Orthodox: Christian Unity Cannot Be Built On Lies

[Cavaradossi]

This comment from the comments section basically sums it all up

‘Now, to be sure, I do not suffer from delusions of grandeur and imagine that everyone has eagerly devoured my book, treating it like some Delphic oracle revealing the way to Christian unity.’

Despite this attempt at humility, the author writes the remainder of the piece from the point of view that Alfeyev cannot possibly disagree with him without being a liar or an ignoramus. That sort of pretentiousness (which reeks even stronger in DeVille’s December article, linked to from this piece) has no place in a discussion of Christian unity.

DeVille seems to be under the impression that nobody can legitimately disagree with his viewpoint, as expressed in his book. Well, which is it? Is he a Delphic oracle or not?

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

The article in the first post seems like it mentions the author’s book a lot. It is an advertisement, mostly, and very cynical. I do not see how you can try to have unity with that attitude towards the people you want to have unit with.

 

[Cavaradossi]

By the way, though I’ve not read his book, reading the reviews of DeVille’s book seem to indicate that Roman Catholics who have a particular understanding of the papacy might find his book’s conclusions quite objectionable.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This comment from the comments section basically sums it all up

‘Now, to be sure, I do not suffer from delusions of grandeur and imagine that everyone has eagerly devoured my book, treating it like some Delphic oracle revealing the way to Christian unity.’

Despite this attempt at humility, the author writes the remainder of the piece from the point of view that Alfeyev cannot possibly disagree with him without being a liar or an ignoramus. That sort of pretentiousness (which reeks even stronger in DeVille’s December article, linked to from this piece) has no place in a discussion of Christian unity.

DeVille seems to be under the impression that nobody can legitimately disagree with his viewpoint, as expressed in his book. Well, which is it? Is he a Delphic oracle or not?

Now, hang on…just yesterday you were hanging your hat on “one guy”, Ekonomou. Turn about’s fair play, eh?

But seriously, you’re a pretty well-read guy, Cav. Maybe this is one for your Christmas list…if he’s off-base, you should have a field day. :yup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

The article in the first post seems like it mentions the author’s book a lot. It is an advertisement, mostly, and very cynical. I do not see how you can try to have unity with that attitude towards the people you want to have unit with.

Maybe. But isn’t the bigger problem all those quotes from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev?

Aren’t you just shooting the messenger?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Now, hang on…just yesterday you were hanging your hat on “one guy”, Ekonomou. Turn about’s fair play, eh?

But seriously, you’re a pretty well-read guy, Cav. Maybe this is one for your Christmas list…if he’s off-base, you should have a field day. :yup:

I don’t claim that he is wrong or that his scholarship is bad, I am just saying that the attacks on the metropolitan’s character are unwarranted. They are both presenting two different visions of what primacy on a universal level should look like, and both argue from the same tradition. DeVille should let his arguments stand on their own merit rather than vilifying those with the temerity to disagree.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Maybe. But isn’t the bigger problem all those quotes from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev?

Aren’t you just shooting the messenger?

I would not have known any of those statements without the article, since I do not pay attention to churches I am not in communion with. But now that I know them, I would want to read them in context. I suspect that they might look differently from an Orthodox source than a Catholic one.

 

[Tomdstone]

They are both presenting two different visions of what primacy on a universal level should look like, and both argue from the same tradition.

True. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic DeVille claims that Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev is speaking lies. Perhaps some of the Roman Catholics here can explain how this type of allegation and language by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic DeVille is helpful in the task of restoring unity to the two Churches. His language is reminiscent of the language used by a papal legate when he laid a bull of excommunication on the Altar of the Hagia Sophia in 1054.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t claim that he is wrong or that his scholarship is bad, I am just saying that the attacks on the metropolitan’s character are unwarranted.

Good on the scholarship, then. I’m on the fence regarding the metropolitan’s character.

Cav, you know, you KNOW that we Catholics have been taking it on the chin for a decade regarding the priest scandal. Now, I’m not looking for payback…we need to clean our own house…but it might be objectively the case that the “attacks” ARE warranted.

Patriarch Kirill has had some “issues” of a scandalous nature, too, from what I understand, so maybe all is not well in the Russian Church. Seriously, would you want Putin looking over your shoulder??? I simply don’t know, but there’s talk and that seems to suggest that neither of these guys is above reproach.

