www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Moscow's rhetoric versus a global christian message

Dear Jim,

What a good summary of the situation. This is the problem when the Orthodox start doing their own thing, rather than living Orthodox Tradition. You are so right in your observations. This is why I can't take the jurisdictions of 'world Orthodoxy' seriously.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk ad sinner.

It's hard for me to understand why you view the Calendar thing as a heresy and the Churches which follow it as Churches that preach heresy.
The Calendar is still the same, it is a fixed Julian Calendar which is totally Orthodox and it is not the Papal Calendar, at least this is the way the Orthodox Churches explain this.

The Patriarch's authority is at the same time, denied by many traditionalists Orthodox groups.
I agree with him in his support to Ecumenism and the dialogue with the non-chalcedonean Churches, and the Latin Church. However, I disagree with the prayer "gatherings" with Protestants, jews, and pantheists, the WCC (and there are some Catholics who disagree with that too).
Patriarch Bartolomew has tried to make the Church more open to people and more Universal regardless of ethnicity and nationality. People who are part of the Patriarchate, specially in the West, are happy and live their faith with happiness.

In other words, the Patriarch should dialogue with YOU but no one else. Sorry, my friend, Bart don't play that game. And the minority that wants to take Orthodoxy out of the WCC has about the same opinion of you that they do of the WCC.

Axios

Signatories to the Balamand agreement recognize the validity of Catholic Mysteries. The list of signatories includes not only representatives of the EP, but also the these other Patriarchates and Chucrhes: Alexandrian Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Greek Orthodox, Greece, Cyprus, Moscow, Romania, Finland, Poland, and Albania.

"In other words, the Patriarch should dialogue with YOU but no one else. Sorry, my friend, Bart don't play that game. And the minority that wants to take Orthodoxy out of the WCC has about the same opinion of you that they do of the WCC."

What do you mean when you say YOU?
Me as an individual?

I am NOT an Old Calendarist and I am not against Ecumenism; but what kind of serious agreements can be reached with the reformed Churches of the West (the reform of a reform), what do we share with them? Maybe the rejection of some catholic dogmas (Papal infalibility for example), but we're forgetting that the reformed Churches also reject the Mother of God, the Sacraments, Priesthood... so what?
They should look for a dialogue with the Church where they originated (the Roman Church) or at least with the other Churches that generated the enormous list of reformed denominations (it's hard to establish from what Church they appeared). I am sure that it is important to have a good relationship of respect and christian brotherhood with the members of the Protestant Churches, but it would be good if we're more realistic.

About Balamand, this is article explains what Balamand is, I hope it works:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_explained_GOA.htm

There has been no shortage of commentary on the meaning of this agreement. (Take a step back to http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_balamand.htm for some, including the commentary of the MP and the essay of Fr. Romanides.)

I would like to learn a little about which of these interpretations have become the prevailing view within the Orthodox world. Is this agreement still in play, or has it been effectively abandoned?

Dear Friends,

Well, I can't speak on internal Orthodox issues to this intimate extent - and I wouldn't want to.

I don't know why anyone would think that the Russian Church's view of its "natural jurisdiction" is so wrong?

Did not Rome ask Patriarch Bartholomew NOT to accept groups of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics wishing to become Orthodox for the same reason - that Portugal and Spain are Rome's backyard - and the EP respected this?

I think we as Catholics are good at pointing fingers at the Orthodox.

But if Rome is serious about the "sister church" thing with respect to Orthodoxy, why won't it support the Russian Orthodox Church in its missionary outreach in Russia, hand in hand, without extending its own Latin grasp there?

What would be wrong with that, if "sister church," "two lungs" and all that is more than just ecumenical rhetoric?

I think you can't have one without the other. Either drop the rhetoric and continue with the Latin missionizing, or else put your money where your Latin mouth is and respect Orthodoxy as a truly Catholic Christian culture in Russia and elsewhere.

I have never balked at criticising the MP for specific things - or Rome for that matter.

And, Anastasios, I'm ashamed of you!

What kind of "May or may not be Orthodox one day" are you?

Alex

I guess what I would have to say to Orthodox Catholic and others regarding turf is that no church can lay claim to national boundaries anymore. They can try, but it will accomplish little. There will always be another christian group that says it has a right to preach the gospel, etc. In order for Russia to integrate into the European community it will have to demonstrate a willingness to be flexible with regard to religious freedoms. The Russian Orthodox Church doesn't show much support for that, and it could slow acceptance of Russia in the west as a result, assuming that religious freedom is still a valuable commodity. A society that doesn't care about religion one way or the other may figure that the Russian Church's position is unimportant, or not worth worrying about. For the sake of true believers I hope that is not the case. Anyhow, I stick to my premise that the Russian church is not speaking globally to Christians, but strictly speaking, is just concerned with what its bureaucrats see as its rightful turf.

Thanks Alex. I had asked for some documentation on "equivalence", and this is a start. But I am unfamiliar with the story so please elaborate and link. At any rate this seems more akin to the Pope not taking in the Macedonian Orthodox than treating with dignity the occasional inquirer in an Orthodox country.

Since some freedom of religious activity has returned to Russia, the number of Catholics there has been essentially constant. So what is the idea of "extending its own Latin grasp"? Is some degree of abandonment or consignment to irregular staus the only acceptable treatment of Catholics in Russia by the Vatican?

Our BC church and your UGCC may be as close as sisters can get. Fraternal twins. But I think it's clear that our ancestors were not particularly happy with the idea of one jurisdiction for both groups in the US. Why do you think that descendents of Catholics living in Russia should be treated with less respect and be prevented from worshipping in their own way? I don't see how the miniscule presence and activity or the RCC in Russia represents a lack of respect. Does our BC represent a lack of respect for the UGCC? Does the presence of Ukrainian Catholicism in Canada mean a lack of respect for Latin Catholicism there? Does Serbian Orthodoxy in the US represent a lack of respect for Russian Orthodoxy in the US? How does the existence of a sister church in your neighborhood represent a lack of respect?

