Why are we talking to Constantinople instead of Moscow?

[Hesychios]

I will not dispute the bulk of the post, (in main I agree), but the bolded portion is another matter. How very typical of Moscow thinking, whether religious or secular. They’re so worried about others respecting their territory, but they neglect to note that they have done the exact same thing. In the case of the Moscow Patriarchate, it has established its own eparchies (whether autocephalic or missionary dependencies, it doesn’t matter) in the the canonical West. Supposedly this is to seve the Russian Orthodox faithful, but the fact remains that they are territorially and geographically out of their canonical jurisdiction. (One could draw a few secular parallels, whether from Imperial Russia, or Soviet Union, or post-Soviet Russia, but there’s no reason to go that far off topic and I will not do so.)

Don’t get me wrong: I have no quarrel with the extra-territorial foundations per se, but please: one Patriarchate should not accuse another Patriarchate of doing what it itself does, especially when both are guilty of the same type of violation of canonical territory. Just MHO, though I fear I’ve knocked down a hornets nest.

Your comments are not without merit. I think that these things can, and should, be discussed. Meat for the (negotiating) table.

I think the Russian position still has validity however. Before the great schism almost 1000 years ago, Latin parishes in the east would have been under the local Patriarch, and Greek churches in the west would have been under the local Patriarch (namely, the bishop of Rome). If there is ever intercommunion between the churches again the possibility of the Latin parishes in Russia coming under the Patriarch of Moscow should be explored, as well as the possibility of the Byzantine Orthodox parishes in western Europe coming under the Patriarch at Rome. This could restore the older ecclesiology of the church.

Of course, this would require that we all trust one another to a much greater degree than we have up until now.

 

[Aramis]

Take places like California and Oregon: The Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholics both got there about the same time. The Russians were few; the Catholics many more. By the old way, they should be under a single bishop, despite no similarities of rite, language, nor constituency of the faithful.

And Alaska, where Catholics outnumber orthodox 6 to 5… and the two together account for 45% of the people and 50% of the faithful, and about 60% of Christians…

Or the Ukraine, where Moscow refuses to consider Autocephaly, and forcibly absorbed the Constantinoplean aligned Ukrainian Autonomous Church… and then complains about the Greek Catholics, who sought out Rome (tho’ the Russians claim it the other way; the documents sure do make it clear that Rome welcomed them, but they came to Rome of their own will).

Russia has a strong history of Imperialism… both civilly and religiously. Russian claims of Moscow as the New New Rome are not exaggerations… they are the basis of the self-proclaimed patriarchate (now well accepted), and the origin of the term Царь (Tsar), itself a corruption of Cesar.

Russian nationalism extends to a form of manifest destiny of leadership over all the Slavs, expressed clearly by several Tsars. Including His Imperial Majesty Nicholas II.

 

[JohnVIII]

I’m sure that the postings that I have made make me look like a partisan Orthodox Christian, but I’ve been tempted for some time now to make a post or two to comment about the Patriarch of Constantinople. There is a reason that some monasteries on the holy mountain are “non-commemorating” monasteries. According to canon law monasteries of the holy mountain must commemorate the the Patriarch of Constantinople; but some cannot in clear conscience do this as they consider him to be a heretic, a mason, and even as you said a pro-lifer. Personally I think the Orthodox Church would be better off if the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased to exist. Of course the Patriarch of Moscow has issues as well, seeing that he is a very high-ranking member of the KGB! But I guess no one’s perfect!

Saint Pope Gregory was right when he said that Constantinople should never be called the see of “Ecumenical Patriarch”. If St. Peter is rolling over in his grave over what the Pope in Rome has done in the past, then St. Andrew is doing somersaults in his grave over what the patriarch of Constantinople has done in the past and in the present!

 

[jonnyws]

"Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

Perhaps I’m misreading this but it seems to me that he’s saying abortion is wrong and that he does believe that human life starts at conception but at the same time he is stating that he believes, to some extent, that the Church has to allow lay people to follow their consciences and that people shouldn’t be judged for doing so.

 

[DL82]

Perhaps I’m misreading this but it seems to me that he’s saying abortion is wrong and that he does believe that human life starts at conception but at the same time he is stating that he believes, to some extent, that the Church has to allow lay people to follow their consciences and that people shouldn’t be judged for doing so.

