Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Nine_Two]

Orthodox have a tendency toward Caesaropapism

The states in countries that are majority Orthodox repressed the Eastern Catholics.

Therefore the Orthodox suppressed Catholics.

This seems to be the syllogism you have constructed, which of course brings up a question:

What does this have to do with anything that has been discussed here?

 

[Contarini]

There is no Orthodox Church per se

By your understanding of what “a Church” looks like. This understanding is not necessarily convincing to the rest of us.

I agree that josephdaniel’s attack on Catholic “humanism” is too vague and general. I don’t know if he’s talking about Renaissance humanism in particular, which in many ways actually pointed toward Orthodoxy (the humanists studied Greek and emphasized the Greek Fathers, and they tended to believe in free will and to hold a higher view of human nature than traditional Western Christianity–this kind of humanism is not something I’d expect the Orthodox to attack). I think he may be talking about the relatively more rationalistic approach to the Faith taken by the medieval scholastics, but it’s hard to tell.

Note: This is not to say that the Catholic Church bears no responsibility for the calamities that befell her but that those calamities/consequences had nothing to do with her ecclesiology.

\

This sort of thing is hard to prove or disprove, but your claim does not seem to me to be well supported by evidence. That is to say, I think there is a lot of good (though of course circumstantial and not demonstrative) evidence pointing toward Western ecclesiology as one of the major roots of the sixteenth-century disaster we call the Reformation.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

individualism, modernism, secularization, agnosticism and eventually atheism are all natural progressions from the humanistic theology of the Catholic Church.

I think Paul said that was caused by people who wanted to serve their own selfish appetites. And through smooth salesmanship, those people convinced other ignorant people like themselves, to follow them into the abyss. But Paul said it wasn’t going to be so for the Church of Rome. Through their obedience of faith, Satan would be crushed under the feet of the Church of Rome [Rm 16:17-20 paraphrased]

Has anything changed?
jd:

It’s just a small step from the individualism of the pope to the individualism of the masses. Both Protestantism and Catholicism (and it’s child secular humanism) all believe an individual can discern the truth independent from anyone else. The only difference is who they believe that individual is.

Heres the search engine scborromeo.org/ccc.htm for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is what the Church worldwide teaches. The Church puts our belief in writing so no one needs to guess what the Church teaches. No one can invent or misrepresent the teachings of the Church when it’s written out like this. Do a word search in the CCC and see if you can find what you just said about the Catholic Church.

Please show me a document like the CCC that speaks for ALL of EO i.e. speaks authoritatively for ALL your different “individual, autocephalous, independent” churches. Every time I ask an EO for such a source, there is dead silence. In fact the silence is deafening. I’m left with the feeling that If such a source or document existed, I’m sure it would be presented by now. Therefore, it probably doesn’t exist.
jd:

Of course today we see the fruits of the anthropocentric theology of the Catholic Church in the Novus Ordo and all of the havoc it has wrought in the liturgical abuses and doctrinal minimalism so prevalent after Vatican II; all of which was done in an effort to be more “relevant” to modern sensibilities. In principle it is no different from Protestant mega-churches having rock bands and light shows to draw in people and keep them entertained. Focusing on man instead of God.

Is this what the EO teach you
jd:

In fact Catholics are so far removed from the Theocentric theology/ecclesiology of Orthodoxy (and their own forefathers) that they can’t even begin to understand how a Church can exist without the man-centered institutions they are accustomed to.

Jesus set up the papacy in Peter. Not a council, Not Peter usurping top job, Not Peter lobbying Jesus as John and James mother tried to do with her sons, not some emperor, etc etc etc . The office of the papacy came from God the Father. And this office another will take until God calls it quits. Wake up my friend. You really think you’re going to undo this?
jd:

That is exemplified best by Cardinal Kasper who said “we are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist.”

Cardinal Kasper’s statement explained. zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

• No ONE speaks for the EO… true?.
• No see speaks for the EO, i.e. Istanbul/Constantinople…True?

