www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West HOCNA

Dear brother in Christ, Anastasios,

In all sincerity, I know the Catholic side to the Orthodox not being perfectly a part of the church, (Petrine ministry), but what is the Orthodox point of view?

(My intellectual side questions, but I must admit that my spiritual side nags me with 'what difference will it make in the end?' Aren't we all just limited by our earthly, mortal, and sinful egos and isn't this perhaps, in the realm of the Omnipotent, just folly?)

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

curiouser and curiouser. Anastasios concedes that the Russian Church Abroad is Orthodox - because that Church is in communion with the Serbian Church and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (they are certainly in communion with Serbia, despite strong pressure from Moscow). But they are not mentioned anywhere on the list of Orthodox Churches which Anastasios has kindly supplied us with.
There was a considerable period of time when what is now the "OCA" was in full communion with nobody at all, and even now the Heads of most of the Local Churches do not include the Metropolitan of the OCA in the diptychs. This, I suggest, poses a distinct problem.
Saint Basil the Great distinguishes three sorts of problematic Christian bodies: heretics (e.g. the Arians), schismatics and parasynagogues. Anastasios might wish to ponder this third category. Incognitus

First of all, the OCA was never not in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, but prior to 1970/1 its status was irregular.

Like I said, ROCOR's status is irregular because of persecution so we can't fault them too much, and besides, they are in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem.

That the OCA's status as an autochephalous church is in dispute with Constantinople means nothing to our discussion. The only issue is whether the OCA Metropolitan is really the primate or if he is (as he is in Const.'s eyes) the American Metropolitan of the MP. Icognitus might want to reflect on that.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios:

I think we agree in the esencial points, Old Calendarists are still Orthodox in their faith but outside the Orthodox Communion.

In the case of the Old Calendar Church, can't it be said that they are also a persecuted community? I mean, if the ROCOR origins are believed to be good and of rightful aspirations because they separated from a Communist-controled hierarchy, why isn't the same logic applied in the case of Old Calendarists, who have sffered horrible persecutions in Greece and other countries?

Thanks, Anastosios, for clarifying your status and for the list. So essentially you are saying that it is communion with Constantinople that determines Orthodoxy, except when persecution muddles things or someone is in communion with someone who's uncle's friend is in communion with Constantinople [I'm being a bit sardonic but you get my point]. When I asked for the basis for this standard in Scripture someone accused me of Protestantism. Sheesh. My point is one is not free to make up these things as one goes along. It must have some basis in Scripture and Tradition, as the case for Roman primacy does. It does seem to me that the standards for determining Orthodoxy are pretty arbitrary. I mean some cases are pretty easy, like the gay bishop I found on the Internet. He professes the Creeds and the Councils, but having parted ways with the Apostolic Tradition on morals is clearly outside the fold. But what of the numerous cases of small churches who do hold to the faith, have [in Roman eyes, anyway] valid consecrations but happen not to be in communion with a particular patriarch or humanly ordained institution [like SCOBA]? I reiterate: the Orthodox Church is not visibly One.

Dear Mexican,

Yes, we agree. The issue of Old Calendarism is something I struggle with, since I see both sides of the issue. Let me offer this: I *personally* believe most of the Old Calendar Synods to be Orthodox but I am merely making the assertion throughout this long thread that officially we can't speculate on such bodies that are separated, since that would come into conflict with Eucharistic ecclesiology.

anastasios

Daniel,

I see where you are coming from and I think you see where I am coming from. I used to believe that 1) Roman primacy has basis in scripture and tradition and that 2) Orthodoxy was divided but I later reversed both these positions and came to the conclusion I have now, which is that over time different structures of church order have organically developed, and they could conceivably change even again, if for the good of the Church. I don't think COnstantinople is the "key" to being Orthodox but given the primacy one would have to make a good argument for its heterodoxy before separating from it.

anastasios

Anastasios,

Can you please clarify: You said you no longer believe that Roman primacy is supported by Scripture. Are you saying that you no longer believe Peter had a primacy among the Apostles?

