S
Seraphim73
Guest
It’s fallen out of vogue among the Greeks here in the States for whatever reason. As fascinating as the question of headcoverings is I don’t understand what it has to do with female bishops.
Russian Orthodox statement on The Church of England's decision to allow female bishops
- Status
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
With all due respect for the Russian Orthodox Church, I find it a little strange that they are in any position to criticize the Church of England. When I saw video of Orthodox priests beating innocent people in a gay rights parade in Russia, my horror and shock over what Christians are willing to do to others left me with a very empty feeling about the Orthodox Church.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Well first of all I can’t find the video but I’ll never understand why people think this way. Even if it happened you saw a handful of priests out of how many? You have to just use a little common sense here. Priests are people. Some are holier than others. I just read a story about a Lutheran minister abusing a child. Perhaps the Lutheran Church is in no position to criticize anything since their ministers sexually molest children? I suppose since you are Lutheran I should completely disregard any post you make?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
It is not that easy. And first off, I am sorry if I offended you. I know what it is like to have other “Christians” on CAF demean and ridicule in the name of the Church. It was not just a few Orthodox priests in the footage I saw; I think it was on 60 Minutes but if you like I can find the segment.
The Church has a responsibility to the world to protect life. The violent reaction of “Christians” toward others is therefore appalling. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is Orthodox and has signed/ promoted various discrimination laws against gay people that, I understand, was encouraged by the Orthodox Church.
My point is that the educated world increasingly sees the Church as primitive and uninviting when cultural issues such as female bishops or gay marriage are used as some sort of barometer for morality. Pope Francis has expressed dismay with those in the Church who attack fellow Christians over differences unrelated to salvation. Anyone remember “Who am I to judge?” nbcnews.com/news/other/who-am-i-judge-popes-most-powerful-phrase-2013-f2D11791260
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It might have happened, but the fact is that the western media is very pro-homosexual these days so anything which implies homophobia is blown way out of proportion in the western media.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Since when does ‘the educated world’ get a say in anything concerning church discipline or doctrine? I haven’t seen the video you mention, but I will say that plenty of our priests, bishops, etc. are educated, and this does not stop them from upholding traditional Christian doctrine and discipline. Our current Pope, HH Pope Tawadros II, has a degree in pharmacy and managed a major pharmaceutical company in Egypt before giving up that life to become a priest. With due respect for your viewpoint (and of course I would agree that beating homosexuals or similar behavior is abhorrent), it seems like you are creating a false dichotomy in order to absolve your church from having been transformed by the world because you’d rather not been seen by people who do not care about Christianity at all in the first place as “mean and uninviting”. Cultural issues, as you’ve called them, are never a good reason to abandon Christian truth and practice, as cultures vary so much across the world, and transform greatly over time even in one place. 100 years ago, could anyone have imagined the current mania over gay marriage and sexual identity issues that seem to drive so much of the younger generations to abandon Christianity and other religion for being “unloving”? I highly doubt it. Of course, suggesting that the world’s idea of what love is needs to be transformed by a solid understanding of Christian anthropology (what being a person is about) sounds crazy to those Christians who have long ago abandoned any such concept in favor of doing what makes the world happy. I do not believe that the Church of England or many other churches can do much to speak to the world while it is being controlled and dictated to by it, and it doesn’t take much digging to find out where those orders ultimately come from (John 12:31, 14:30, et al).
P
pablope
Guest
Most likely is because that is the last image of the BVM…with a covering on her head…prior to the end of her stay on earth and her subsequent assumption.
B
boar2roar
Guest
What position? Of not sharing liberal views? Thats not hypocricy its consistent with the their feelings on the bishop situation.
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Well, I suppose one can just Google Russian Orthodox violence against gay people and find your favorite news source.
rt.com/news/anti-gay-clashes-tbilisi-421/
This thread is not about how the Orthodox Church is dealing with homosexuality but this is the Church that is scolding the Church of England over women bishops as some sort of moral high ground. I call it hypocrisy and very unChristian.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Then you have a very strange definition of hypocrisy. There is a big difference between what individuals do in their own capacities and what an institution teaches. Do you not believe that? The Anglican Communion as a Church accepts female “priests” and “bishops” and also consecrates openly gay men in homosexual relationships as bishops. You are not seeing the forest for the trees my friend.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why is it hypocrisy to denounce the propagation of pro-homosexual materials to children? Why is it hypocrisy to denounce homosexual activity as an abomination against the Bible and Christian tradition?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Perhaps it is the difference between Western society and a mindset that clings to primitive notions. I certainly would not compare Russia to England in terms of intellectual and progressive acceptance and understanding.