As a BC I owe a debt of gratitude to any and all who stood against the oprression and suppresion on the Greek Catholics church. While I also can only ask about the internal workings of Orthodoxy, I will not support or excuse religious oppression.

djs

Yes, Remie, you, my friend.

Good. But then you go on with several factual errors and a suggestion our Orthodox activities are not productive. Is this more of Romans telling us what to do?

The fellowship of the WCC and our other Orthodox-Protestant ecumencial activities are important to our Church.

Axios

Dear Alex:

It's that little old democracy thang.

The former Soviet Union claims it is trying to implement democracy. You cannot have democracy without religious liberty and pluralism.

A church cannot "own" a country. Not in the modern democratic world, anyway.

Besides, as so many people have pointed out: When the Orthodox pull their churches out of places like Rome and Paris, then they can fuss about Catholic churches -- historic Catholic churches like St. Catherine's! -- being reopened in Russia.

Blessings!

ZT

Dear djs,

I do not know how far you wish to trace back for "equivalence' but the Vatican provoked no less than a civil war in Ethiopia a few centuries ago and to this day promotes rival "rites' that have divided Ethiopians along ethnic lines. One national Catholic Church also played an unsavory role in trying to discredit Orthodoxy while Italy was colonizing Eritrea. As a start I would suggest you read Donald Crummey's 1972 Priests and Politicians: Protestants and Catholic Missions in Orthodox Ethiopia Oxford: Clarendon Press. You can consult his bibliography for different historical eras than the one he focuses on.

May God Bless You

Dear djs:

Yes I remember that detail about the Spanish and Portuguese priests. The situation was quite complicated, some of the original members of that group were former Roman Catholics with real orders, but other had been "consacrated" in the Liberal Catholic Church (one of those "independent" Churches without any credibility). This group, now known as Catholic Orthodox Church of Spain and Portugal under Metropolitan Gabriel of Portugal, had been a vagant group. After being rejected by Constantinople, they tried to make agreements with other jurisdictions like the Ukrainian Church-Kiev Patriarchate, the ROCOR, the Milan Synod and now they say they are in communion with the Polish Orthodox Church and that they are part of the Holy Synod. However I've checked the site of the Polish Church and I haven't found the names of their Bishops or anything like that. It was a tiny group, I don't think it represented a real threat to the Latin Church of Spain and Portugal.

From what I know they've been very close to the Milan Synod (the Milan Synod, was not accepted by Constantinople, because of the reasons you described: the Orthodox Church respects the jurisdictional territory of the Pope of Rome).

The Macedonian "schism" and its relations with the Vatican has been part of a discussion between Serbia and Constantinople, but most of what is said has been part of a kind of "paranoia", the Macedonian Church has never tried to become a part of the Catholic Communion, and I don't think Rome would accept them, because of the terrible conflict it would cause with the Orthodox Churches.
The Macedonian Church has been in negotiations with Constantinople, in spite of the opposition of Moscow and Serbia. Recently, Bishops of the Serbian Church asked the Patriarch of Constantinople, to suspend all contacts with the "schismatic" Macedonian Church, it's curious that one of the reasons listed in that letter (which was avaible in Internet I think) was that "Bishops and priests of the Macedonian Church have concelebrated with Latin and Uniate clergy". It would be good to have some accurate informations about the Macedonians and their tides with the Catholic Church.

The Spanish and Portuguese Bishops were received into the Synod of the True Orthodox Synod of the Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios. Subsequently, the Western European dioceses were given autonomy as the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Western Europe and the Americas. The Iberian bishops left were received into the Polish Orthodox Church and the primacy of this 'Autonomous' group moved to Metropoitan Evloghios in Milan. He is now in dialogue with the monophysite Syrian 'Orthodox Church' labelling those who stick to Nicean Orthodoxy as deluded and ignorant of history.

In Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear friends,

Alex said "Did not Rome ask Patriarch Bartholomew NOT to accept groups of Portuguese and Spanish Catholics wishing to become Orthodox for the same reason - that Portugal and Spain are Rome's backyard - and the EP respected this?". Father Mark sais "The Spanish and Portuguese Bishops were received into the Synod of the True Orthodox Synod of the Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentios".

Just some questions and remarks:

1) As far as I know the OEcumenical Patriarchtedoes does receive in the Orthodox Church Spanish and Portuguese converts. The deacon of the Orthodox church in Madrid, my friend, Rogelio Demetrio Saez, is one of them. The parish priest of the parish of the OEcumenical Patriarchte in Lisbon, padre Alexander Bonino, well...he has not a very Greek name...so I suppose...that he was a convert too...
2) Reverend father Mark, as far as I know metropolitan Gabriel, a Portuguese convert, was consacrated bishop of Lisbon in 1978 by Archbishop Auxentios. Dom Gabriel and his Metropolis of Spain, Portugal and Brazil were received in the Orthodox Church of Poland. I know that this Metropolis has got parishes in Portugal and Brazil. Do you know if there is actually any parish of this Church (Metropolis of Spain, Portugal and Brazil)in Spain? Who were those Spanish and Postuguese bishops who were received with Dom Gabriel in the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Poland? Thank you very much, reverend Father.

Yours in Christ,

Francisco

P.S. Father, do you know if is abable in the net any picture of the OEcumenical Patriarch giving Holy Communion to Catholic Faithful during the Divine Liturgy in Ravena.