Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Diopolis]

As Catholics, can we ask for the intercession of martyrs before they are officially recognized as saints? I was thinking about praying to the priest recently killed in France

Definitely, but doing such in public worship is a little dicier.

[Diopolis]

That is an admirable goal, but... look, I have to be honest with you. The great majority of clergy and faithful of the Orthodox Church, myself included, are not interested in "reunification" and would not accept any compromise that involves any change in Orthodox theology or ecclesiology. The most that you can possibly hope to achieve is to break off a pro-compromise minority from the Orthodox Church and persuade that minority to submit to Rome as yet another Eastern Catholic Church.

To speak of "reunification" is to implicitly affirm a belief in branch theory. And we simply do not believe in branch theory. There is only one True Church. We believe we are that Church. We may be wrong; but if we are wrong that only means that some other group is the True Church, and we should join that group and accept its theology in its entirety. Under no circumstances is it possible that several groups with different theologies may ALL be the True Church.

In other words, it would be easier to persuade me to become a Roman Rite Catholic (i.e. to persuade me that Catholicism is right and Orthodoxy is wrong) than to persuade me that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are somehow both correct and need to be reunited.

And if you'll forgive me, that's a load of hogwash. If the Orthodox Church is not interested in seeking reunification with Rome it should stop playing footsie by doing all these joint Union Liturgies and meetings or what not.

So while you may not be interested, I'm forced to maintain faith that there are a great many on both sides that also would move to reunification, if such a path became visible. So I will continue, no matter what the obstructionists say.

No.

In the Orthodox view, there cannot be two different but equally valid forms of the Creed. Whatever the correct form of the Creed is, that form needs to be adopted and confessed by all.

Compromise would be possible, but only as follows: the Roman Rite Catholics drop the Filioque, but do not admit that it was wrong to adopt it in the first place, do not condemn any historical figures that supported the Filioque, and we do not speak any more of it. Thus, Catholics remain free to believe (as they do now) that the Filioque makes no theological difference and that the Creed without it means the same thing as the Creed with it (since the Eastern Rite Catholics already say the Creed without the Filioque, so the only change would be that the Roman Rite adopts an Eastern practice). At the same time, the Orthodox remain free to believe (as we do now) that the Filioque was a heresy, but out of charity we do not speak of it any more since it has been dropped.

No, you don't understand. I'm not proposing to change just the Roman Rite, I'm proposing an amendment to the Creed, to be ratified by an ecumenical council, that all Churches would adopts encapsulating a theology we both agree upon, via the foundation of scripture and whole boatload of other works.

That is a compromise only in the sense that neither side would be happy. Moreover, we should not compromise our theology for the sake of acceptance by the world or by heretical brethren- which is exactly what you're proposing. Finally, as that proclamation would be heretical by either side's theology, it couldn't be promulgated by a proper ecumenical council anyways. The best you could hope for is another latrocinium.

[Luminesa]

Of course, this compromise still leaves the two sides believing different things about Church history, and therein lies one of the fundamental problems with any proposal for "reunification": It's simply not possible to reconcile our different narratives of Church history. We can agree to sweep such disagreements under the rug since they are not theological, but is it really worth it to achieve "unity" if "unity" means each side thinking that it was right the whole time and the other was wrong for a large part of its history? Because that is the only kind of "unity" that is possible.

Do you have any idea how petty this sounds? You won't accept unity because one side won't be forced to, for lack of a better term, surrender?

You maybe find issue with it, and think it can't work, but I see it as his it went with the leavened vs un leavened bread debate: big deal immediately, but 500 years from now nobody will really care.


Come now, let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

Obviously it was Colonel Mustard in the dining room with the fork.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And if you'll forgive me, that's a load of hogwash. If the Orthodox Church is not interested in seeking reunification with Rome it should stop playing footsie by doing all these joint Union Liturgies and meetings or what not.

So while you may not be interested, I'm forced to maintain faith that there are a great many on both sides that also would move to reunification, if such a path became visible. So I will continue, no matter what the obstructionists say.


No, you don't understand. I'm not proposing to change just the Roman Rite, I'm proposing an amendment to the Creed, to be ratified by an ecumenical council, that all Churches would adopts encapsulating a theology we both agree upon, via the foundation of scripture and whole boatload of other works.