1st among equals, a favorite term of EO, as even Fr Ambrose said, is a meaningless term. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

Bottomline, as Cardinal Kasper says, there is no Orthodox church because you’re NOT one.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I think Paul said that was caused by people who wanted to serve their own selfish appetites. And through smooth salesmanship, those people convinced other ignorant people like themselves, to follow them into the abyss. But Paul said it wasn’t going to be so for the Church of Rome. Through their obedience of faith, Satan would be crushed under the feet of the Church of Rome [Rm 16:17-20 paraphrased]

Has anything changed?

Heres the search engine scborromeo.org/ccc.htm for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is what the Church worldwide teaches. The Church puts our belief in writing so no one needs to guess what the Church teaches. No one can invent or misrepresent the teachings of the Church when it’s written out like this. Do a word search in the CCC and see if you can find what you just said about the Catholic Church.

Please show me a document like the CCC that speaks for ALL of EO i.e. speaks authoritatively for ALL your different “individual, autocephalous, independent” churches. Every time I ask an EO for such a source, there is dead silence. In fact the silence is deafening. I’m left with the feeling that If such a source or document existed, I’m sure it would be presented by now. Therefore, it probably doesn’t exist.

Is this what the EO teach you

Jesus set up the papacy in Peter. Not a council, Not Peter usurping top job, Not Peter lobbying Jesus as John and James mother tried to do with her sons, not some emperor, etc etc etc . The office of the papacy came from God the Father. And this office another will take until God calls it quits. Wake up my friend. You really think you’re going to undo this?

Cardinal Kasper’s statement explained. zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

• No ONE speaks for the EO… true?.
• No see speaks for the EO, i.e. Istanbul/Constantinople…True?

1st among equals, a favorite term of EO, as even Fr Ambrose said, is a meaningless term. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

Bottomline, as Cardinal Kasper says, there is no Orthodox church because you’re NOT one.

I rest my case.

 

[JohnVIII]

Another thought on the apropos of caesaropapism:

Reading about ROCOR, and the Basilian Fathers (S.S.B., or Society of Clerks Secular of Saint Basil), it seems both organizations claimed legitimacy from Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s rulings and orders (ukases), according to which they were tasked to set up Church organizations independent from Moscow, in case that communication with Moscow became impossible amid the turbulence of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) and its aftermath. Then, after Patriarch St. Tikhon was jailed and martyred, Patriarch Sergius was installed, who under duress proclaimed that the Russian EOC, both at home and abroad, should cooperate with the Soviets and should serve the Soviet cause. At this point, Russian Bishops in America came to the conclusion that Patriarch Sergius has fallen into apostasy (his subservience to the Soviet cause was named “Sergianism”, to denote this form of apostasy), and they felt that it was justified to act on Patriarch St. Tikhon’s and his Holy Synod’s previous orders to set up independent Church organizations in America. They regarded Patriarch Sergius as an apostate, thus communication with Moscow became impossible and meaningless, because the Patriarch’s throne was occupied by an illegitimate leader.

…And then later on the ROCOR joined the MP even though the MP was still not much more that a “church” made of KGB agents! There is no true ROCOR any more, only in name.

 

[Nine_Two]

…And then later on the ROCOR joined the MP even though the MP was still not much more that a “church” made of KGB agents! There is no true ROCOR any more, only in name.

Ummm, ROCOR rejoined the MP just a couple of years ago. Last I checked the KGB hasn’t existed for 20.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

It’s just a small step from the individualism of the pope to the individualism of the masses. Both Protestantism and Catholicism (and it’s child secular humanism) all believe an individual can discern the truth independent from anyone else. The only difference is who they believe that individual is.

