www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Russian Orthodox View on the Papacy - Part I

The following was on ZENIT this morning. It is an interview with Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna of the Moscow Patriarchate. He came to attention for his views during the recent Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue talks in Belgrade.

Russian Orthodox View on the Papacy - Part I (ZENIT) [zenit.org]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Seems to me that Bishop Hilarion's main concern is to undercut the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

If one wishes to discuss what might be called "Orthodox Papism", a good look at the Patriarchate of Moscow would be instructive - even Russian Orthodox Hierarchs commemorate the Patriarch as "our great lord and holy father". Doesn't sound like "first among equals".

There's more, but that will do for a starter.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

You have no argument from me on your points. Having encountered His Grace a couple times when I have been in Europe, I have to say I walked away unimpressed. :rolleyes:

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I know the book has been referred to before, but Soloviev's work, "Russia and the Universal Church," is worth reading. A partial reprint entitled, "The Russian Church and the Papacy", is available from Catholic Answers.

A visible head of the entire Church who can speak authoritatively on faith and morals not only seems fitting, but absolutely necessary for unity. It is not the only thing necessary, but without it, we are left with disagreements about the most fundamental issues on faith and morals, and hence lack a union of minds that no union of hearts can overcome.

lm

I guess I see no problem with Bishop Hilarion's remarks. He is simply stating the Orthodox view of the role of papacy in the Church. I thought his answers were entirely non-polemical. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Im, I don't want to derail this thread so I am not going to get into this much, except to wonder what fundamental doctrines of faith and morals the Orthodox churches do not agree upon. Also, it is not clear to me that there is such unity of mind with Roman Catholicism. Still, I think it is helpful to focus on the positive, such as the current dialogues between our churches. Peace in Christ,

Joe

I suppose if you mean that there is not a unity of mind insofar as, for example, a large part of Catholics don't think contraception is objectively wrong, you may be right. There may be any number of such issues. I would simply say the dissenters are not Catholic, or if you prefer, orthodox.

As for dialogue, I'm all for it. But the word itself suggests that it is to give a reasoned account -- something like what Socrates does in a Platonic dialogue. Dialogue is for the sake of reaching the truth. I don't see real communion as being possible without such a notion of dialogue. It is also the case that real communion is not possible without love, because the good and the true are not mutally exclusive.

In the Theotokos,

lm

The Church has existed for 2000 years without a visible head, and any issues regarding faith and morals have always been resolved as they should be, by Ecumenical Councils.

Also, please be aware that the teachings of Soloviev have been condemned as he was a proponent of the heresy of Sophiism.

Alexandr

Debatable. I would say the better argument, history and the truth are on the opposite side of that proposition.


In the Theotokos,

lm

Look, I do not want to get into a debate with you as to whether the Orthodox or Roman Catholics are correct. If you are trolling for an argument, you are looking in the wrong place. That is not the intention of this Forum, and leads to endless polemics, and accusations which are not in the Christian spirit. If you desire an argument in that regards, there are plenty of internet venues that will more than adequately suit your needs. This Forum is intended for those, Catholic and Orthodox alike, who share a love of the Eastern Churches, to discuss events related to such. And be careful how you use the word truth.

Alexandr

lm,

If you want to hijack this is thread and turn it into one regarding the Orthodox Church's stance on moral issues such as contraception, please do not do it on this thread. Instead use one of the inexhaustible number of threads that already exist on the topic. Being that it is not part of the original post or part of the interview given, it is being seen as a way of diverting the thread. The topic of the interview as how the Russian orthodox representative to the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue in Belgrade perceives the role of the Papacy.

I am insiting that thread be kept on topic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

I honestly thought I was on topic. My thoughts were, I think, in essence the same as Fr. Serge's above.

I was pointing out why I think the Papacy is necessary, which seemed to me fair comment in light of the article which began the thread. By way of example on the issue of contraception, I responded to a criticism of lack of unity in Roman Catholicism. I don't know if the Orthodox Church has a single teaching on the matter but I know the rejection of the teaching in the Catholic Church has caused havoc.

My love for the Byzantine Catholic Church, of which I am a member, is in fact inseparable from my love for the Papacy. I love the Papacy because I think its true and for the likes of my little mind, solves many issues which I don't have to wrestle with, though I admit I am always one to want to have a conversation about important things and seek to understand what I can.

By the way who condemned Soloviev? I know JPII thought very well of him.

Nonetheless, I take no offense and for any offense given, or if I have taken us off thread, I apologize and shall cease and desist.

In the Theotokos to whom we must pray that all may be one,

lm

Dear lm.

Thank you!

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I am genuinely unaware of any condemnation of Vladimir Soloviov by any ecclesiastical authority; he certainly reposed in the peace of the Church. Can anyone cast some light on this for me?

Father Serge

I'm sorry, I should have been more precise. The teachings of Vladimir Soloviev have been condemned (with a small c) by numerous Orthodox apologists, amongst them being Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and Protoprebyter Mikhail Pomozhansky. These condemnations come of his espousal of the Sophiist heresy. It is true that he died in the grace of the Church. He has not, to the best of my knowledge been formally condemned by any synod (with the possible exception of the Synod in Resistance in Greece, of which, if memory serves me, did occur a while back.) All that being said, you will notice that the name of Soloviev is frequently brought up in the same breath as that of Nikolai Berdyaev, as Soloviev's teachings influenced Berdyaev greatly. All that being said, it behooves one to remember that Soloviev was no apologist or theologian. The best that can be said is that he was a Russian philosopher, who embraced a heretical teaching.

Alexandr