Soloviev’s Amen: A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
Soloviev’s Amen: A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
REV. RAY RYLAND
crisismagazine.com/2003/solovievs-amen-a-russian-orthodox-argument-for-the-papacy-2

During the past six or seven centuries, succeeding pontiffs have repeatedly invited the separated Eastern Churches to return to communion with Rome. The few responses from the East have been negative—with only one exception, as far as I can determine. One member of an Eastern Orthodox Church responded positively in print… a Russian Orthodox layman named Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900).

continued here
 
Nevermind what our Fathers among our bishops, priests and monastics have to say. Let’s dismiss it all for one layman out on the fringes. :rolleyes:
 
Prodomos

There is also Peter Mohila’s, Metropolitan of Kiev in the 17th Century, proposed a formula for union. He was well ahead of his time as some of his ideas were imposed at Vatican II.

I admit its a long read but it is worth it.

Metropolitan Peter Mohila’s testimony in his own words:

*…The root of all our evils is the divergence which exists between the Greeks and Romans on the subject of the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. Emanating from this principle, some erroneous principles have issued, and from them some even more pernicious. It is thus that the Greeks have transmitted their errors to us Ruthenians who follow the rites of the Greeks. But we, who intend to restore religion to its holy principles, ought to set aside all that has been done or which is being done to the benefit of discord, and to return to those sound principles which lie at the source and origin of true religion. Consequently, the source, origin and cause of the discords of old between Greeks and Latins (and today among the different groups of Ruthenians) is deemed to be the recognition of the primacy in the Church; it is to this question (as being at the head of all the others) that we must apply ourselves.

We read in the Council of Florence that, some controversies having been raised by the Greeks because of the addition of the “Filiogue” to the Symbol [the Creed] - the Greeks objecting and the Romans responding - the Greeks concentrated all their energies on the single point of the primacy, without succeeding in extricating themselves. The Latins proceeded with wisdom, demonstrating that there was controversy between the Greeks and Latins only on the primacy [seeing that they had not imposed on the Greeks the insertion of the clause a Filio [from the Son] in the Symbol [the Creed], and that this clause [being admitted on the theological plane], the Romans requested only its avowal and not its addition to the Creed. There, was no further contestation concerning the Eucharist: the Latins admitted that the Byzantine liturgy was holy as based upon the institution of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit in the ecumenical Councils. They insisted on only one point: the acknowledgment by the Greeks of the primacy which had always been the endowment of the successors of the Prince of the Apostles; and they concluded tacitly that if agreement were lacking on that, all efforts at union would remain without effect; if it were approved, everything was intact. It is this same manner of proceeding that must be followed in this holy enterprise. We must follow it; it is the surest way. It is advisable to proceed thusly, and still more now than at that time when discussions took place between Latins and Greeks. At Florence. indeed, many sharp arguments took place, and the discussants appeared far from reaching agreement on the Eucharist as well as on the procession of the Holy Spirit, on purgatory and on the particular judgment, etc… Contrariwise, today, our Ruthenians who are well instructed, have the conviction that anyone who denied the adoration due the Holy Sacrament (either in the Roman Church or in theirs) or who would not acknowledge the invocation of the saints and their glory, the particular judgment, prayers and suffrages for the dead and, consequently, purgatory would be a heretic and not a Ruthenian. As regards the procession of the Holy Spirit, the question is not within the capacity of all and is not grasped by the simple; it has encountered a certain number of intransigent foes, but the instructed perceive its truth well and have an exact understanding of it.

There alone remains as matter for reflection the key point, i.e., the question of the primacy. That is why a Synod being convoked by the grace of God and all these questions being brought together again for it and proposed for discussion. It would be necessary to declare, first of all, that the ancient Greek Church had always piously professed the aforesaid points of doctrine and that she professes them in exact fashion today in her daily prayers, her hymns, and in adherence to the principles laid down by the holy Fathers of the Church.*
 
CONTINUED

*Today, the Ruthenians are divided among themselves on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff (like the Greeks and Latins of old), and it is on that subject that uniformity, consensus and concord are desired. But in order that such accord be realized, it is necessary that either of the two parties would surrender to the other or that a new compromise solution be suggested by the Holy Spirit. It seems impossible now that one of the two parties would surrender to the other, for they have both engaged in extreme positions based on extreme arguments. The Ruthenians united to Rome would wish to suppress the diocesan synodal structures which limit the power of the bishops and the way they administer their dioceses - and this at a time when barbarous Moscovite Russia is eager to free itself from the Patriarch of Constantinople. But the recognition of the primacy should not lead to an abrogation of what has already been decided by the Councils. Contrariwise, the non-united Ruthenians would set aside the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, wishing to depend only on the Patriarch of Constantinople. But then the schism will develop even more rapidly among the Ruthenians than with the Greeks. It is necessary, then, to seek a middle-of-the-road solution and to reject these two extreme positions.

The appropriate solution would be the following: Let all recognize the primacy. The Apostolic See ought to content itself with this without changing or abandoning any of its principles and basic rights. It is real union and not mere change that we must seek. Now, the constitution and nature of union is to unite two realities and to safeguard each natural integrity. That which existed previously should exist today; that which did not exist previously ought to be suppressed. That which has always existed is the Sovereign Pontiff regarded as the first and supreme pastor in the Church of Christ, as the Vicar of Christ, the Chief. May that be conserved today! But we have never read that a Latin has ever exercised a direct jurisdiction over the Greek rite. The Greeks have always acknowledged the primacy, but they themselves have always been under the jurisdiction of a patriarch of their own rite. *
 
CONTINUED

…We confess openly, in virtue of the principles and basic foundations of the Church of God that our own (Byzantine) rite distinguishes us from the Roman, but that we have communion in one and the same faith. We are not able to deny that the Blessed Apostle Peter has been, as we profess in the hymns of our Church, the Prince of the Apostles and that his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, hold in perpetuity the supreme authority in the Church of God.

He doesn’t acknowledge all of the Roman claims but he does grant Rome more than the modern EO do.

Just an interesting bit of history
 
Soloviev’s Amen: A Russian Orthodox Argument for the Papacy
REV. RAY RYLAND
crisismagazine.com/2003/solovievs-amen-a-russian-orthodox-argument-for-the-papacy-2

During the past six or seven centuries, succeeding pontiffs have repeatedly invited the separated Eastern Churches to return to communion with Rome. The few responses from the East have been negative—with only one exception, as far as I can determine. One member of an Eastern Orthodox Church responded positively in print… a Russian Orthodox layman named Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900).

continued here
Here is a list of the eastern Catholic churches.

Always united with Rome:
Italo-Albanian (a.k.a., Italo-Greek, Italo-Albanian)
Maronite (reaffirmed union 1182)

Reunited (est. jurisdiction):
1552 Chaldean
1595 Belarusan, Ukrainian
1599 Syro-Malabar

1611 Krizevci (Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro)
1628 Albanian
1646 Ruthenian, Slovakian (1818), Hungarian (1912)
1697 Romanian

1724 Melkite
1741 Coptic
1742 Armenian
1781 Syrian

1829 Greek
1846 Ethiopian, Eritrean (1930)
1861 Bulgarian

1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1930 Syro-Malankara
 
I wonder how Metropolitan Peter would have been able to square such thoughts with his confession of the Orthodox faith, which states things quite contrary to Catholic doctrine?
 
As someone who is familiar with Fr. Ryland’s attitude toward the Orthodox, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise to me that he would reference Soloviev.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top