Talk:Church of Constantinople
The recent canonical notes, ISTM, belong better in the Prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate article, probably in the main body of the text. Additionally, the accompanying commentary should be set in its context as being part of the Kollyvades movement of the time, expanded with the arguments of those on other sides of the question. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 06:17, March 30, 2007 (PDT)
- I have never seen any of the great canonists of the Church cited in support of the novel interpretation given to these canons by the ultramontane advocates of the EP's claims today. I would be interested in seeing such citations, if any exist. Frjohnwhiteford 10:38, March 30, 2007 (PDT)
- I don't have the book on me at the moment, but I recall that there's a pretty detailed discussion of the question from the pro-missionary outlook (which is essentially how that view understands itself, i.e., that the EP has primary responsibility for missionary work outside canonical boundaries) in Metr. Maximos of Sardis's The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. It's one of those hard-to-get books in English, unfortunately. Anyway, perhaps if I get time at some point, I can summarize some of his arguments and citations.
- Ideally, we want these articles to present both (or all) sides of these questions, at least the viewpoints held by the major parties, without presenting a value judgment on them. Several of the ancient churches have aligned with the EP on this question, so it's especially worth noting the EP's viewpoint, even if one disagrees with it. (I think it'd be worth noting even if they were alone in this regard.) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 12:06, March 30, 2007 (PDT)