That is a compromise only in the sense that neither side would be happy. Moreover, we should not compromise our theology for the sake of acceptance by the world or by heretical brethren- which is exactly what you're proposing. Finally, as that proclamation would be heretical by either side's theology, it couldn't be promulgated by a proper ecumenical council anyways. The best you could hope for is another latrocinium.

Except it's not contradictory to anyone's theology it's in keeping with both. Both with Aquinasas' defense of the Filioque, and the Monarchy of the Father. It accuratey clarifies the Catholic position, and confirms Christ's place in the Trinity as the Mediator and as the Word. Unfortunately I don't have time to rangle into the depths of that. But, I had hoped others would actually consider it and its implications instead of just rejecting it out of hand cause "muh creed". But forget getting Catholics and Orthodox to agree to disagree, you can't even get them agree to agree.


Buddhism doesn't have this problem, just throwing that out there...

[Czechanada]

Buddhism doesn't have this problem, just throwing that out there...

To be fair, Buddhism never was an centralized institution and dogma like the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Buddhism doesn't have this problem, just throwing that out there...

To be fair, Buddhism never was an centralized institution and dogma like the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Not to the same extent, no, but even the institutions that do exist are perfectly willing to except radical differences in theology as equally valid and Buddhist.

I am of course, not suggesting we do this, rather I was just lamenting the immovability of Christians in general, to the point of absurdity. It's one thing to disagree, it's another to not even listen.

[Cill Airne]

Anglicans have very rarely recognised anyone as a saint (in fact, we haven't in centuries. The last time, and only time, we have canonised a saint officially is King Charles the Martyr). Interestingly, we've evolved a new tradition of using the name Hero/Heroine for those a Synod has recognised as especially holy, but have not been made a Saint. Otherwise, we typically recognise martyrs as saints, and generally have gone along with the Catholic Church - when someone is recognised a Saint in the Catholic Church we typically agree (although we have not always agreed. There are some Canonised in the Catholic Church that are typically unrecognised in Anglicanism). Theoretically, Anglicanism could recognise a new Saint through a synod (as it had for King Charles the Martyr), or even a National Church Convention could recognise a saint for that National Church.

Although they have not been "officially recognised as saints" - the New Guinea Martyrs (eight Anglican clergy, teachers, and medical missionaries killed by the Japanese in 1942), English martyrs, and Ugandan Martyrs all typically have commemoration days and are treated as Saints by most Anglicans, many of whom have veneration cults (such as Lucian Tapiedi, one of the New Guinea Martyrs).

That's interesting. Am I correct in assuming that the reason why official canonisations do not take place any more is because of the impossibility in getting a majority of Anglicans to agree on a common meaning of "sainthood"? I mean, I assume that Anglo-Catholics would pretty much hold the same beliefs as Catholics regarding sainthood, while Reformed or low-church Anglicans probably do not believe in "saints" as a distinct category at all, and presumably accept the use of the title "saint" only as a historical tradition.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's absolutely correct. Because of the plurality of views it would be difficult for a Church Synod to name anyone a Saint - there is no universal agreement on whether it is Saint or saint and what those exactly mean. That's led High Church Anglicans, like myself, to typically go "along with" Roman Catholic canonisations (because we do typically agree on their actions of Sainthood, though not always) - whereas Low Church (and some Broad Church) Anglicans typically go along with the tradition of "everyone is a saint". It's because of the Via Media and Low vs High Church traditions that we haven't seen more canonisations (the closest we've ever seen were the aforementioned Anglican martyrs, whom, although never officially canonised, are typically treated as Saints by High Churchers and have had some form of recognition for their sanctity (similar to recognising someone as Blessed in the Roman Catholic Church) on an official level).

[Angleter]

Even if I am late, I also join in the celebration of the canonization of Mother Teresa.

Also, to extend the discussion on sainthood and canonization, this old news caught my attention when it was released: http://www.news.va/en/news/coptic-churc ... -coptic-ch

If the news is correct, and it is more likely reliable since it came from a source from the Vatican, it was said that the Coptic Church canonized the 21 Egyptian Christians martyred by ISIS. What was the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church's (name to clear confusion) reaction on the 21 Egyptian Christians as martyrs?

