www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox - in union with Rome?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:
[QB]StuartK,

>>>History is nothing more than a collection of biased opinions and overlooked facts.<<<

Actually, history is just one thing after another.

>>>For truth, one can only look to the Orthodox Church and for knowledge, one must taste, smell, and live Orthodoxy before he can speak of it.<<<

And what makes you think that I have not?

>>>Orthoman is quite right in the statement you pointed out above. It is not enough for you to label him as having a "westernized" opinion to discredit him.<<<

I am sorry, but the leading Orthodox theologians of the last 100 years are pretty unanimous in rejecting that argument, pointing out that it reflects nothing more than Orthodox mirror imaging of the Western theological arguments and methods used against them. This situation, which arose from the lack of Orthodox theological institutes after the fall of Constantinople required the training of priests and theologians in the West, has been called the "Intellectual Captivity of the Orthodox Church", and more tellingly, the "Pseudomorphia". Only from the middle of the 19th century does Orthodox theology begin to reclaim its own authentic voice, and then against the "immobilism" of the Orthodox establishment. Lossky, Meyendorff, Schmemman, Afanasiev, even Kyr Kallistos--all of them have been attacked at one time or another for "betraying" authentic Orthodoxy, when in fact, it was they who were espousing the true Orthodox Tradition, and the so-called traditionalists who were parroting relatively recent innovations imported from the West. The most insidious latinizations occur between one's ears.

>>>If you agree with papal doctrines and submit to the pope you are certainly a Roman Catholic (Latin) as your faith is the same, and faith is an irreconcilable measure of communion, not how you portray yourself externally.<<<

But, as you may have noticed, I do not agree with current definitions of primacy as espoused by the Church of Rome. And I do not believe that these definitions are central to the faith, but represent disagreements on the administration and organization of the Church. That the dialogue has been put into theological terms is one of the things that must change in order for both sides to recognize the disagreement for what it is.

Dear Stuart,
Could you please elaborate on your comment:

<<the so-called traditionalists who were parroting relatively recent innovations imported from the West. The most insidious latinizations occur between one's ears.>>

I am currently studying the theological situation in Russia in the early 1900s, especially the sobor of 1905. There was a movement to detoxify the Russian Church from the influences of scholasticism, pietism and theosophy, for example.
My main sources are martyred Archbishop Feodor Pozdeevsky and Archpriest Valentin Sventsitsky.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Afanasiev, Schmemann, and Meyendorff have all written about the need for primacy and the need first of all for a better understanding of primacy in the Orthodox Churches, since they are, as Schmemann himself used the phrase, "crippled by jurisdictionalism". I hardly think of any of these three as Papist, in fact, in especially Schmemann's case, he made a valiant effort to counter the effects of Western scholasticism in his writings.

Dear Friends,

Stuart's learned discussion of the role of primacy in the Church is one that will help preserve the spiritual and cultural diversity of the local Churches, not submerge them.

Schmemann, as has been mentioned, discussed the problem of jurisdictionalism from this vantage point, as did Meyendorff.

Meyendorff even discussed the phenomenon of cultural pride/patriotism within the historical parameters of the spiritual experience of Particular Churches as a valid expression of their ontological identity and praxis within the context of the historical cultural communities in which they continue to exist.

There appears to be a polarity on this issue within Orthodoxy in North America.

As a result of the fact, as Stuart notes, that no one wants to touch the issue of Primacy, some Orthodox want to maintain their cultural enclaves that their Churches wittingly or unwittingly continue to support.

Others want jurisdictional unity of some sort and imply that a cultural uniformity is its foundation.

A return to a discussion of Primacy within Orthodoxy and its role could unite both polarities, at least in theory.

We can have a composite ecclesial/cultural identity, one that unites all that is best about our local tradition, but also relates it to a more universal context.

The Papacy does this for me and for millions.

As for adaptations of the role of the Petrine Primacy, they are always going on and there is no reason why they shouldn't continue until an accommodation is reached that is acceptable for the world-wide Apostolic Churches.

Alex

Dear Stuart,

Your point on Orthoman's alleged Latinized perspective is one that I think is a bit too hard on your part.

Orthodox have used Latin terms of reference, as you know, for years, to defend themselves against a most insidious western enemy bent on taking them over.

In many cases in the past, the assumption of Latin terms of reference was done by Orthodox scholars deliberately, rather than as a result of succumbing to western influence, although there was plenty of the latter.

The ultimate resurrection of Orthodoxy in terms of being freed of Latin assumptions comes not so much in the wake of a realization of their existence in Orthopraxis, but through, I believe, an understanding of the compelling nature of true Patristic and Orthodox theology without reference to outside paradigmatic models of argument (Scholastic and otherwise).

Orthoman is someone who is a dynamic Christian, always eager and ready to learn and share with others of whatever persuasion.

He defends Orthodoxy as he knows how because he loves it.

As Someone once said, much can be forgiven to those who love.

Alex