I may have asked this before — I have a vague and possibly false memory of it — but couldn’t Byzantium just go ahead and take the plunge, and let the Russians follow when and if they see fit?
- Status
D
dochawk
Guest
It could do that, yes–but it would put it is schism (ok, worse schism) with the ROC, who are something like 80-90% of Eastern Orthodoxy today, and not hesitant to use the influence/power of their purse.
And Rome (admirably) won’t enter an agreement that causes another schism.
The ROC basically wants its primate raised above Byzantium (and Rome)–because, well, he’s Russian . . .
And Rome (admirably) won’t enter an agreement that causes another schism.
The ROC basically wants its primate raised above Byzantium (and Rome)–because, well, he’s Russian . . .
I see. I think I’ve had a similar conversation before on CAF (possibly with yourself). I thought the ROC seeking primacy is because it views itself as the rightful successor to Byzantium, the “Third Rome”, as it were.
C
commenter
Guest
Is the ROCOR supporting the ROC in the jurisdiction issue regarding the Ukrainian Church?
P
PilgrimMichelangelo
Guest
Yes. They follow the “Third Rome” Theory and loudly declare that “there shall be no fourth”, which remains to be seen, as one American Orthodox monk pointed out, because America is politically built on Pagan Greco-Roman ideals and Judeo-Christian culture. He sees no reason why America could not eventually become the “Fourth Rome” in the case of Orthodoxy becoming the dominant religion.
A
AlNg
Guest
i doubt it. I don’t see the agreement between Rome and Byzantium on the following issues, do you?
Papal infallibility
universal papal jurisdiction
And there are a whole lot of other issues as outlined in
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
How do you suppose that these questions are going to be resolved between Rome and Byzantium by year’s end?
I mean no offense to the Orthodox by saying this, but I can’t see this ever happening in America. The American mentality is fundamentally Western, and Orthodoxy is just too ethereal, too mystical, and — again, no offense intended — too “foreign” ever to catch on, and to become the leading force in American life. There would have to be some kind of variation on the theme of “Western Rite Orthodoxy”, basically a hybrid of Catholicism without the Pope, and Anglicanism with valid orders, with a heavy layover of Eastern as well as Western spirituality. They would also have to find some way to appeal to the evangelical mindset, just how they would go about this, I don’t know.HomeschoolDad:
Yes. They follow the “Third Rome” Theory and loudly declare that “there shall be no fourth”, which remains to be seen, as one American Orthodox monk pointed out, because America is politically built on Pagan Greco-Roman ideals and Judeo-Christian culture. He sees no reason why America could not eventually become the “Fourth Rome” in the case of Orthodoxy becoming the dominant religion.
R
ReaderT
Guest
Not with that attitude!
But seriously, the hefty majority of our faithful in America are converts. I’d say Orthodoxy is catching on very well
Last edited:
Be aware of my immense respect for Eastern Christianity, and I would welcome either manifestation of apostolic, sacramental, orthodox, Catholic Christianity — Eastern or Western — becoming “the leading force in American life”, just so long as it is in some kind of communion with Rome. What we have right now is basically a pan-Protestant Christian mentality, even among those of other faiths (yes, including Catholics) — “Judeo-Christianity with all the hard stuff taken out”. And of course you have to make everyone feel good and feel like they are “pretty good people”. Leaving people free to marry whomever they wish, get out of marriages when they become problematical, and to use their bodies as tools for their own self-actualization without guilt or unwanted consequences, would also be a plus. Eastern Christianity doesn’t do any of these things, least of all the latter.HomeschoolDad:
Not with that attitude!
But seriously, the hefty majority of our faithful in America are converts. I’d say Orthodoxy is catching on very well
I do realize that many Orthodox in the United States are converts, and that the various ethnic churches are slowly turning loose of their exclusive national identities (Greeks probably more slowly than others), but this said, I submit that the United States is, at root and branch, a fundamentally Western country, and that her preferred religious manifestations — whatever those might be — are Western. Orthodoxy fits well with Russia, like hand in glove, so that it is difficult to tell where Russianness ends and Orthodoxy begins (and vice versa). That is good, she is not called “Holy Russia” for nothing. But likewise, a pan-Protestant mentality, Western by definition, fits Americans the same way — the place where pan-Protestantism ends and American national consciousness begins is, likewise, very blurry. I can’t see that changing anytime soon.