If my knowledge serves me right, the Catholic Church normally don't recognize the canonizations (or more accurately, their canonization equivalents) of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches due to them being not Catholic. This is also the same reason why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches don't recognize the Catholic Church's canonizations. Is my understanding on these right?

But, if the person was martyred for his/her faith, is it an important thing to consider his/her faith and religion and theology, whether the person was Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox for canonization and recognition? Or, does the Catholic and the Orthodox Church recognize martyrs as saints regardless of whatever particular church they belonged to?

This has also been my personal observation, in the Christian Chinese Martyrs killed in China, only the Catholic ones were canonized by the Catholic Church, and only the Orthodox ones were recognized by the Orthodox Church.

Yes. To canonise/recognise a saint is to confirm and acknowledge that they are in Heaven, and none of the apostolic denominations would be able to do that for a schismatic or heretic. They may well consider it likely that they're in Heaven, but they'd be unable to definitively say so.

Things get interesting, however, with the Eastern Catholic Churches, most of which recognise saints who lived and died in the Orthodox/Miaphysite/Nestorian Church when it was entirely in schism, and were recognised as saints before the relevant reunion with the Holy See. As far as I can tell, these would surely include Nestorius, who is recognised as a saint by the Syro-Malabar Church and, I assume, also by the Chaldean Catholic Church.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Do you have any idea how petty this sounds? You won't accept unity because one side won't be forced to, for lack of a better term, surrender?

No, you misunderstand. I would in fact accept the kind of "unity" I described above - I'm just not seeing the point of it. If the two sides continue to believe different things, and basically just agree not to discuss those differences for the sake of "unity", I am asking what's the point.

We can already talk and be friends and help each other in various ways without having this "unity" that you seek. We don't have unity because we disagree on a number of things. So if we continued to disagree - so that no one has to "surrender" - but suddenly proclaimed "we are united now", despite nothing having actually changed in the beliefs or practices of either side... then what's the point?

Unity is, in and of itself, the point.
John 17:11 "And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are."

What currently exists is not unity. It's moving in a mutual direction. We are not one, we are many. We are fractured and broken. And as long as that persists, we fail in our mandate.

You maybe find issue with it, and think it can't work, but I see it as his it went with the leavened vs un leavened bread debate: big deal immediately, but 500 years from now nobody will really care.

Well... actually, we still care. The use of leavened bread is mandatory for the Eucharist. Western Rite Orthodoxy, whose liturgy follows Catholic or Anglican practice in most respects, still has to use leavened bread.

And nobody is trying to change that...anymore. What was a once a huge point of contention is leveled to cultural differences. Hell, at one point the Japanese were having Eucharists of rice cakes and Sake. Christ could make himself present in a head of lettuce if the need so arose.

So... yeah. We are stubborn traditionalists who simply never let a doctrinal issue slide, not even 1000 years later. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Orthodoxy is that branch of Christianity that plants its sword in the ground when buffeted by the winds of history and says "no, I shall not move". We've been doing this since Athanasius took his stand against Arius, 1700 years ago.

Yeah, you and I both know that isn't true. The Eastern Church has wavered on doctrinal issues on divorce, contraception, Arianism, Iconoclasm, Monophysm, to name a few. To top it off the Orthodox Church is not opposed to gradual revelation of theological truths, it's opposed to changing established doctrines which nobody is proposing.

You forget it was Julius I that gave Athanasius sanctuary when Constantine himself, drove him out of Alexandria, and the Eastern Bishops became Arians. And it was to Julius that the appeals over the issue were made. It was Julius who wielded the power of Rome, who took on the Eastern Bishops and convened the Synod of Serdica, in which the Eastern Bishops opposed Athanasius. Rome, not the East, stood against Arianism. Rome defeated Arianism, not the East. You laying sole claim to Athanasius, separate from Rome is selective history at best.

This isn't even touching on the Acacian Shisim, or the Iconoclast heresy.

Come now, let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

Oh, that is something that we can, in fact, just let slide. When it comes to historical wrongs, by all means, let bygones be bygones. We can forgive anyone for anything. But we cannot change our faith.

It was more meant to be a humorous quote from Monty Python, about squabbling, but I agree. But the point you don't seem to be grasping is, we're or at least I'm, not asking people to change their faith. I'm asking the Church(s) to evaluate and clarify the faith via the built in mechanisms for such a task. It is Hubris from both sides to suggest finding commonality in articulation, to be "change."