I strongly disagree with the bolded part, but I do agree with the following sentences I quoted. And WHO that individual is, makes all the difference in the world. Average Joe did not receive the charism to be the foundation of the Church and shepherd that Church in all truth so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Joseph Varga did not receive that charism. Not even the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople, with or without the aid of their Holy Synods, received it. That charism was received by the Pope only, and the Bishops are on the right path only if they stay faithful to the Pope. We Catholics look to our Shepherd, the Pope, and trust him to lead us on the correct path. We may be sheep , but we recognize the voice of our Shepherd, who was appointed by Jesus Christ.

OK, in my opinion, Catholics are like sheep. Not necessarily the smartest animals, but they stay safe as long as they follow their shepherd.

Protestants are like cats. Pretty smart animals, but individualistic, and just try to shepherd a herd of cats.

Orthodox, with their idea of Ecumenical Councils, and Patriarchs, are like a dragon with seven (or more) heads. And this dragon can never agree with himself about which way to go, because the seven, or fifteen, or whatever number of heads (Patriarchs) continually argue and disagree with each other. It’s like a version of Paff, the Magic Dragon , not a malicious dragon but rather a very well meaning one, but he just can’t get anything accomplished because of “internal disputes”. To make things more complicated, there are “budding heads” like the Patriarch of Ukraine, Estonia, OCA, Japan, who are recognized by one “well established head” but not by another. Thus, not only can’t the heads agree which way to go (Old Calendar or New Calendar, artficial birth control or no artficial birth control, two ecclesiastical divorces allowed or more than two, etc.), they can’t even agree on how many heads this dragon really has, and who is a legitimate head, and who is not! Now, if you are Orthodox, good luck to you, trying to follow the “leadership” of all those multiple heads each pulling poor dragon Paff into different directions! Which direction is the right one, which one is the straight and narrow path? When the Patriarch of Moscow breaks communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, as it happened in 1996, over the dispute regarding the status of the Estonian Church, whose side do YOU take?

So, I’m just a member of the flock, lamb or goat or whatever, not very smart, and I don’t pretend to be able to discern the truth on my own. But I do follow my shepherd, the Pope, because he was appointed by Jesus Christ. And I feel perfectly content to obey him, because he keeps me safe, and because obeying Christ’s appointed Shepherd is the same as obeying Christ himself, and I burn with desire to show my love for Christ, by obeying the Shepherd he appointed!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Also, some of my favorite stories of Catholic saints are the stories of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Ignatius Loyola. For every heresy and rebellion (Cathari heresy in the time of St. Francis, Martin Luther and the Reformation in the time of St. Teresa and St. Ignatius Loyola) there’s an answer in the Catholic Church, an individual or group of individuals who stayed faithful to the Pope and to the Bishops in communion with him, stayed Catholic, and did accomplish great things because they were able to inspire many people through their own example of sanctity and obedience. Accusing the Catholic Church of having lost its way, of being in decline, just because SOME Catholics chose to become disobedient, is the same as accusing the eleven faithful Apostles of the same things, on the account of Judas who did abandon Jesus. It’s simply not fair to lump together the faithful with the unfaithful, the obedient with the disobedient.

 

[Nine_Two]

How about Leynez? He had some good times with Paul IV.

 

[Contarini]

Just realized something, i.e., by change you meant development (of doctrine)? If not then the pope cannot be a vehicle for change as change would imply innovation. God bless.

That is, of course, your position. But naturally an outsider to your Communion is not going to make the same distinction.

Empirically, the Catholic Church has changed. A reasonable case can certainly be made that these changes are always faithful to the inner principles of the Catholic Faith and thus are “developments” rather than “changes” in your specialized vocabulary. But I think it would be clearer if you used Newman’s dichotomy between “development” and “corruption,” and accepted that both of these are forms of change.

