Why is the relationship between Rome and the Russian Orthodox particularly strained?

[5Loaves]

…Yes they consider us Catholics as heretics on account of us using the New Calendar…And I haven’t even mentioned yet that they also condemn the use of musical instruments (as opposed to human voice only) during Divine Liturgy, and the presence of pews in such churches as the Greek and Antiochian. So, do they condemn us Catholics?..

I am Catholic and my parish has no pews and we use no musical instruments, only the human voice… well, we do ring bells, but they are located outside in the yard.
We also follow “The Revised ‘New Julian’ Calendar (With selected “Old Calendar” notations”)" which reckons Pascha on the “Old Calendar”.

 

[Volodymyr]

There are many difficulties and bannings with Orthodox on this site right now, so I am almost fearful to try to defend Orthodox. But I will try and hope not to offend Catholics. Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox and Belorusan Orthodox in these countries do not condemn Catholics. Our churches do not have benches, organs and follow Julian calendar. Some Greko Catholic churches, which are Catholic, would surprise you - they have no benches, no organs and follow Julian calendar.

But also it is not just some Russian Psyche that liturgy and changes in it are important. I have read many times on this sait that are traditionally Catholic persons who want Latin language Holy Mass only, who want singing during Holy Mass to be Gregorian chant, who want only to receive Holy Mysteries while kneeling in front of priest. These differences to non Catholic may seem like small liturgical variations. But I can think that there are many who consider these things important. Just so, how to make the Crossing, how the Holy Name of Jesus is spelled are important things to Old Believers. Music only with human voices and standing only in the presence of God are important for Orthodox.

But because of them we do NOT condemn Catholics.

Sorry I have left out very important word. We DO NOT condemn Catholics for their practices.

 

[lewevanhoop]

About 10 years ago i seriously considered joining the Orthodox Church and what really stopped me was the jurisdictional chaos and this simply proved to me that the Orthodox Church worldwide needs the holy father. As it is now how would you deal with a new heresy since you couldn’t call a new council without the participation and ratification of the see of Peter?

 

[Rawb]

As it is now how would you deal with a new heresy since you couldn’t call a new council without the participation and ratification of the see of Peter?

What makes you say that?

 

[lewevanhoop]

Historically the result of an ecumenical council have had to have been ratified by the Bishop of Rome before they are considered binding on the Church Universal.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Rawb,

It’s not the same, because the Arians were clearly heretical. But there is no consensus in the Eastern Orthodox Church that the Catholic Church is heretical (though those who believe we are are certainly more vociferous).

Blessings,
Marduk

OK, but I wouldn’t call for a show of hands on the “heretical nature” of the RC Church in a room full of Orthodox . . .

Arians were heretical, but they had valid sacraments and even saints, many of whom are now in the Catholic and Orthodox calendars. There were three types of Arians and when they came into union with the Catholic Church, they kept their Gothic Rites and saints.

The Bollandists even found that an Arian copyist inserted the name of the arch-heretic Arius himself into the Catholic calendar under June 6th “St Artotis.” After their extensive research, for which they are renowned, they determined that this was indeed Arius and then had his name expunged.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Historically the result of an ecumenical council have had to have been ratified by the Bishop of Rome before they are considered binding on the Church Universal.

That is the open question re: the first Ecumenical Councils. They were ratified by all the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome who represented the West.

Did that mean that the councils recognized papal infallibility apart from conciliarity?

That is the question . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Okay…“dispassionate” works. Or “balanced”. But no one yet has referenced any soucrces that discuss this. Any one??? Sources??? Please???



Jeff

Most of the sources I’ve read are not in English. Ukraine a concise encyclopedia is one, but it is, as it would be, biased against the Russian historiography. Fr. Borys Gudziak’s book on the Union of Brest is very academic and good.

There might be online articles on this, but, as always, who writes them is as important as what is being written.

Alex

 

[jwinch2]

That is the open question re: the first Ecumenical Councils. They were ratified by all the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome who represented the West.

Did that mean that the councils recognized papal infallibility apart from conciliarity?

That is the question . . .

Alex

There was a video posted on here recently where Metropolitan Kalistos Ware acknowledges some sort of primacy of Bishop of Rome but stated that how that manifests itself is still under discussion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=575551&highlight=ware+orthodox

Also, I know you are aware of the thread since you posted in it but I thought others might be interested given the direction of this conversation.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Kyiv Andrew,

Yes, what I meant was that the UGCC was strongly located in Galicia as a socio-historical phenomenon and not to attempt a comprehensive overview of where ECism was formerly throughout all of Ukraine.

