Eastern Orthodox fundamentalism/hyperdoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, so, the reason this might be an aggressive internet phenomenon, is because we are on the age of the paid Putin troll, and the angry young man volunteer Putin troll.

Since Russia has decided to weaponize the Russian Church, and breed an army of trolls, which has inspired and influenced angry alienated young men to fill up every place they might comment, this is the perfect time for this internet phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
GodSoughtMe said:
Since Russia has decided to weaponize the Russian Church, and breed an army of trolls, which has inspired and influenced angry alienated young men to fill up every place they might comment, this is the perfect time for this internet phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Very interesting theory! Do you have any evidence to back it up? I’d be interested in reading it.
 
alice24 said:
The sowjet diaspora has made some things more human and tolerant for the purpose of the surviving of the faith.
Click to expand...
sowjet? Is this “soviet”? or something else? If it means “soviet”, would you be referring to Russian Orthodox refugees from Communism, now elsewhere in Europe?

(Forgive my ignorance, I am a typical American who just recently learned there are other countries besides the USA. Previously I had heard about “foreign lands” but thought they were a literary symbol, not literal places. Are there actual dragons, too?)
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
The sowjet diaspora has made some things more human and tolerant for the purpose of the surviving of the faith.

sowjet? Is this “soviet”? or something else? If it means “soviet”, would you be referring to Russian Orthodox refugees from Communism, now elsewhere in Europe?
Click to expand...
Yes, I meant “soviet” - sometimes when I´m in rush I switch to the german spelling, which is “sovjet” :slight_smile:What I tried to say is that under the soviet rule, the orthotox church was in a kind of diaspora at home - not to mention the real diaspora all the russian immigrants experienced in the 90´s in germany, for example. In soviet russia, where a whole generation was widely not baptised and had no opportunity to marry in church, the orthodox church had to find other ways than legalism to keep the faith alive. The result is that the ROC is far more open in some ways than many people expect - and, to cite our priest - it was also a benefit for the orthodox faith to have the pressure to deal with this and still focus on the christian core.
 
Casilda said:
Well, Yes, in fact, all of Latin America and the Caribbean, even part of North America is all Catholicism.

Not for long…
Click to expand...
We shall see on this, of course Pentecostalism has been making grounds through much of Latin America- but now there’s a Latin American pope so maybe that will slow up a bit.

But the point that the Catholic Church led the way to initially evangelize this part of the world- and Greek Orthodox didn’t was the point
 
Spyridon said:
No chance I could get one gratis, is there? 😀

I’ll check at the Library.
Click to expand...
I tried to PM you, but it seems you’ve been suspended. Sorry to see that. Send me a PM when you return and I’ll see what I can do.
 
Athanasiy said:
Read Аleksandr Solzhenitsyn, read a book about the Gulag. (The Gulag Archipelago)

The Gulag, the reign of criminals on different ranks, this is the spirit of Russia.

Orthodoxy is just a tool, a good weapon that Putin’s Russia can fight.
Click to expand...
Or better yet, his book ‘Warning to the West’ tailored for American audience.
 
Interesting thoughts of Cyril Hovorun about distinguishing between phyletism (imperial/civilizational nationalism) and ethnophyletism (ethnic nationalism).
IMHO, the council in Constantinople in 1872 condemned ethnophyletism from the perspective of phyletism.
Only the Pan-Orthodox council in 2016 implied the condemnation of both sorts of Orthodox nationalisms.

 
Athanasiy said:
Interesting thoughts of Cyril Hovorun about distinguishing between phyletism (imperial/civilizational nationalism) and ethnophyletism (ethnic nationalism).
IMHO, the council in Constantinople in 1872 condemned ethnophyletism from the perspective of phyletism.
Only the Pan-Orthodox council in 2016 implied the condemnation of both sorts of Orthodox nationalisms.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the Crete council of 2016 boycotted by some key players? Is it still considered a “Pan-Orthodox council”? Is “Pan Orthodox” the standard for evaluating whether a council is official, universally binding on Orthodoxy?

What specific person, or organization, has authority to determine “this council is authoritative for all”, and “that council is merely a regional body, or with recommendations or application to some, but not all”?
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
What specific person, or organization, has authority to determine “this council is authoritative for all”, and “that council is merely a regional body, or with recommendations or application to some, but not all”?
Click to expand...
That would be the collective reception of them by all the churches–including Rome. So don’t hold your breath 🙂

hawk
 
commenter said:
What specific person, or organization, has authority to determine “this council is authoritative for all”, and “that council is merely a regional body, or with recommendations or application to some, but not all”?
Click to expand...
dochawk said:
That would be the collective reception of them by all the churches–including Rome. So don’t hold your breath
Click to expand...
Of course, this process is an innovation they use to deny the reunion Councils and some of the subsequent pan-Orthodox Councils the neo-Palamites don’t like anymore. The early ecumenical Councils were not received by all the Churches–it’s why there are still Nestorian and non-Chalcedonian Churches to this day. Rather, the Churches that didn’t accept the decisions of those Councils were anathemitized and cut off from the body.

What’s currently put forth as the EO process is just a meaningless tautology that makes Councils completely pointless.

If there is a serious doctrinal dispute as to what is the orthodox doctrine or simply a need to condemn an error, a Council can be convened to pass judgment on it.