[Nioya]

I feel bad. If I become a Christian again, I think in going to join the episcopal church. But I'm not sure about women's ordination. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I feel bad. If I become a Christian again, I think in going to join the episcopal church. But I'm not sure about women's ordination. I'm not sure how to resolve this issue.

perhaps ask an episcopal priest on why they allow it?

[Talvezout]

While I do admit that this is a Catholic news article, I think the sentiments within it are something all Christians, heck all people of faith can use.

http://aleteia.org/2016/09/06/5-warning ... xic-faith/

[Luminesa]

While I do admit that this is a Catholic news article, I think the sentiments within it are something all Christians, heck all people of faith can use.

http://aleteia.org/2016/09/06/5-warning ... xic-faith/

THIS SISTER. I LIKE HER.

[Constantinopolis]

So... yeah. We are stubborn traditionalists who simply never let a doctrinal issue slide, not even 1000 years later. That's not a bug, it's a feature. Orthodoxy is that branch of Christianity that plants its sword in the ground when buffeted by the winds of history and says "no, I shall not move". We've been doing this since Athanasius took his stand against Arius, 1700 years ago.

Yeah, you and I both know that isn't true. The Eastern Church has wavered on doctrinal issues on divorce, contraception, Arianism, Iconoclasm, Monophysm, to name a few. To top it off the Orthodox Church is not opposed to gradual revelation of theological truths, it's opposed to changing established doctrines which nobody is proposing.

You forget it was Julius I that gave Athanasius sanctuary when Constantine himself, drove him out of Alexandria, and the Eastern Bishops became Arians. And it was to Julius that the appeals over the issue were made. It was Julius who wielded the power of Rome, who took on the Eastern Bishops and convened the Synod of Serdica, in which the Eastern Bishops opposed Athanasius. Rome, not the East, stood against Arianism. Rome defeated Arianism, not the East. You laying sole claim to Athanasius, separate from Rome is selective history at best.

This isn't even touching on the Acacian Shisim, or the Iconoclast heresy.

You deeply misunderstand the Orthodox Church if you imagine that we identify with the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire at all points in history.

In all of the controversies you listed, we recognize the side that maintained doctrinal orthodoxy - NOT necessarily the side that happened to be located in the East - as the side that represented our Church.

And yes, that means that, at certain points in history, the Pope of Rome was Orthodox and the majority of Eastern bishops were heretics.

We do not identify with the bishops of any particular geographical area. We identify with the bishops who maintained the Orthodox faith. After the 11th century, as it happened, all those bishops were Eastern. But before the 11th century, they were not always Eastern, and in fact at some points they were predominantly Western.

You Catholics identify your Church with the Papacy at all points in history, and therefore you imagine that we hold some sort of mirror image belief where we identify our Church with the Patriarch of Constantinople or with the Eastern bishops at all points in history. That is false.

We claim the Orthodox bishops of Rome as our own, particularly the ones who stood against Arianism and iconoclasm, and of course Saint Leo the Great and Saint Gregory the Great.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah, you and I both know that isn't true. The Eastern Church has wavered on doctrinal issues on divorce, contraception, Arianism, Iconoclasm, Monophysm, to name a few. To top it off the Orthodox Church is not opposed to gradual revelation of theological truths, it's opposed to changing established doctrines which nobody is proposing.

You forget it was Julius I that gave Athanasius sanctuary when Constantine himself, drove him out of Alexandria, and the Eastern Bishops became Arians. And it was to Julius that the appeals over the issue were made. It was Julius who wielded the power of Rome, who took on the Eastern Bishops and convened the Synod of Serdica, in which the Eastern Bishops opposed Athanasius. Rome, not the East, stood against Arianism. Rome defeated Arianism, not the East. You laying sole claim to Athanasius, separate from Rome is selective history at best.

This isn't even touching on the Acacian Shisim, or the Iconoclast heresy.

You deeply misunderstand the Orthodox Church if you imagine that we identify with the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire at all points in history.


In all of the controversies you listed, we recognize the side that maintained doctrinal orthodoxy - NOT necessarily the side that happened to be located in the East - as the side that represented our Church.