They are both presenting two different visions of what primacy on a universal level should look like, and both argue from the same tradition. DeVille should let his arguments stand on their own merit rather than vilifying those with the temerity to disagree.

True enough, but DeVille’s beef is that Metropolitan Hilarion is actually misrepresenting both true Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism. IOW, he is setting up Catholic strawmen while trying to steer Orthodox faithful down a certain path that is NOT in line with what Orthodox theologians actually believe.

What did you think of what DeVille wrote of the more ecumenical-sounding ideas of those theologians? And is it possible that Kirill and Hilarion have their own personal and political reasons for seeking to derail any re-unification efforts?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would not have known any of those statements without the article, since I do not pay attention to churches I am not in communion with. But now that I know them, I would want to read them in context. I suspect that they might look differently from an Orthodox source than a Catholic one.

That’s fair. Let us know what you find out.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Good on the scholarship, then. I’m on the fence regarding the metropolitan’s character.

Cav, you know, you KNOW that we Catholics have been taking it on the chin for a decade regarding the priest scandal. Now, I’m not looking for payback…we need to clean our own house…but it might be objectively the case that the “attacks” ARE warranted.

Patriarch Kirill has had some “issues” of a scandalous nature, too, from what I understand, so maybe all is not well in the Russian Church. Seriously, would you want Putin looking over your shoulder??? I simply don’t know, but there’s talk and that seems to suggest that neither of these guys is above reproach.

True enough, but DeVille’s beef is that Metropolitan Hilarion is actually misrepresenting both true Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism. IOW, he is setting up Catholic strawmen while trying to steer Orthodox faithful down a certain path that is NOT in line with what Orthodox theologians actually believe.

What did you think of what DeVille wrote of the more ecumenical-sounding ideas of those theologians? And is it possible that Kirill and Hilarion have their own personal and political reasons for seeking to derail any re-unification efforts?

Sounds a lot like a no true Scotsman fallacy does it not? No true Orthodox Christian would… Since you are so hung up on magisterial authority, let me ask, what magisterial authority does DeVille have to determine what is Orthodox?

Metropolitan Hilarion simply has a different interpretation of history from DeVille. I don’t see how that justifies accusing him of misrepresenting Orthodoxy or making strawmen. Perhaps some specific examples would be nice, rather than broad accusations against his character.

It sure is ridiculous, I might add, that a Roman Catholic layman who probably doesn’t even read Russian should attempt to pass judgment upon the entire Russian Orthodox Church for its present working relationship with the state (having one at all, I must remark, is better than having none). Firstly, Putin is not the geopolitical villain that propagandists (and make no mistake, this pusillanimous generation of journalists has basically become a bunch of government mouthpieces) make him out to be, and secondly, it is a difficult and precarious balance that the church must strike in its relations with the government. Unless you truly pray for Patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church daily, I don’t see how you can really criticize them in any sort of Christian fashion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sounds a lot like a no true Scotsman fallacy does it not? No true Orthodox Christian would… Since you are so hung up on magisterial authority, let me ask, what magisterial authority does DeVille have to determine what is Orthodox?

None whatsoever. Oh…was that a rhetorical question?

Metropolitan Hilarion simply has a different interpretation of history from DeVille. I don’t see how that justifies accusing him of misrepresenting Orthodoxy or making strawmen. Perhaps some specific examples would be nice, rather than broad accusations against his character.

What is your opinion of the two positions?

It sure is ridiculous, I might add, that a Roman Catholic layman who probably doesn’t even read Russian should attempt to pass judgment upon the entire Russian Orthodox Church for its present working relationship with the state (having one at all, I must remark, is better than having none).

Cav, DeVille is not trying to pass judgment on the “entire Russian Orthodox Church”. He only has to read what Hilarion says and comment upon that.

Firstly, Putin is not the geopolitical villain that propagandists (and make no mistake, this pusillanimous generation of journalists has basically become a bunch of government mouthpieces) make him out to be, and secondly, it is a difficult and precarious balance that the church must strike in its relations with the government.

Oh, well…since you say so, I’ll feel a whole lot better about the Russian plans to patrol the Caribbean and the flyovers of the airspace of Norway and the Russian sub spotted in a Swedish bay and the military incursions into the Ukraine, etc.

Are you freakin’ kidding me? Putin is old-school KGB and probably desires to re-build as much of the Soviet Empire as the West will let him grab before we go to war.

Unless you truly pray for Patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church daily, I don’t see how you can really criticize them in any sort of Christian fashion.