Hang on a minute - so the Orthodox Church doesn’t consider abortion to be a sin? Or the Orthodox Church does believe it’s a sin but doesn’t see anything wrong with allowing it to happen? I realise the mortal/venial distinction doesn’t exist in the East, but still the killing of the unborn must be seen as a grave sin.

I would have thought the outrage at abortion was pretty clear in most if not all of the early Church Fathers. If anything, I’d have thought the Orthodox would be even more hard-line on this than the Catholic Church. Is this a result of the compromises the Orthodox churches were forced to make under Communism?

Are Orthodox Christians honestly concerned that Patriarch Bartholomew is too pro-life? That’s a side of Orthodoxy I have not encountered before.

 

[Aramis]

Generally, what I’ve encountered of the Orthodox locally are anti-abortion. Birth control is less rigid a stance.

Premarital abstinance is called for. Birth control is permitted but only when one can not afford to have more children (due to health or finances). Barrier and anti-ovulation are allowed, but anti-implantation is discouraged.

The OCA have a nice statement about it on their webpage. oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3

 

[Milliardo]

Hang on a minute - so the Orthodox Church doesn’t consider abortion to be a sin? Or the Orthodox Church does believe it’s a sin but doesn’t see anything wrong with allowing it to happen? I realise the mortal/venial distinction doesn’t exist in the East, but still the killing of the unborn must be seen as a grave sin.

I would have thought the outrage at abortion was pretty clear in most if not all of the early Church Fathers. If anything, I’d have thought the Orthodox would be even more hard-line on this than the Catholic Church. Is this a result of the compromises the Orthodox churches were forced to make under Communism?

Are Orthodox Christians honestly concerned that Patriarch Bartholomew is too pro-life? That’s a side of Orthodoxy I have not encountered before.

Abortion for the Orthodox Church is a grave sin, and is never permitted. Hope that clears it.

 

[Barbieflausa]

Generally, what I’ve encountered of the Orthodox locally are anti-abortion. Birth control is less rigid a stance.

Premarital abstinance is called for. Birth control is permitted but only when one can not afford to have more children (due to health or finances). Barrier and anti-ovulation are allowed, but anti-implantation is discouraged.

The OCA have a nice statement about it on their webpage. oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3

…Thank you Aramis…I hope some folks here will check this out…and any other question they may have regarding The Orthodox Church. It does no one any good to mis-represent something thay may not know or be familiar with. I pray one day we will ALL walk hand in hand…as we throw ourseleves on the Divine Mercy of God. AMEN

 

[Genesis315]

Every Orthodox person I have met that cares about their faith has been very anti-abortion. Of course, they have OINOs like we have CINOs, but such people do not make the rule of faith.

 

[JohnVIII]

I like the last two posts here; they are exactly my sentiments. I still see the Catholic Church as having Apostolic succession, though along the way it has adopted some irregular notions especially in the role of the bishop of Rome. And yes, it will be hard for staunch Catholics to accept a more limited scope of the Pope’s authority, but that was how it was in the early Church.

I like hearing these sentiments, but I think it is all wishfull thinking. I think we will soon see must of the Orthodox uniting with Rome in the way Rome wants it to happen. I think the Orthodox will even give in on the issue of the filioque. This is not wishful thinking on my part because I do not wish to see this happen. I just think that this will happen. I was a member of ROCOR (the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) for 20 years and was always taught there that the offical church in Russia should be called the Soviet Church and that it was schismatic and even without grace; then in just a very short time I watched ROCOR unite (or re-unite) with Moscow with hardly any objections to it from anyone. It is only a matter of time, I think, before we see the same thing happen to unite Rome and Moscow, and just as fast too. Once again, I do not wish to see this happen, but I firmly believe that it will happen, soon!

 

[eelpis]

Russia has not converted. Our Lady has promised that she will convert Russia. We have to trust her. In the end her immaculate heart will triumph, through the sacred heart of Jesus.

 

[Nicholas82]

Russia has not converted. Our Lady has promised that she will convert Russia. We have to trust her. In the end her immaculate heart will triumph, through the sacred heart of Jesus.

pffffffffffffft.

 

[Aramis]

Russia has not converted. Our Lady has promised that she will convert Russia. We have to trust her. In the end her immaculate heart will triumph, through the sacred heart of Jesus.

That particular wording and devotion actually are one of the things that fuels Russian dislike of Catholics.

The combination of the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotions (which are alien to Russian devotional practice) and the manifest destiny and imperial ambitions it expresses are problematic.