(Note: I don’t recall whether Newman himself discussed the appropriateness of the term “change.” I can certainly see why he would avoid it, since his position was controversial inasmuch as it seemed to contradict the traditional claim that the Church didn’t change. Furthermore, Loisy and other turn-of-the-century “modernists” took Newman’s theory further, cutting the Gordian knot and saying frankly that the Church had changed into something Jesus and the first Christians wouldn’t have recognized, and that was all to the good. Modern orthodox Catholics who follow Newman–as nearly all Catholics do, in one way or another, on this point–are understandably concerned to distinguish Newman’s position from Loisy’s, and I think that’s where the sharp distinction between “development” and “change” came from.)

Edwin

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Orthodox have a tendency toward Caesaropapism

The states in countries that are majority Orthodox repressed the Eastern Catholics.

Therefore the Orthodox suppressed Catholics.

This seems to be the syllogism you have constructed, which of course brings up a question:

What does this have to do with anything that has been discussed here?

This syllogism is true for the leadership of the EOC, not only in the past, but also in present-day Romania, and Russia. It’s a form of Caesaropapism, where the EOC and the State cooperate in suppressing Catholics and other non-Orthodox denominations. But not all Orthodox bishops, and laity, are on board with suppressing others. In Romania, the anti-Communist revolution of 1989 began when the state wanted to arrest and deport a Reformed (Presbyterian) bishop in the city of Timisoara, and all religious leaders, Orthodox and Catholic, defended him. The role of Orthodox bishops was crucial, since some 80% or more of Romania’s population has an Orthodox identity (even if many were agnostics, or non-practicing). The current exodus out of the EOC, and into the Catholic Churches in Western Romania (maybe not only Western Romania, I’m just not sure) is happening at the grassroots level, with laypeople who never had any Catholics in their families converting and becoming Catholics. Obviously, these former Orthodox laypeople do not want to suppress Catholics, they are rather joining our Churches (joining both the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Churches in large numbers). Some of these people are disillusioned with the official stance of the Romanian EOC, which tries to hold on to confiscated properties it received from the Communists, and has a hostile attitude towards non-Orthodox Churches and denominations and non-Romanian minorities (nationalities) in the country.

I have to say I’m proud to observe the catholicity (universality) of my Roman Catholic Church in action. In Romania, where in past we hardly had any Romanian-speaking people as Roman Catholics, and most RC churches had services (Masses) only in Hungarian and German language, now the churches added Romanian language services, to accommodate the Romanian-speaking faithful. We do not separate into different church buildings or national Churches, just because we are Romanians, Hungarians, or Germans. The same church building houses Masses in 2 or 3 different languages (Romanian, Hungarian, and German), while many Romanian EO priests are still busy stoking the fires of Romanian nationalism and chauvinism (suspicion and even hatred for other nationalities) from their pulpits. In my native city in Romania, for whatever reason, the Romanians and Serbs have separate Orthodox church buildings. Two such churches are in my neighborhood, within about 100 meters of each other. I never knew why they needed two separate church buildings, when they are both Eastern Orthodox. Maybe because the major fraction of Romanians are New Calendar, and the Serbs are Old Calendar?

In Miami, where I currently reside, we also do not separate into English-Roman Catholic, Hispanic-Roman Catholic, Haitian-Roman Catholic, Brazilian-Roman Catholic and so on Churches or church buildings. One church I attend has services in English, Spanish, and Creole (Haitian) language. Another one has services in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and French. I already learned to pray the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in Spanish , but I’m still having problems with Portuguese.

 

[Nine_Two]

This syllogism is true for the leadership of the EOC, not only in the past, but also in present-day Romania, and Russia. It’s a form of Caesaropapism, where the EOC and the State cooperate in suppressing Catholics and other non-Orthodox denominations. But not all Orthodox bishops, and laity, are on board with suppressing others. In Romania, the anti-Communist revolution of 1989 began when the state wanted to arrest and deport a Reformed (Presbyterian) bishop in the city of Timisoara, and all religious leaders, Orthodox and Catholic, defended him. The role of Orthodox bishops was crucial, since some 80% or more of Romania’s population has an Orthodox identity (even if many were agnostics, or non-practicing). The current exodus out of the EOC, and into the Catholic Churches in Western Romania (maybe not only Western Romania, I’m just not sure) is happening at the grassroots level, with laypeople who never had any Catholics in their families converting and becoming Catholics. Obviously, these former Orthodox laypeople do not want to suppress Catholics, they are rather joining our Churches (joining both the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Churches in large numbers). Some of these people are disillusioned with the official stance of the Romanian EOC, which tries to hold on to confiscated properties it received from the Communists, and has a hostile attitude towards non-Orthodox Churches and denominations and non-Romanian minorities (nationalities) in the country.