However, this judgment is not itself authoritative, but is really more of a submission to the whole Church for its judgment over some nebulous time period. Who is the whole Church we should look to? All orthodox believers, they will tell you. Who are orthodox believers? Those who believe the orthodox doctrines. But the whole point of the Council was to judge what is the orthodox doctrine–under this system, you can’t determine the orthodox doctrine without looking to orthodox believers–but you need to know the orthodox doctrine to determine who are the orthodox believers. And since the orthodox believers are already orthodox, they don’t need a Council telling them what is orthodox. So what’s the point of the Council?
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
40.png
commenter:
What specific person, or organization, has authority to determine “this council is authoritative for all”, and “that council is merely a regional body, or with recommendations or application to some, but not all”?
Click to expand...
That would be the collective reception of them by all the churches–including Rome. So don’t hold your breath 🙂

hawk
Click to expand...
If Orthodoxy has a glaring fault, it is their allergy to centralized authority that is so extreme as to create the inability to forcibly establish an Ecumenical Council in the modern era.

Naturally they have a few apologists lined up to discredit “The false, western understanding of ‘ecumenical counil’”, but those apologists often lack the support of wider Orthodoxy.

The western Church went so far on their side as to essentially declare “Peter” a monarch and the eastern Church responded by going so far as to make Church-wide governance similar to herding cats…

*throws hands up
Genesis315 said:
Of course, this process is an innovation…
Click to expand...
I would agree insofar as the source of this “innovation” is found in the book of Acts in our bibles. So maybe the Church was about 10-15 years old at the time, based on one popular dating of that council.
Genesis315 said:
What’s currently put forth as the EO process is just a meaningless tautology that makes Councils completely pointless.
Click to expand...
No, it’s still very binding upon the participants and it allows certain theological developments or interpretations to be modeled before more hesitant Churches come around to adopting them.

It’s as “pointless” as the scores of regional Catholic synods that have been held throughout the centuries…
Genesis315 said:
However, this judgment is not itself authoritative,
Click to expand...
Kindly, that’s just simply not true.

As Orthodoxy largely lacks an executive structure and a format that can promulgate in a way binding to all Orthodox - whether their bishops participate or not - it’s just very difficult to authoritatively and permanently change Orthodoxy. This is probably Orthodoxy’s greatest curse and blessing, from a doctrinal paradigm.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think what you’ve said holds up historically. The Council in Acts required obedience to its decisions. It did not wait for the whole Church to receive it.

EO councils don’t bind their participants–the reunion Councils are a prefect example of this. The very participants violated them when they came home to face those believers (not bishops) who did not receive what they had done. Not to mention that most of the ecumenical councils (all?) did not have full participation, yet were binding on all.

Catholic regional synods have real authority over whom they govern. They don’t require the consent of all. Likewise, what makes them legitimate, rather than “robber synods” is their communion with Rome.

The reception of the acts of a Council of all the faithful, now used to discredit certain Latin sounding EO synods (and of course the reunion synods), was never an indispensable aspect of authority. In fact, I think even the EO theologian Nicolay Afanassieff shows pretty conclusively that what was necessary was the witness and reception by the “church in priority” as he puts it.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
I don’t think what you’ve said holds up historically.
Click to expand...
And what, precisely, did I say?
The Council in Acts required obedience to its decisions. It did not wait for the whole Church to receive it.
Click to expand...
Compared to how their present model seems to work? You’re right. It was a council that issued an authoritative decree that was binding on Christendom. Presently, Orthodoxy seems to lack this mechanism.

But what may be a little uncomfortable to contemporary Roman Catholics - the fact that the truth was promulgated in council at Jerusalem and later at Antioch seemingly points both barrels at the current understanding of papacy and squeezes both triggers.

The EO ecclesial leadership model might not be representative of the early Church, but then the RC ecclesial leadership model might not be either.
EO councils don’t bind their participants
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. Otherwise they wouldn’t hold them in the first place…

Now is application sometimes lacking? Sure! You can see the same in the RCC. For example, there’s lots of traditional Catholics who gripe at a few European bishops for their perceived “failure” to correctly implement a more-traditional interpretation of the magisterium.
the reunion Councils are a prefect example of this.
Click to expand...
If by “reunion councils” you mean those working toward closing the schism, then I’d imagine that an ocean of Orthodox would argue that as long as Peter is the infallible supremus, any agreement made would be broken by continued Catholic default.

Maybe you were meaning something else?
The very participants violated them when they came home to face those believers (not bishops) who did not receive what they had done.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean like the RCC may have done after the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Commission?

But I’m familar with a few of the Orthodox-Catholic meet-and-greets. What, exactly, are you referring to?
Catholic regional synods have real authority over whom they govern. They don’t require the consent of all.
Click to expand...
As that’s how they function, yeah they kinda do. Er. Well. Not all, but certainly the quorum of attendees.
In fact, I think even the EO theologian Nicolay Afanassieff…
Click to expand...
“church in priority” is typically realized by the democratic action of the attendees 😀
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is true that in the Gulag, according to Solzhenitsyn believers of different faiths tried to unite.
Solzhenitsyn’s stories about camp marriages were impressive. When the priest crowned a couple standing on opposite sides of the prison fence.
Faith in Christ and solidarity, not belonging to a particular denomination, helped people to resist and to survive.
But it is also true that to stand against lawlessness and against criminals in that wolf world, helped cohesion. Ukrainian nationalists, Caucasian people could resist the criminal clans there only by such solidarity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top