδώ

Le patriarche œcuménique Bartholomée I,  a prononcé son discours »La religion, élément clé du processus de paix » à l’occasion de la Conférence mondiale sur la paix d’al-Azhar qui s’est déroulée les 27 et 28 avril 2017 au Caire.

 « Religions et paix »

Conférence mondiale de la paix du Conseil des Aînés d’Al-Azhar et des Musulmans

Le Caire, le 27 avril 2017

Vos Béatitudes, Éminences, Excellences,

Mesdames et Messieurs,

Chers amis,

C’est un honneur d’être invité à prendre la parole à cette Conférence sur la paix mondiale organisée par Al-Azhar et le Conseil musulman des Aînés. Nous félicitons sincèrement Son Eminence, M. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, Grand Imam d’Al-Azhar, d’avoir eu le courage et la vision d’organiser cette initiative cruciale pour la promotion de la paix par les religions.

Au cours des deux dernières décennies, l’humanité a connu des attaques terroristes continues, qui sont à l’origine de la mort et des blessures de milliers de personnes, et qui deviennent la plus grande menace et source de peur pour les sociétés contemporaines. Depuis lors, les religions ont souvent été soupçonnées ou ouvertement accusées d’avoir inspiré le terrorisme et la violence. Notre vie quotidienne s’est remplie d’horribles nouvelles sur les attaques terroristes au nom de la religion.

Dans le même temps, nous constatons la volonté de notre monde de promouvoir le dialogue au lieu des conflits et la capacité à le faire. Cela est vrai non seulement pour les dirigeants politiques et les organisations laïques, mais aussi pour les dirigeants religieux et les institutions qui se sont montrés prêts à s’engager dans un dialogue de paix au niveau local et international, afin d’assurer une coexistence pacifique et une collaboration entre les gens.

Comment, après tant de conférences, de déclarations et d’initiatives pour la paix, pouvons-nous être témoins d’une augmentation de la violence, au lieu de remarquer un progrès dans la paix ? Comment la communauté mondiale peut-elle justifier les derniers actes terroristes de Paris, Bruxelles, Istanbul, Saint-Pétersbourg ou Stockholm ? Comment expliquer les guerres en cours, les conflits armés et les effusions de sang au Moyen-Orient ? Comment pouvons-nous accepter les attaques dans les églises coptes de Tanta et d’Alexandrie il y a environ deux semaines ? Permettez-nous d’exprimer encore une fois à la communauté copte et à tout le peuple égyptien nos sincères condoléances et les prières du Patriarcat œcuménique.

Afin de comprendre ce qui se passe dans notre monde d’aujourd’hui, réfléchissons sur le rôle de la religion dans l’humanité. Paradoxalement, au lieu de l’attente moderniste d’un ‘âge laïque post religieux’, notre époque devient en fait une ‘période post-laïque’ ou même une période d’ ‘explosion religieuse’. La religion apparaît comme une dimension centrale de la vie humaine, tant au niveau personnel que social. Elle revendique un rôle public et participe à tous les discours contemporains centraux.

Les fonctions cruciales de la religion sont évidentes dans les quatre domaines suivants de l’existence humaine et de la coexistence :

1. La religion est liée aux préoccupations profondes de l’être humain. Elle fournit des réponses à des questions existentielles cruciales, donnant l’orientation et le sens de la vie. La religion ouvre aux êtres humains la dimension de l’éternité et la profondeur de la vérité.
2. La religion est liée à l’identité des peuples et des civilisations. C’est pourquoi la connaissance de la croyance et de la religion de l’autre est une condition préalable indispensable à la compréhension de l’altérité et à l’établissement du dialogue.
3. La religion a créé et conservé les plus grandes réalisations culturelles de l’humanité, les valeurs morales essentielles, la solidarité et la compassion, ainsi que le respect de toute la création.
4. La religion est un facteur vital dans le processus de paix. Comme saint Paul l’a écrit autrefois : « Dieu n’est pas un dieu de désordre mais de la paix » (1 Co 14,33). La religion peut, bien sûr, diviser en provoquant l’intolérance et la violence. Mais c’est plutôt là son échec, et non son essence qui consiste en la protection de la dignité humaine.

Malheureusement, notre monde contemporain est marqué soit par le relativisme – profondément lié à la laïcité – soit par le fondamentalisme, que beaucoup considèrent comme une réaction au premier. En effet, le fondamentalisme se considère souvent comme menacé ou même persécuté par le relativisme. Alors que ce dernier nie l’existence de la vérité, l’intégrisme considère que sa propre vérité est unique et doit donc être imposée aux autres, ce qui rend impossible à la religion de servir de pont entre les êtres humains. Dans l’histoire récente, le phénomène du nationalisme et du post-colonialisme a transformé l’extrémisme et l’intégrisme religieux en une simple idéologie, utilisée à des fins politiques.