Met. Andrew and Patriarch Josef only served to strengthen the UGCC as a bastion of Ukrainian national identity and resistance against Russification.

That was my point.

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

Historically the result of an ecumenical council have had to have been ratified by the Bishop of Rome before they are considered binding on the Church Universal.

Not really. When Rome did refuse to accept the outcomes of councils (like Canon 28 of Chalcedon) the East accepted them as binding anyway.

 

[Hesychios]

Not really. When Rome did refuse to accept the outcomes of councils (like Canon 28 of Chalcedon) the East accepted them as binding anyway.

Quite so.

I think the reason for confusion on this point is the fact that most RC are not familiar with the fact that councils are typically ‘received’ by the local churches, and so ratification at some later point by a patriarch or synod makes some sense.

If the decrees of a council arrive in Rome, and the Pope accepts them, someone under the Pope might think that the council was ratified for the entire church by the Pope, but in fact he could only ever do that for his own church. It would be an aspect of his patriarchal function.

Thus, when the Pope objected to certain points (like canon 28) the eastern churches could decide for themselves differently, and accept the canon along with everything thing else they accepted - going on about their business. This directly contradicts what most RC assume is Papal authority over councils, but it does not surpise the Orthodox.

 

[Wesley7]

I’m pretty amazed from reading this thread because I read about A Church and having nothing to do with Z Church.

 

[mardukm]

Quite so.

I think the reason for confusion on this point is the fact that most RC are not familiar with the fact that councils are typically ‘received’ by the local churches, and so ratification at some later point by a patriarch or synod makes some sense.

If the decrees of a council arrive in Rome, and the Pope accepts them, someone under the Pope might think that the council was ratified for the entire church by the Pope, but in fact he could only ever do that for his own church. It would be an aspect of his patriarchal function.

Thus, when the Pope objected to certain points (like canon 28) the eastern churches could decide for themselves differently, and accept the canon along with everything thing else they accepted - going on about their business. This directly contradicts what most RC assume is Papal authority over councils, but it does not surpise the Orthodox.

Well said, brother Michael.

This is a bone of contention I have had with Absolutist Petrine advocates.

When the Pope confirms a Council (or portions of it) and it comes to have Ecumenical status, it becomes binding everywhere. But the converse is not ALWAYS true. I.e., if the Pope does not confirm a Council, it does not mean that it is binding NOwhere. That concerns the Primacy, which does not pretend that the Pope is the ONLY authority in the Church (contrary to the exaggerations of some Absolutist Petrine advocates).

That said, as a Catholic, I am of the position that on purely doctrinal matters, if the Pope confirms it, it becomes binding everywhere, but the converse is also true - if the Pope does not confirm it, it is binding NOwhere. This is so because God’s doctrine is inherently universal, and on matters that involve the ENTIRE Church (i.e universal), the consent of the protos is always necessary according to the ancient Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Dear Friend,

The issues are really more to do with politics than religion or culture (including the Old Calendar). But you have researched these matters well.

And St Philaret of New York City was born Orthodox so he did not “reject” papal authority as someone who had earlier maintained it.

There is no reason why he could not be venerated as a saint by all, even though he has only been canonized by one local Russian group and is not recognized as a saint among the ROC in general.

Alex

Alex, I don’t disagree with you. In fact I wanted to post my observations about “politics” as it influences the relations of Moscow, not only with Rome, but even with Constantinople! But somehow my post about the Calendar, pews, musical instruments, and other “smaller stuff” turned out to be like a small treatise in itself, with no room left for mentioning “politics” within the 6000-character limit!

Also, my choice of the word “rejected” in conjunction with St. Philaret wasn’t the best. Indeed, he wasn’t a Catholic who rejected the Pope, and became EO. St. Philaret was born in EO Russia, baptized and raised EO since childhood. He simply defended Orthodoxy as he knew it, against such things as “Papal authority”, “ecumenism”, and so on, because he was essentially raised in an Orthodox Church and tradition which taught him that “universal Papal authority” and “ecumenism” are heresies. I guess the same observation would be true with essentially all canonized Russian EO saints, because they were all raised and steeped in the tradition and teachings of the Russian EOC, which taught for centuries that the Catholic Church has fallen victim to errors and heresies.