D
dzheremi
Guest
How does that insulting arrogance in any way answer or even address Tomdstone’s questions?
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Does not the second part demonstrate the first, from an Orthodox perspective?
It has come about through a change in the perception of women, a change which has occurred both within and without the Church. Given Jesus’ rather-unusual interactions with women in his own time, presuming the genesis of this change to be wholly secular seems premature.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
To be frank, I do not see how the decision can be such a great barrier.
First, this change for the CofE is not new for the Anglican Communion. Any discussions with the Communion were thus already discussions with a confederation including provinces which installed women as bishops.
Second, this change was hardly a surprise, and is merely the next natural, logical step in the development of the Communion. If that development is in a direction with which the ROC is unhappy, it was already in place in the previous discussions. Perhaps the ROC might have been unaware of that, but it was the case. Better to have it out in the open now, and not have a Photian Schism later.
Third, we are the Anglican Communion, not the ROC, and it would be unreasonable of the ROC to predicate “dialogue” with us on the basis that we should be only what the ROC want us to be. That is not what dialogue means.
Thus, I suspect that the ROC will return to such discussions, albeit perhaps with a different view to their outcome.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’d be surprised if they’d had high hopes for the discussions with the Anglicans in the first place, but who knows. 
I would think the statement is better understood as saying something akin to “We weren’t happy when you did X, and now that you’ve gone one step further and done Y as well, we’re all the more unhappy.”
Speaking as an outsider, I think that the ROC would do better to discontinue future talks with the Anglicans, just as the Patriarch of Constantinople did centuries ago once it became clear that they really had no reason to continue talking. The idea that dialogue shouldn’t predicated on forcing one church to be what the other wants them to be (which I agree with in principle) works both ways, i.e., the Anglicans cannot just do whatever they want an expect a warm welcome from everyone who thinks that their innovations are spiritual poison. Better to cut them off. They may be welcomed back when they get serious about traditional Christianity (which I personally hold no illusions that they’ll ever do on any kind of mass level).
I would think the statement is better understood as saying something akin to “We weren’t happy when you did X, and now that you’ve gone one step further and done Y as well, we’re all the more unhappy.”Speaking as an outsider, I think that the ROC would do better to discontinue future talks with the Anglicans, just as the Patriarch of Constantinople did centuries ago once it became clear that they really had no reason to continue talking. The idea that dialogue shouldn’t predicated on forcing one church to be what the other wants them to be (which I agree with in principle) works both ways, i.e., the Anglicans cannot just do whatever they want an expect a warm welcome from everyone who thinks that their innovations are spiritual poison. Better to cut them off. They may be welcomed back when they get serious about traditional Christianity (which I personally hold no illusions that they’ll ever do on any kind of mass level).
S
Seraphim73
Guest
There is a passage from a very famous encyclical written in response to a encyclical written by Pope Pius IX that has always stuck with me. It’s sad in a way but watching it play out before my very eyes gives me great faith.
'2. Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17), has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle.
- Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’
I think there was a time when there were very warm relations between the ROC and Anglican Church. There was hope that one day maybe even the Anglicans could be recognized as being Orthodox. That time has gone and now it’s just going to waste away into a post-Christian new age religion of some kind. Tragic.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
If only Jesus had had the benefit of being instructed by enlightened, Western liberals, He might not held to such primitive notions as marriage being between a man and woman exclusively, and the absolute sinfulness of sexual activity outside of that context.
tsk tsk for you, Triune God.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
You and I often agree, but you go too far. A Western/primitive dichotomy and an identification of intellect with ‘progressive acceptance and understanding’ is obviously misguided.
K
KP3243
Guest
As a Russian American (I am Catholic, not Orthodox) I wouldn’t exactly call Russia primitive. One half of the Cold War parties were Russians and the other half American. The Soviets/Russian kept up with the US in areas of science and technology and I will put Russian literature, arts and architecture up against anyone. Communism is a failure and evil, consider yourself blessed you didn’t live in Leningrad during your life and were blessed to live in England. Russia still has issues they are dealing with after the fall of the Soviet Union but they are working on them, it will take time to break a whole people of a way from a style of living that they had lived for almost a century.
- Status