Falsely

It must be convenient to the orthodox mind to sidestep all controversy in their Church by pretending they had nothing to do with it, but to anyone who probes even a decent amount, its a shallow, bold face lie. In those controversies the 5 patriarchates, the Patriarchate of Rome held the West, and the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, held the East. The Eastern Patriarchates fell into heresy, the Patriarchate of Rome did not. The Patriarchate of Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. The Patriarchates of the East are not. Thus the claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which claims Eastern Patriarchates, did not fall into heresy, is simply false.

To say the Orthodox Church is simply all the correct patriarchates though out time, betrays the complexities: politically, systemically, and institutionally of the Great Schism.

And yes, that means that, at certain points in history, the Pope of Rome was Orthodox and the majority of Eastern bishops were heretics.

I'd argue that represents the majority of the time, even to this day, but why bother, we both know where that road leads.

We do not identify with the bishops of any particular geographical area. We identify with the bishops who maintained the Orthodox faith.

Again False, the institution of the Eastern Church is broken into Patriarchates just like the Early Church. If you're actually going to sit here and say those divisions, the Bishops and Patriarchates don't actually matter, well congratulations you just made the Roman Catholic Church more Orthodox than the Orthodox Church. If the Moscow Patriarchate broke away, the Russian Parishioners would go with it. They wouldn't scramble to find Greek Churches. If the Greek Orthodox Church left the Eastern Orthodox Communion, it's parishioners would still continue on in the Greek Orthodox Tradition. you may not identify with the Patriarchate System, but I'm beginning to realize you don't hold a view systemic of the mainstream of Orthodox Christians.

After the 11th century, as it happened, all those bishops were Eastern. But before the 11th century, they were not always Eastern, and in fact at some points they were predominantly Western.

You Catholics identify your Church with the Papacy at all points in history, and therefore you imagine that we hold some sort of mirror image belief where we identify our Church with the Patriarch of Constantinople or with the Eastern bishops at all points in history. That is false.

On the Contrary, The Ecumenical Patriarch, specifically the Patriarch of Constantinople wielded great power and influence over the Eastern Patriarchies rivaling only the Roman Patriarch in the West. It wasn't until the Seljuks took over the seat, that Constantinople lost much of its power and influence. We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch's position as it Traditionally has been, but this "loose association" with the Patriarch is a modern development, and a proclamation of its orthodoxy, essentially amounts to historical revisionism.

Ironically your claim about not being inherently tied to the Patriarchates and Bishops, would have more standing if that soldier had remembered to lock the gates

We claim the Orthodox bishops of Rome as our own, particularly the ones who stood against Arianism and iconoclasm, and of course Saint Leo the Great and Saint Gregory the Great.

You can claim it all you want, but the fact remains they were of the Western Church, the Church that continues under the Bishop of Rome to this day.

[Constantinopolis]

You deeply misunderstand the Orthodox Church if you imagine that we identify with the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire at all points in history.

In all of the controversies you listed, we recognize the side that maintained doctrinal orthodoxy - NOT necessarily the side that happened to be located in the East - as the side that represented our Church.

Falsely.

It must be convenient to the orthodox mind to sidestep all controversy in their Church by pretending they had nothing to do with it,

...what? No, we absolutely do not "pretend we had nothing to do with it". We talk about it all the time. The struggle against Arianism and iconoclasm, the struggle against Nestorianism and monophysitism, the controversies surrounding the Council of Chalcedon and the fact that we support the affirmation of Orthodoxy represented by the Tome of (Pope) Leo - all these things are major topics for any Orthodox Christian study of Church history.

The fact is, we view BOTH the Eastern and Western bishops of the Church as it existed before the 9th-11th centuries as Orthodox if they confessed Orthodox doctrine. We venerate the Orthodox Popes of Rome. We have an entire Divine Liturgy - the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts - which is held on weekdays of Lent every year and which ends with asking for the intercession of Saint Pope Gregory the Great, because he is regarded as the author of this liturgy.

We simply do NOT see things in terms of East-West divisions prior to the 9th century at the earliest (and more conventionally the 11th century).

In those controversies the 5 patriarchates, the Patriarchate of Rome held the West, and the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, held the East.