Well, if those are truly the words that you live by, then I’m very happy to know that you must be praying for me daily, Cav.

 

[prodromos]

Are you freakin’ kidding me? Putin is old-school KGB and probably desires to re-build as much of the Soviet Empire as the West will let him grab before we go to war.

He is the only leader to have stood up in defense of the legitimate government in Syria, which your government has been doing its utmost to tear down, to the absolute detriment of the Christian population in Syria. I suspect you don’t even begin to have a clue about the widespread evil perpetrated by the US government in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.
Putin has nothing on your boy.

 

[prodromos]

I just wanted to thank the Catholics posting on this thread for the respect they have shown the Metropolitan by using his proper title. It didn’t take me too long to lose any interest in what the author of the quoted article had to say because of the complete disrespect shown.

Regardless of what I may think of Pope Francis, I would never refer to him as simply Bergoglio

 

[Cavaradossi]

Randy, I suspect that you are not aware of how much the media blows things out of proportion.

Take, for example, allegations that Russia looks to patrol the Caribbean. Is that any worse than chatter of expanding NATO into Ukraine? Why should Russia be content to have a largely hostile power right at its doorstep when the United States cannot even handle the thought of having Russia patrol the waters of the Caribbean? What if the states in the Caribbean welcome Russia’s geopolitical influence? Will the United States simply affirm their right to self-determination and abide by their decision or will the United States, like so many times before, attempt to effect a regime change because the right of a country to self-determination is actually the code word used by hawkish Democrats and Republicans for the right of a country to be a thrall to America (perhaps that is why the US does not to seem to care very much if the governments we install in foreign lands represent the will of the people).

As for Russia’s covert intervention in Ukraine, do you suppose that the United States would have not intervened if an uprising funded by a foreign power managed to overthrow the U.S.-friendly government of a nearby nation and install in its place one hostile to the U.S.? (if such a scenario sounds familiar, it’s because the U.S. has intervened like this multiple times in the past.) Is it a bad thing in principle? Yes. But the United States, which is perhaps the most interventionist nation on the planet simply has no moral high ground here to criticize Russia. It is simply part of being a strong regional (or global in the case of the U.S.) power, and to demomize Russia for doing what all regional powers do hardly seems like a viable foreign policy.

I would, at the very least, advise you to consider what some of our most eminent diplomatic figures of the past generation have been saying about the current geopolitical situation with Russia. Kissinger observed earlier this year (much to the consternation of this present, hotheaded and far less wise generation of Hawks) that demonization of Putin is not a viable geopolitical strategy but rather the lack thereof. Similarly, former Czech president, Václav Klaus, has criticized the West’s handling of its relations with Russia and its handling of the Ukraine crisis. You needn’t agree with them, but at the very least they should help you see that the Western media has basically become an echo chamber when it comes to Russia, rather that fostering any sort of true political debate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Putins issues are his own and the USA has nothing to do with Church issue as attempted to suggest. If political is all we are talking about then there should be no surprise and shock of politcial propaganda. For example, here is Patriarch Filaret two months ago.

(Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin has fallen under the spell of Satan and faces eternal damnation unless he repents, a top Ukrainian clergyman said on Saturday in an unusually blunt statement that squarely blamed the Russian leader for the war in Ukraine.

Patriarch Filaret heads the Kiev Patriarchate, a branch of the Orthodox Church that broke away from Moscow in 1992 after the fall of the Soviet Union and the declaration of an independent Ukraine.

His church, a rival of the Moscow Patriarchate which is closely linked to Putin, strongly supports Ukrainian nationhood

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014%2F09%2F06%2Fus-ukraine-crisis-patriarch-putin-idUSKBN0H10F920140906&ei=tJ6aVOLaCcylgwSOwIOQCQ&usg=AFQjCNEP0UrIOT9zVUI8O_cUBYmto0gdnA

And just as we should apply ones proper title, we should also use the others proper title and afford him the same respect in Christianity.

There are major issues in Russia and there has been, it ridiculous to suggest new Rome under the disguise of such tyranny, which has nothing to do with America.

And further it is only Russia in the ecumenical world unable and unwilling to converse. And pointed out by Rome of recent. Further Russia has no specific model of the primacy but attempts to be the primacy clearly indicated and by a good many not only in the OP article but here. elsewhere, and by the Orthodox also.

You have a double standard with respect and frankly on that path what more it there to say about Church.