I do venerate such Russian EO saints as St. John Maximovitch, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Herman of Alaska, St. Peter the Aleut, and St. Innocent of the Kuryli and Aleuti Islands. I will add St. Philaret to this list. I venerate them for their sanctity of life, while I also believe that their theological beliefs were fraught with errors.

OK, regarding “politics”, first of all I want to mention that as far as I know, Moscow has extremely tense relations not only with Rome, but also with Constantinople. It really has to do with the struggle for leadership of world Orthodoxy and world Christianity. They obviously believe that First Rome is in heresy and unfit to lead Christendom, but they also contest the claim of Second Rome (Constantinople) as being “moral leader”, “spiritual leader” of World Orthodoxy. Hence, Moscow calls itself Third Rome, and aspires to gain recognition as the leader of World Orthodoxy. I remember reading an interview with some high ranking Russian clergyman (I think it was Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk, before he became Moscow Patriarch), who very eloquently made the point that Moscow has 90-150 million faithful, while Constantinople has 3000-5000. And he made it clear that Moscow aspires to be recognized as the real leader of World Orthodoxy, instead of Constantinople who presently claims this title.

Still, I wonder why is Constantinople in much better terms with Rome, than Moscow? Why did Constantinople agree to lift the mutual anathemas, why do the Patriarchs of Constantinople regularly visit Rome and have the Pope as their guests visiting Constantinople, and why is Moscow essentially the opposite of all that Constantinople stands for? I mean, the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople, it didn’t sack Moscow. And yet, Constantinople knows how to forgive and forget, while Moscow holds some sort of grudge against Rome. For example, Moscow was outraged when in 2002 Pope John Paul II reorganized the structure of the Catholic Church in Russia, and established 2 new dioceses, bringing the total number of dioceses to 4. All the while, Moscow freely establishes dioceses in Catholic Italy, Austria, France, Spain, and so on, and Rome doesn’t throw hissy fits like Moscow did in 2002.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

There are many difficulties and bannings with Orthodox on this site right now, so I am almost fearful to try to defend Orthodox. But I will try and hope not to offend Catholics. Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox and Belorusan Orthodox in these countries do not condemn Catholics. Our churches do not have benches, organs and follow Julian calendar. Some Greko Catholic churches, which are Catholic, would surprise you - they have no benches, no organs and follow Julian calendar.

But also it is not just some Russian Psyche that liturgy and changes in it are important. I have read many times on this sait that are traditionally Catholic persons who want Latin language Holy Mass only, who want singing during Holy Mass to be Gregorian chant, who want only to receive Holy Mysteries while kneeling in front of priest. These differences to non Catholic may seem like small liturgical variations. But I can think that there are many who consider these things important. Just so, how to make the Crossing, how the Holy Name of Jesus is spelled are important things to Old Believers. Music only with human voices and standing only in the presence of God are important for Orthodox.

But because of them we do condemn Catholics.

Brother Volodymyr, I apologize. I didn’t in fact mean “Orthodox condemn Catholics” as in condemning the Catholic people, but rather that “Orthodox condemn the errors they believe Catholics have fallen into”. I should pay more attention to expressing my intentions clearly.

Now, regarding both the absence of the pews, and the use of human voice in Russian EO Divine Liturgy, I personally really like them both. Even with the super-long and super-tiring DL on the occasion of Pascha!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

When was your involvement with the Russian Orthodox? ROCOR is in complete communion now with the rest of the Orthodox, and the sites you link to (though occasionally helpful) are Old Calendarist sites. That’d be like linking to an SSPX site and saying it represents all of the Traditionalists. If your experience with ROCOR was a bit ago you should update your information - you’re giving dated experiences that no longer accurately represent the situation of things. As I said, however, this is understandable because the issues with ROCOR weren’t settled that long ago.

I should also state, however, that you probably could find in a ROCOR parish in America a priest condemning the new calendar as heretical but this is getting more rare because, as I’ve said, they are in full communion with “New Calendarists”. This would be more like finding an FSSP priest preaching like an SSPX priest more than the typical scenario, however.