I have to say I’m proud to observe the catholicity (universality) of my Roman Catholic Church in action. In Romania, where in past we hardly had any Romanian-speaking people as Roman Catholics, and most RC churches had services (Masses) only in Hungarian and German language, now the churches added Romanian language services, to accommodate the Romanian-speaking faithful. We do not separate into different church buildings or national Churches, just because we are Romanians, Hungarians, or Germans. The same church building houses Masses in 2 or 3 different languages (Romanian, Hungarian, and German), while many Romanian EO priests are still busy stoking the fires of Romanian nationalism and chauvinism (suspicion and even hatred for other nationalities) from their pulpits. In my native city in Romania, for whatever reason, the Romanians and Serbs have separate Orthodox church buildings. Two such churches are in my neighborhood, within about 100 meters of each other. I never knew why they needed two separate church buildings, when they are both Eastern Orthodox. Maybe because the major fraction of Romanians are New Calendar, and the Serbs are Old Calendar?

In Miami, where I currently reside, we also do not separate into English-Roman Catholic, Hispanic-Roman Catholic, Haitian-Roman Catholic, Brazilian-Roman Catholic and so on Churches or church buildings. One church I attend has services in English, Spanish, and Creole (Haitian) language. Another one has services in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and French. I already learned to pray the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in Spanish , but I’m still having problems with Portuguese.

I just read the first line. I assume the rest is just as unreasonable.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I just read the first line. I assume the rest is just as unreasonable.

OK, 20 years after the fall of the Communist regime in Romania, the Romanian EOC still refuses to return to the Eastern Catholics what the Communists confiscated from the ECC and gave to the EOC in Romania. In Russia, the Catholic and Protestant Churches and denominations are refused building permits, their house churches are being harassed and searched, their printed materials confiscated. The Russian EOC does not stand up for religious freedom in Russia, and it criticizes the Pope for visiting Ukrainian Catholics, but the Patriarch of Moscow just paid a visit to Ukraine. Also, the Russian Orthodox Church freely builds churches, organizes and practices its religion in Italy, Austria, France, and other Catholic countries, but the MP criticized Pope John Paul II when he reorganized the Catholic Church in Russia, and established four new archdioceses in Kazan and other Russian cities, in order to better serve the Catholics in Russia.

So, then, what’s unreasonable? Is it unreasonable to suppress other religions, or is it unreasonable for me to list the facts?

 

[prodromos]

In Miami, where I currently reside, we also do not separate into English-Roman Catholic, Hispanic-Roman Catholic, Haitian-Roman Catholic, Brazilian-Roman Catholic and so on Churches or church buildings.

You should talk to some of the older members on this forum. I’m sure they could tell you plenty of stories about the Irish Catholic Church and the Polish Catholic Church built within a few blocks of each other and neither the Irish or the Polish visited the other Church. I’m certain you could hear similiar stories of others such as the German Catholics and the Spanish Catholics.

 

[Bluegoat]

You should talk to some of the older members on this forum. I’m sure they could tell you plenty of stories about the Irish Catholic Church and the Polish Catholic Church built within a few blocks of each other and neither the Irish or the Polish visited the other Church. I’m certain you could hear similiar stories of others such as the German Catholics and the Spanish Catholics.