You said you no longer believed that Roman primacy is supported by tradition. How do you respond to the Sardican canon that allows bishops, both in east and west, to appeal to the bishop of Rome if deposed? (BTW, I am not talking about the appeal of priests [i.e., the case of Aparius], but of bishops). Yes, this was a local council, but the existence of the canon refutes the notion that Roman primacy was unknown in the early Church.

God bless.

In CHrist always

"That the OCA's status as an autochephalous church is in dispute with Constantinople means nothing to our discussion. The only issue is whether the OCA Metropolitan is really the primate or if he is (as he is in Const.'s eyes) the American Metropolitan of the MP. Icognitus might want to reflect on that."
My first reflection is that Anastasios has both oversimplified and mis-stated the issue as seen from the Phanar. I would add that the whole system of autocephalies as it developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (bringing in its wake a plethora of "schisms" and "breaches in communion") is an ecclesiastical combination of minefield and quicksand, with little or no real base in Holy Tradition.
One might also keep in mind that at major Church celebrations in Russia which involve many guests from other Local Churches, it has been necessary for the Moscow Patriarchate to have two distinct Divine Liturgies in different buildings: one for those willing to serve with the OCA hierarchs, and the other for those NOT willing to serve with the OCA hierarchs. If that isn't "setting up altar against altar", I don't know what is.
My intention here, however, is not to offer a diatribe against any particular jurisdiction, nor to resurrect the issues as they were prior to 1971. The point, quite simply, is that the whole jurisdictional mess cannot be "solved" as neatly and as precisely as Anastasios seems to indicate. Incognitus

Returning to the subject of HOCNA itself:
I have to say while they are certianly the most inflexible Orthodox group I know, I find they are among the kindest and most welcoming church people I have ever encountered. My visit to their Monastery lives in my memory. Their hospitality was truly outstanding.

Michael

I can't answer for Anastasios, of course, but it sure seems as if that's what he is saying. And like you, Francis, I am frankly stunned by this. I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly deny the Scriptural evidence of Petrine primacy. One has to gloss over numerous Scripture passages and twist others into pretzels (notably Matt. 16:18-19) in order to reach such a conclusion.

Even Orthodox scholars are coming to appreciate the force of the Scriptural evidence, although they still resist its implications. E.g.:

And:

-----------

Getting back to your very good questions for Anastasios, Francis....

----------

Citing Francis's post:
Hear hear.

Lots of other things refute it, too, of course.

Here's an Anglican scholar on the question:

And here is an Orthodox scholar:

And now another Orthodox scholar:

BTW, Anastasios--could you pass all this stuff on to Byzantino, when you get a chance? Sounds like he's been reading the same outdated polemics you have. Y'all both could use a corrective.

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. Has anyone here read Father Stanley Jaki's superb little monograph, The Keys of the Kingdom: A Tool's Witness to the Truth? It rocks! (No pun intended. )

Dearest Diane,

Your sources from 1946, 1960, and 1913 are *up* to date? :p

I do like the Primacy of Peter book. In its proper context it shows why there is no need for universal papal jurisdiction. But you didn't mention that.

anastasios

Anastasios,

I hate to be dogged about this, but could you answer my questions? Many thanks.

God bless.

Francis,

I hate to be blunt but hold on please, I have other commitments to attend to: my wife, school, etc. The next time I log on I will get to your post!

anastasios

When i personally look at the fruits of the Roman interpretation of Petrine ministry, I see a continuing deviation from the Church prior to 1054.

The continuing drive to add defininitions and adding new doctrines without an Ecumenical council as well as the casting away of centuries old traditions.

Immaculate conception of Mary, Papal infallability, Mary as Mediatrix, the actions of the American church, Novus Ordo... Where is the Roman Church going?

I have gratitude for my Roman Catholic upbringing,but from reading Church history and the Church Fathers, it seems to me the Roman Church is heading off into continued separation and its interpretation of the role of the Pope is leading the way. Why all these new doctrines and interpretations, was not the work of the Church prior to 1054 sufficient?

I whole heartedly agree with the Pope of Rome as first among equals in the chuch , but not as supreme pontiff and head of the Church. That job belongs to Jesus Christ. The only sinless and infallible Man to walk the Earth.