Uh... actually the Patriarchate of Constantinople didn't even exist until the 380s, by which point Arianism was already defeated within the Empire; and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was only split off from Antioch in 451.

The organization of the early Church was flexible, in terms of the numbers of patriarchs and the autocephaly of various other regional synods (for example the Church in Georgia, Armenia, Cyprus and Ethiopia always had wide autonomy and special privileges).

The Eastern Patriarchates fell into heresy, the Patriarchate of Rome did not.

Except when it did, as acknowledged even by the Catholic Church itself. Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which is recognized by the Catholics as well as by the Orthodox.

The Patriarchate of Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. The Patriarchates of the East are not.

What's the deal with your Eastern Catholic Churches, then?

Thus the claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which claims Eastern Patriarchates, did not fall into heresy, is simply false.

That's like saying that the Roman Catholic Church fell into heresy every time you had an antipope. Or that Roman Catholicism fell into heresy when the Protestant Reformation happened - because most instances of "Eastern Patriarchates falling into heresy" actually consist of some heretical group breaking away from an Eastern Patriarchate, and if having heretics break away from you counts as "falling into heresy", then remind me what happened in the British Isles, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Again False, the institution of the Eastern Church is broken into Patriarchates just like the Early Church. If you're actually going to sit here and say those divisions, the Bishops and Patriarchates don't actually matter, well congratulations you just made the Roman Catholic Church more Orthodox than the Orthodox Church. If the Moscow Patriarchate broke away, the Russian Parishioners would go with it. They wouldn't scramble to find Greek Churches. If the Greek Orthodox Church left the Eastern Orthodox Communion, it's parishioners would still continue on in the Greek Orthodox Tradition. you may not identify with the Patriarchate System, but I'm beginning to realize you don't hold a view systemic of the mainstream of Orthodox Christians.

I'm beginning to realize you have no clue what Orthodox Christians actually believe. Patriarchates are not sacrosanct or immutable. Patriarchates can be created and abolished. The Patriarchate of Bulgaria was created in the 9th century, abolished in the 11th, created again in the 12th, abolished again in the 14th, and finally created a third time in the 19th century. There was once a Patriarchate of Peć with a territory that doesn't remotely correspond to any present-day patriarchate. The Patriarchate of Georgia was created in the year 1010 and continues to this day (with a brief interruption in the 19th century), meaning that as far as the Orthodox are concerned, there were actually SIX patriarchates, not five, in the year 1054 (and there could have been seven if the Bulgarian one hadn't been recently abolished).

Of the currently-existing 9 Orthodox patriarchates, two (Alexandria and Antioch) existed by the early 4th century, one (Constantinople) was founded in the late 4th century, one (Jerusalem) was founded in the 5th century, three (Bulgaria, Georgia and Serbia) were founded in the Middle Ages, one (Moscow) was founded in 1589, two (Bulgaria and Serbia) were abolished and then re-founded in the 19th century, and one (Romania) was founded in 1925.

Also, the territorial boundaries of all these patriarchates have shifted many, many times.

So if some patriarchate broke away from the Orthodox Church, what would actually happen is that the faithful who wished to remain Orthodox would split from it and create their own new patriarchate in communion with the Orthodox Church. If the Moscow Patriarchate broke away, the Russian parishioners wouldn't go with it, they would set up a rival Orthodox patriarchate of Russian tradition, with its seat either in Moscow or somewhere else.

On the Contrary, The Ecumenical Patriarch, specifically the Patriarch of Constantinople wielded great power and influence over the Eastern Patriarchies rivaling only the Roman Patriarch in the West.

This only happened for a few hundred years, beginning with the period of the Muslim conquests and ending with the creation of autocephalous Slavic and Georgian patriarchates in the Middle Ages. The history of who was most powerful in the Orthodox East goes briefly like this:

Prior to the 5th century, Alexandria and Antioch were the great centres of Christianity in the East, and Constantinople wasn't even a patriarchate, but rather an archbishopric.
From the 5th century to the Muslim conquests in the 7th century, Constantinople rose to become the equal of Alexandria and Antioch.
From the 7th century to the 9th century, Constantinople was as you described it.
Starting in the 9th century, Slavic churches were established, and these quickly gained autocephaly, rising to the rank of patriarchates. The Georgian Church also became a patriarchate, and the influence of Constantinople diminished.
Then in the 14th century, as the Ottoman Turks conquered the Balkans, the influence of Constantinople paradoxically rose again, as the Ottomans made the Ecumenical Patriarch millet-bashi of all Orthodox Christians in their empire.
But in the 16th century, Moscow became a patriarchate and soon equaled or even eclipsed Constantinople in influence and importance.