Yes, that was true in my grandmothers generation. In my city now there is a Polish congregation, and a French one too. Even though the people who attend almost all speak English, in some cases as a first language. And in many places one might find Eastern Catholics.

Orthodox Christians can go to any Orthodox church, since we don’t have a large Orthodox population, people who move from away often go to a different type of church than the one they grew up in.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

You should talk to some of the older members on this forum. I’m sure they could tell you plenty of stories about the Irish Catholic Church and the Polish Catholic Church built within a few blocks of each other and neither the Irish or the Polish visited the other Church. I’m certain you could hear similiar stories of others such as the German Catholics and the Spanish Catholics.

That’s rather sad, if it happened on the American continent or in Australia. And I believe you and Bluegoat, that it happened. In the ethnically and linguistically mixed Transylvania (part of Romania, Eastern Europe) I’m coming from, the Catholic Church has been a positive force for peace and understanding between the different nationalities and ethnic groups. For example, there’s a pilgrimage place called Radna, with a Papal Basilica Minor dedicated to Mary, which we used to visit with my family, and this place was visited all the time by pilgrims from Romanian, German, Hungarian, Slovakian villages, and who knows what other groups. It always was a very multicultural place and still is. Holy Masses were always celebrated in three different languages there (and possibly more, if needed). For me, this is the norm I grew up with. Different nationalities and ethnic groups were always together in the Roman Catholic Church, as I grew up.

Regarding the Eastern Catholic Church (Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church), they were outlawed and persecuted. We had a Romanian family attending our Hungarian language Masses sometimes, and my mother told me (I was a child) I should never talk about this to anyone, because that family is a Byzantine Catholic family and they could get in trouble with the authorities for attending our church. For whatever reason, Eastern Catholics suffered the fiercest persecution, were expected to convert to Orthodoxy, and were treated essentially as traitors if they continued to practice their Catholic religion by attending a Roman Catholic church. Now (after the fall of Communism in 1989) that the Eastern Catholics are out of the catacombs, I would love to visit a Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church. They are a different rite (different liturgical tradition), but not a different faith to us Roman Catholics.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Orthodox Christians can go to any Orthodox church, since we don’t have a large Orthodox population, people who move from away often go to a different type of church than the one they grew up in.

In this respect, I had a totally different experience when I got involved with Orthodoxy. I used to visit a church with ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), and they were out of communion with any other EO Churches that had a presence within a 500 miles radius. When (ROCOR) Bishop Gabriel of Brooklyn visited us, some of the faithful asked him if they were allowed to take communion at the Moscow Patriarchate’s churches. The answer was no. Also, the faithful were not supposed to present themselves for communion at Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches, because those Churches use the New Calendar. When I found out that there was a Western Rite EO church of Russian descent in my city (belonging to the Society of Clerks of Saint Basil Secular), that was also excluded since the Western Rite uses the New Calendar - it celebrates Christmas on December 25 according to the Gregorian Calendar (the Russians, both the MP and ROCOR, celebrated Christmas on a different day, namely December 25 on the Julian Calendar which is January 7 on the Gregorian Calendar).

 

[Bluegoat]

In this respect, I had a totally different experience when I got involved with Orthodoxy. I used to visit a church with ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), and they were out of communion with any other EO Churches that had a presence within a 500 miles radius. When (ROCOR) Bishop Gabriel of Brooklyn visited us, some of the faithful asked him if they were allowed to take communion at the Moscow Patriarchate’s churches. The answer was no. Also, the faithful were not supposed to present themselves for communion at Greek Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches, because those Churches use the New Calendar. When I found out that there was a Western Rite EO church of Russian descent in my city (belonging to the Society of Clerks of Saint Basil Secular), that was also excluded since the Western Rite uses the New Calendar - it celebrates Christmas on December 25 according to the Gregorian Calendar (the Russians, both the MP and ROCOR, celebrated Christmas on a different day, namely December 25 on the Julian Calendar which is January 7 on the Gregorian Calendar).