Malheureusement, l’éclatement continu du fondamentalisme religieux et des actes de violence terribles au nom de la religion, donnent aux critiques modernes de la foi religieuse des arguments contre la foi et appuient l’identification de la religion avec ses aspects négatifs. La vérité est que la violence est la négation des croyances religieuses fondamentales et de la doctrine. La vraie foi ne libère pas les humains d’être responsables du monde, de respecter la dignité humaine et de lutter pour la justice et la paix. Au contraire, elle renforce l’engagement de l’action humaine, elle élargit notre témoignage pour la liberté et les valeurs fondamentales humaines.

La région méditerranéenne a connu dans le passé, pendant plusieurs siècles, une cohabitation pacifique de juifs, de chrétiens et de musulmans. Cette expérience démontre que les personnes de différentes religions peuvent vivre ensemble, en trouvant le message le plus fondamental pour l’humanité qui unit, au lieu d’être une source de division. Cela montre que les religions peuvent servir de ponts entre les gens, d’instruments de paix et de compréhension mutuelle, de tolérance entre les êtres humains et de dialogue interreligieux.

Le patriarche œcuménique Bartholomée avec le Patriarche d'Alexandrie et de toute l'Afrique Theodoros, Caire (ici).

 

Pour cette raison, le dialogue interreligieux reconnaît les différences des traditions religieuses et favorise la coexistence pacifique et la coopération entre les personnes et les cultures. Le dialogue interreligieux ne veut pas nier sa propre foi, mais plutôt changer son esprit ou son attitude envers l’autre. Il peut aussi guérir et balayer les préjugés et contribuer à une compréhension mutuelle et à la résolution pacifique des conflits. Les partis pris et les préjugés proviennent d’une fausse représentation de la religion. Par notre présence aujourd’hui, lors de cette importante conférence, nous voulons nous opposer à au moins un préjugé : l’islam n’est pas égal au terrorisme, car le terrorisme est étranger à toute religion. C’est pourquoi le dialogue interreligieux peut chasser la peur et le soupçon. Il est central pour la paix, mais seulement dans un esprit de confiance et de respect mutuels.

En juin dernier, nous avons eu le privilège de présider le Saint et Grand Conseil de l’Église orthodoxe à travers le monde, réunis en Grèce, sur l’île de Crète. Parmi plusieurs questions, le Conseil a rejeté et condamné l’intégrisme. Son encyclique souligne que, malheureusement, nous faisons aujourd’hui l’expérience d’une augmentation de la violence au nom de Dieu. Les explosions du fondamentalisme au sein des communautés religieuses menacent de faire penser que le fondamentalisme appartient à l’essence du phénomène de la religion.

La vérité, cependant, est que le fondamentalisme, comme « zèle que n’éclaire pas la pleine connaissance » (Rom 10.2), constitue l’expression d’une religiosité morbide ». En outre, le Conseil a souligné qu’ « un dialogue interreligieux honnête contribue au développement de la confiance mutuelle et à la promotion de la paix et de la réconciliation. (…) La vraie paix n’est pas atteinte par la force des armes, mais seulement par l’amour qui « ne recherche pas son intérêt » (1 Cor 13,5). L’huile de foi doit être utilisée pour calmer et soigner les blessures des autres, et non pour rallumer de nouveaux feux de haine » (Encyclique, 17).

La crédibilité des religions dépend aujourd’hui de leur attitude à l’égard de la protection de la liberté et de la dignité de l’homme, ainsi que de leur contribution à la paix. C’est la présupposition non seulement de la coexistence pacifique, mais aussi de la survie pure de l’humanité. Nous ne pouvons affronter ces défis que tous ensemble. Personne – pas une nation, pas un État, pas une religion, ni la science ni la technologie – ne peut affronter les problèmes actuels. Nous avons besoin les uns des autres ; nous avons besoin d’une mobilisation commune, d’efforts communs, d’objectifs communs, d’un esprit commun.

Par conséquent, nous considérons la crise aux multiples facettes actuelle comme une opportunité pour pratiquer la solidarité, pour le dialogue et la coopération, pour l’ouverture et la confiance. Notre avenir est commun, et la voie vers cet avenir est un voyage commun. Comme il est écrit dans les psaumes : « Oui, il est bon, il est doux pour des frères de vivre ensemble et d’être unis ! » (Psaume 132,1).

Votre Éminence le Grand Imam,

Chers participants

Nous croyons profondément que la contribution des religions demeure cruciale dans notre recherche commune de la paix sur terre. Elle est précieuse car, pour les religions, la vraie paix dans le monde n’est pas simplement l’absence de guerre, mais essentiellement la présence de la liberté, de la justice et de la solidarité. Ce qui est nécessaire pour la religion, c’est de guider les gens à la profondeur de cette vérité, à un changement d’esprit et de vie et à la compréhension mutuelle. C’est en effet le cœur de nos traditions religieuses. Pour cette raison, l’humanité a le droit d’attendre de nous plus que ce que nous donnons effectivement. C’est le plus grand défi pour les religions : développer leurs propres potentiels d’amour, de solidarité et de compassion. C’est ce que l’humanité attend profondément de la religion aujourd’hui.

Je vous remercie de votre aimable attention !

Source et photographie

Voir aussi

A Christian perspective on Islam

Regarding the visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew & Pope Francis to Egypt (2017, April 28 and 29)

A Brief Guide for Christian-Muslim Dialogue