Russian Church History is imperialistic; Roman Church History is Imperialistic. Both tend towards arrogance as corporate bodies; both tend also to be dismissive of others. Both have had major schisms with reunions. Both have had schisms that have never healed. Both have histories of oppressing each other.

I do agree that reunification will likely be sudden, and result in a new cardinal-patriarchate reserved explicitly for the Muscovite Patriarch; anything less would be unthinkable based upon Russian History.

 

[eelpis]

That particular wording and devotion actually are one of the things that fuels Russian dislike of Catholics.

The combination of the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotions (which are alien to Russian devotional practice) and the manifest destiny and imperial ambitions it expresses are problematic.

Russian Church History is imperialistic; Roman Church History is Imperialistic. Both tend towards arrogance as corporate bodies; both tend also to be dismissive of others. Both have had major schisms with reunions. Both have had schisms that have never healed. Both have histories of oppressing each other.

I do agree that reunification will likely be sudden, and result in a new cardinal-patriarchate reserved explicitly for the Muscovite Patriarch; anything less would be unthinkable based upon Russian History.

Russia will be converted to the true faith.

 

[Aramis]

Russia will be converted to the true faith.

You really don’t get it, do you?

Orthodoxy is every bit as much the True Faith as Catholocism. the schism is a matter of ecclesiology, not faith.

Russian Church Byzantine Rite Catholics change only the diptychs and add papal infallibility… and who their bishop is.

Fundamentally, the Eastern Orthodox ARE still theologically with the Eastern Catholics, separated only by the understanding of the hierarchy of the church. This is acknowledged in several ways, including them being allowed all the sacraments save ordination without having to convert, and Catholics being allowed to seek out EO priests for the sacraments if they can’t approach a catholic. (It’s in canon law, both CIC {=Roman} and CCEO {= Eastern Catholic}. )

They don’t need conversion to the true faith, for they share it with us already, merely reunification with the heir of Peter.

 

[eelpis]

You really don’t get it, do you?

Orthodoxy is every bit as much the True Faith as Catholocism. the schism is a matter of ecclesiology, not faith.

Russian Church Byzantine Rite Catholics change only the diptychs and add papal infallibility… and who their bishop is.

Fundamentally, the Eastern Orthodox ARE still theologically with the Eastern Catholics, separated only by the understanding of the hierarchy of the church. This is acknowledged in several ways, including them being allowed all the sacraments save ordination without having to convert, and Catholics being allowed to seek out EO priests for the sacraments if they can’t approach a catholic. (It’s in canon law, both CIC {=Roman} and CCEO {= Eastern Catholic}. )

They don’t need conversion to the true faith, for they share it with us already, merely reunification with the heir of Peter.

We all need conversion. I trust Our Lady rather than your attempts at theology.

 

[Formosus]

So you trust a private revelation rather then Canon law? Did you ever consider that Russia was being used metaphorically by Our Lady of Fatima. Representing leftism and the secularist world as the Reds were about to take over the empire.

 

[eelpis]

So you trust a private revelation rather then Canon law? Did you ever consider that Russia was being used metaphorically by Our Lady of Fatima. Representing leftism and the secularist world as the Reds were about to take over the empire.

The Orthodox deny the indissolubility of marriage - that is a defined dogma. We also have the immaculate conception and the infallibility of the pope. Some of the Orthodox deny the existence of purgatory.

These are all defined teachings of the Church.

 

[malphono]

Russia has not converted. Our Lady has promised that she will convert Russia. We have to trust her. In the end her immaculate heart will triumph, through the sacred heart of Jesus.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent, but as I was taught many years ago, and as I still believe, the conversion of Russia meant conversion from atheistic communism, NOT the conversion of the Russian Orthodox. While I may not be a big fan of the Moscow Patriarchate for a variety of reasons, never would I even think that it should be converted. How is it possible to convert Orthodoxy to orthodoxy? Aramis is 100% on target.

 

[Formosus]

The Orthodox deny the indissolubility of marriage - that is a defined dogma. We also have the immaculate conception and the infallibility of the pope. Some of the Orthodox deny the existence of purgatory.

These are all defined teachings of the Church.

The issue of marriage is a complex one, but it could perhaps be a difference of terms rather then actual meaning. The infalibility of the Pope is a doctrine highly tied to ecclesiology, hence what Aramis was tlaking about. The Immaculate conception is a difference of theologies not faith and so is Purgatory. So perhaps you should address my point of Our Lady really calling for a conversion from Leftist idealogy.