I seem to recall this was discussed already on this thread or another one, and they were essentially a bunch of extremists? We have a “Catholic” chapel in my province like this - you must wear a skirt if you are a lady or suit if you aren’t, receive on the tongue, and use the TLM. And you must not take communion at other Catholic churches, especially the ones who don’t do these things.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I seem to recall this was discussed already on this thread or another one, and they were essentially a bunch of extremists? We have a “Catholic” chapel in my province like this - you must wear a skirt if you are a lady or suit if you aren’t, receive on the tongue, and use the TLM. And you must not take communion at other Catholic churches, especially the ones who don’t do these things.

Yes, both ROCOR and the S.S.B. were quickly labeled as “extremists” and “not really Orthodox” by various posters on this thread. I really wonder though, on whose authority have the posters decided so, and what was the criterion for labeling ROCOR as such. Who is entitled, and on what basis, to judge who is Orthodox and who is not. A member of the Antiochian EOC may regard ROCOR as extremist and not Orthodox, but I’m not aware of the Patriarch of Antioch, the EP of Constantinople, the Moscow Patriarch, and/or their Holy Synods, ever having condemned ROCOR, officially, for extremism or lack of Orthodoxy. Thus, what I read here from posters, are just private opinions of laypeople, unless they can cite specific documents issued by their Churches, condemning ROCOR. Not only did the MP not condemn ROCOR, they went to great lengths courting ROCOR and asking it to come back into communion with Moscow.

Also, I doubt that the Russians would accept the judgment of those posters who voiced their opinions (just laypeople’s opinions, no official Church document from any other EOC) that ROCOR is extremist.

I have seen this controversy from the inside. ROCOR calling others “not really Orthodox”, and ROCOR priests telling their faithful not to present themselves for communion in EO Churches that adopted the New Calendar and other ecumenist heresies, and others (OCA, Antiochians, Greeks) calling ROCOR not really Orthodox. ROCOR actually did officially anathematize ecumenism, there’s an official anathema issued by ROCOR’s Holy Synod and ROCOR’s Metropolitan Philaret, in the 1960s. At the end of the day though, the MP re-established communion with ROCOR, without ROCOR ever changing a single position they held. Even after the reunion of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarch, ROCOR priests still told their faithful to stay away from New Calendar Churches (Greek and Antiochian EO). So, if ROCOR was extremist and not really Orthodox, now we must admit that the unified MP-ROCOR, with 90 to 150 million Russian Orthodox faithful, is also extremist and not really Orthodox. I understand that some posters here regard ROCOR and possibly the unified MP-ROCOR as extremist and un-Orthodox, but I just find their arguments unconvincing and I bet that most of those 90-150 million Russian Orthodox folks, as well as the Moscow Patriarch himself, would find those arguments unconvincing, too.

I am used to very different standards in the Catholic Church. When an organization is condemned, it is condemned on the authority of the Pope, and there’s an official document issued by the Vatican, naming the specific errors for which the organization is condemned. Then, the organization can be rehabilitated if it corrects its errors.

This is what I miss here - who condemned ROCOR, on whose authority, and for what particular errors. Moreover, since the MP did not find ROCOR in error, never condemned it, and agreed to reestablish communion with a ROCOR that still instructs its faithful not to commune in New Calendar Churches, this is no longer an issue affecting ROCOR only. It’s an issue affecting Russian Orthodoxy as a whole. The MP and the millions of Russian Orthodox did not, and do not regard ROCOR as being in error, even if certain EO posters on this forum do.

 

[josie_L]

I seem to recall this was discussed already on this thread or another one, and they were essentially a bunch of extremists? We have a “Catholic” chapel in my province like this - you must wear a skirt if you are a lady or suit if you aren’t, receive on the tongue, and use the TLM. And you must not take communion at other Catholic churches, especially the ones who don’t do these things.

That must be SSPX (they schismed from us), so it’s no surprise that they would say this.