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
I see what you’re saying; American culture is deeply Western Enlightenment Protestant, that’s true. It will take time and effort to contradict that and form a different mindset and culture, but we converts are mostly young and producing the first generation of non-immigrant, Cradle Orthodox American kids, so hopefully they’ll be a strong bulwark. God willing. Time will tell.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Other than personal observation, or in your own parish, do you have any dara to show EO is growing in the USA, and/or have a higher percentage of converts now, compared to cradles?
Is there much EO growth through immigration in recent years?
R
ReaderT
Guest
It’s a nearly universal story anywhere in the country - walk into any OCA parish (Orthodox Church in America) and nearly all the adults including the priest will be converts.
I’m sure the other Orthodox on the forum can attest to this also.
For example, here’s a nearby OCA parish that I’m familiar with (I whitewashed the picture to obscure their identities):
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Last edited:
X
Xarto
Guest
I think the Patriarch of the ROC (Krill?) seems to be positioning himself as the de facto “leader” of Orthodoxy undermining Constantinople. Many Orthodox seem to follow his lead, you can see this in how the granting of autocephaly to the Ukrainian church was received.
X
Xarto
Guest
Thats the impression I get as well.
X
Xarto
Guest
I love the way the claim they planted Christianity in Ireland and Scotland when those monks were Catholic in that they looked to Rome and the Pope. The fact that the Irish monks eventually bowed to the Roman date of Easter after the Council of Whitby shows this. If they were an independent “orthodox” church pre-schism even would they have changed their date because of some bishop in a foreign country?
D
dochawk
Guest
that;s their justification (even though that didn’t work when Byzantium tried it, and it only moved to #2 when it relied on it’s apostolic founding [Andrew] later).
And intriguing as the argument is (though “third rome” is more hubris than factual), even if accepted, it would still only get Moscow to #3 . . . but, again, the lack of apostolic founding would still leave Jerusalem and ANtioch ahead of it.
But then, those are just arguments; it remains ultimately about russian nationalism.
but that does seem to vary by audience and the discussion at hand; I’ve seen DC flat-out referred to as fourth rome when it suited . . .
Pretty much along the lines posited by then Cardinal Ratzinger, or +Zogby.
infallibility is trivial, when one considers that it’s in the bishop of Rome’s roll as president of the college of bishops; it would take mere refinement to formalize the roll of the other bishops.
universal jurisdiction again comes by refining back to the historic appellate role.
No, it wouldn’t be romo-supremic.
Last edited:
Just to put it out there, how would the matter of second marriages, while the prior spouse is still living, be handled? It seems that to continue to allow economia in the East, but not in the West, would be, after a fashion, like Siger of Brabant’s “double truth” — “divorce and remarriage isn’t wrong for Easterners, but it’s wrong for Westerners”. But not to put the cart before the horse. Your thoughts?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Supposedly this could all be solved by the end of the year, but it is Russian nationalism that is preventing a solution?
Also solved by the end of the year would be the question of artificial birth control which is allowed by some Orthodox priests if the family already has three or more children and is facing financial difficulties. But Russian nationalism is preventing this question from being solved? That’s odd because this letter to the Pope is written by Greek Orthodox clergy and I don’t see where Russians had any hand in writing it.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
Last edited:
No disrespect intended to the good bishops, but that epistle is a “TLHomeschoolDad:
Supposedly this could all be solved by the end of the year, but it is Russian nationalism that is preventing a solution?
Also solved by the end of the year would be the question of artificial birth control which is allowed by some Orthodox priests if the family already has three or more children and is facing financial difficulties. But Russian nationalism is preventing this question from being solved? That’s odd because this letter to the Pope is written by Greek Orthodox clergy and I don’t see where Russians had any hand in writing it.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
R” if I’ve ever seen such a thing.It seems to me, that the simple answer regarding contraception is that some Orthodox priests allow it, but doing so is not an official teaching or practice of the Orthodox Church as a whole.
And as far as divorce and remarriage is concerned, I do have to wonder if Rome would be willing to say “one condition of reunion is that you discontinue this practice, economia can’t be used to allow people to live in adultery”.
- Status