I used to visit a ROCOR church and was involved with ROCOR activities between 2004-2006. ROCOR reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate in May 2006. Yet, ROCOR kept it’s separate organizational structure within the reunited Russian EOC, and also ROCOR wasn’t asked to renounce its previous stance of condemning the use of the New Calendar, pews, and musical instruments as heresies. A few months after the reunion, the ROCOR church I used to visit closed its doors and Father relocated to another state, but as a last instruction, he told his parishioners to stay away from New Calendar churches except for cases in which they can’t find an Old Calendar church anywhere. He still condemned those things (New Calendar, pews) as heresies, even after the reunion. And after Father moved away and we lost his ROCOR church which was “only” 120 miles and a 2.5-hour driving away, my Russian acquaintances made special efforts to visit another (Old Calendar) ROCOR church (I mean ROCOR within the reunited Russian EOC) almost 400 miles away, even though there were two New Calendar churches (one Greek and one Antiochian) within a 20-minutes driving distance in our city.

 

[jwinch2]

Still, I wonder why is Constantinople in much better terms with Rome, than Moscow? Why did Constantinople agree to lift the mutual anathemas, why do the Patriarchs of Constantinople regularly visit Rome and have the Pope as their guests visiting Constantinople, and why is Moscow essentially the opposite of all that Constantinople stands for? I mean, the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople, it didn’t sack Moscow. And yet, Constantinople knows how to forgive and forget, while Moscow holds some sort of grudge against Rome. For example, Moscow was outraged when in 2002 Pope John Paul II reorganized the structure of the Catholic Church in Russia, and established 2 new dioceses, bringing the total number of dioceses to 4. All the while, Moscow freely establishes dioceses in Catholic Italy, Austria, France, Spain, and so on, and Rome doesn’t throw hissy fits like Moscow did in 2002.

Interesting questions. I will be curious to hear what others’ thoughts are on the topic.

 

[Ignatios]

Well said, brother Michael.

This is a bone of contention I have had with Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Marduk, there is no Absolutist nor high petrine neither low…there is the teaching of the RCC and your view of it is a deviation from the teaching of the RCC, as it is known by both RCs and Orthodox alike and that to include scholars and teachers of both the RCs and the Orthodox, your teaching is another form of Protestantism.

When the Pope confirms a Council (or portions of it) and it comes to have Ecumenical status, it becomes binding everywhere.
But the converse is not ALWAYS true. I.e., if the Pope does not confirm a Council, it does not mean that it is binding NOwhere…

Okay lets say he confirmed portion of it, now that would make the status of this council partially ecumenical…or it is an E.C. that it is crippled or maybe the Pope just simply rejected to submit to part of it, i.e. he refused to allow that rejected part to be accepted in his church, in which it shows that the Pope has no authority over the Church catholic, but only over his Patriarchate or See, such as the Canon 28th, it is not that he didn’t permited it but he fought it with tooth and nail and he tried to persuade the other Patriarchate to stand with him on this but they turned the thumb down for him and they passed that Canon.

That concerns the Primacy, which does not pretend that the Pope is the ONLY authority in the Church (contrary to the exaggerations of some Absolutist Petrine advocates).

Absolutist Petrine advocates… there is no such a thing, Marduk. you are trying to create a schism within the RCC. in which it will wind up another form of Protestantism.

The Pope is not the only authority but he is the highest authority in the RCC that no one can supersede him, no E.C. or Magisterium or etc…

That said, as a Catholic, I am of the position that on purely doctrinal matters, if the Pope confirms it, it becomes binding everywhere, but the converse is also true - if the Pope does not confirm it, it is binding NOwhere.

it is binding everywhere in his own See.

This is so because God’s doctrine is inherently universal, and on matters that involve the ENTIRE Church (i.e universal), the consent of the protos is always necessary according to the ancient Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34.

Blessings,
Marduk

Again and again the Apostolic Canon 34 is for the Metropolitan it does not apply to the Pope, now we presented you with interpretation of some scholars that are recognized by the entire Christians theologians and scholars and doctors and teachers in which you and I would not be more than a drop in the Atlantic Ocean in comparison to them, we presented also a recent suggestion by some Orthodox Teachers that they may extend this A.C. 34 somehow so it may include the Pope under certain circumstances, but Marduk if you wish to see the Apple as orange, that does not change the fact that the Orange remains an orange and th Apple remains an Apple and there is nothing that I or anyone else can do to make you see things the way they are.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Hesychios]

Dear Marduk,

… the consent of the protos is always necessary according to the ancient Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34.

Apostolic canon 34/35 refers to the relationship between the bishops of the synod of a nation and the Metropolitan.