Soloviev for an Eastern Orthodox looking back at Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter NJC89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NJC89

Guest
Hello everyone,

i am 28 and have spent the last 18 months in the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church of Australia. I was raised Roman Catholic, but only nominally, apart from School we never went to Church and like everyone else i drifted away in my teens. I spent a lot of time in radical right wing politics, and went between atheism and paganism throughout my late teens and early 20’s.
I had a change of heart and wanted to become Christian in amongst all of that, and after quickly dismissing Protestantism i was left with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I chose Orthodox Christianity in the end, but it was always a close thing. Even up to the day of Baptism i was having periodic doubts and desires to stay with Rome, but i made up my mind no matter what i was becoming Orthodox.

My first 18 months have not been easy. Spiritually, they have been beautiful, as the Eastern Orthodox have such a profound spirituality. But there is also much i have struggled with - primarily the ethnic tribalism. It’s pervasive, and there is no English language Mission parish in my City, so i am stuck with ethnic/immigrant parishes, who whilst being welcoming, it is still not home for me. I am also shocked by the lack of missionary/evangelical zeal in the Orthodox Church, they know how to pray, but the vast majority are completely uninterested in opening up their churches to any outsiders. It’s very sad and very hard for me to deal with.

So i have recently been looking back at Rome. There is a mountain of issues i have with Rome. Primarily the Papacy, however i am reading Soloviev’s Russia and the Universal Church and it is very interesting to see such a powerful argument FOR the Papacy from a Russian Christian.

My question is however… Would Soloviev have made the same plea for the Russian Orthodox Church to reunite with Rome if he were alive today? What would make the Eastern Orthodox, who are pillars of tradition and conservatism today, want to reunite with Rome and the shambles that the RCC? In Soloviev’s time the Papacy was rock solid and powerful. Now? Francis? What could make us want to return to that?

I guess that’s where i am at now. I can understand the Papacy fixing all of the East’s problems in the Early Church. I could see it having healed our divisions 100 years ago. But those days are gone, and Rome is now compromised, and why would Orthodox Christians want to give a compromised Papcy jurisdiction over the whole Church?
 
The Creed requires the Church to be one and this requires the jurisdiction of the papacy. The EO Churches get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; ROCOR’s situation until 2006; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with other parts, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and some did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of bishops, but of national Churches/patriarchates (which didn’t happen anyway).

The oneness of the Church can also mean that problems tend to effect us all together–one Church is not quarantined off from the others–but it is what the Lord intended. Usually, though, this oneness is a strength that gives Christ an unparalleled voice and presence in the whole world that cannot be hid and whose internal coherence provides for a more organized and vital mission to the nations.

There are times at various points throughout history where the grass appears greener one one side or the other. Catholic problems today are a matter of us not living up to our principles as well as we should (not the first time). But, at least from what I can tell, the EOs have a problem in their very principles.
 
Last edited:
Moscow Orthodoxy is now heavily involved in politics, and therefore it is possible that the thinkers of Moscow Orthodoxy will criticize Ukrainian Greek Catholics.
The leader of the Moscow Orthodoxy met not so long ago in Cuba with the Pontiff, this meeting was politically beneficial to the Kremlin, and even there were statements not quite clear to the Ukrainian Catholics of Byzantine rite.
If you will find a historical or contemporary criticism of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholics, I think you should read more resources and not to jump to conclusions at once.
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe that it is possible for a church to be orthodox and catholic at the same time. But perhaps someone who knows more about the Byzantine church can chime in.
 
Hello,

It is possible to be both Orthodox and Catholic. That is how I see myself, Orthodox in communion with Rome. Here are some great reads: Pope Leo XIII Encyclical on the Churches of the East, Orientalium Dignitas; Vatican II decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite, Orientalium Ecclesiarium; and Saint Pope John Paul II Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are called to return to their ancient heritage and traditions.

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top