It wasn't until the Seljuks took over the seat, that Constantinople lost much of its power and influence.

Oy vey... Do you even know the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople? The Seljuks didn't conquer Constantinople, the Ottomans did, and they actually strengthened the position of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

We respect the Ecumenical Patriarch's position as it Traditionally has been, but this "loose association" with the Patriarch is a modern development, and a proclamation of its orthodoxy, essentially amounts to historical revisionism.

Do I seriously need to list for you every time the entirety of the Orthodox Church has been in opposition to a reigning Ecumenical Patriarch, or every time an Ecumenical Patriarch has been forcibly deposed by a council of bishops? Because it happened all the time.

You can claim it all you want, but the fact remains they were of the Western Church, the Church that continues under the Bishop of Rome to this day.

They were of the Western Church, indeed... and they confessed the Creed without the Filioque their entire lives, and they worshiped God in churches that looked like this, and (in the case of St. Gregory) composed one of the major liturgies of what you call the "Byzantine Rite", a liturgy that only the Orthodox Church continues to use.

[New confederate ramenia]

Really late night rant incoming

I'm reading the Brothers Karamazov (it's really good!!) and I just got to a part where Alyosha says that we should care for people like they're children. What does he mean by this exactly? I don't think it can mean treating people like they're helpless, because children aren't helpless and (as described earlier in this chapter of Brothers Karamazov) people tend to resent that. There's also something about putting people on equal or higher footing to oneself, but I'm not sure what that has to do with acting like people you try to help like you're helping a child. I also feel like the equal footing part has to do with what the elder said about how the monks must realize that they are actually "lower" than everyone. They notice that they have great sins on them, which is why they join the monastery. Is it really all about humility then?

Also there are the brothers (and the father) themselves. I see too much of myself in Dmitri and Fyodor and their resignation to sin and being scoundrels. Self-knowledge is not enough, you must do more than know of your flaws. But how

[Novsvacro]

Have any of you guys read 'A Canticle for Leibowitz'? What did you think of it?

[Czechanada]

Right across the river from the university where I am pursuing my PhD, there's a beautiful Orthodox Church with a majestic golden roof.

Say what you will about the Orthodox Christianity, but at least they have some damn fine architecture.

[Luminesa]

Really late night rant incoming

I'm reading the Brothers Karamazov (it's really good!!) and I just got to a part where Alyosha says that we should care for people like they're children. What does he mean by this exactly? I don't think it can mean treating people like they're helpless, because children aren't helpless and (as described earlier in this chapter of Brothers Karamazov) people tend to resent that. There's also something about putting people on equal or higher footing to oneself, but I'm not sure what that has to do with acting like people you try to help like you're helping a child. I also feel like the equal footing part has to do with what the elder said about how the monks must realize that they are actually "lower" than everyone. They notice that they have great sins on them, which is why they join the monastery. Is it really all about humility then?

Also there are the brothers (and the father) themselves. I see too much of myself in Dmitri and Fyodor and their resignation to sin and being scoundrels. Self-knowledge is not enough, you must do more than know of your flaws. But how

When I think of caring for people like they're children, I think of caring like a mom. Gentle and compassionate. We should treat others with gentleness and compassion, because we often don't know where they're coming from, and everyone needs love.

[Luminesa]

Right across the river from the university where I am pursuing my PhD, there's a beautiful Orthodox Church with a majestic golden roof.

Say what you will about the Orthodox Christianity, but at least they have some damn fine architecture.

I wanna go to Russia just to see the Basilica (I think it's a Basilica) of the Annuniciation. It's so big and it has the spiraling gold roof...OH MY GOSH. That, and I want to see the Winter Palace. ^^

[The Alexanderians]

Right across the river from the university where I am pursuing my PhD, there's a beautiful Orthodox Church with a majestic golden roof.

Say what you will about the Orthodox Christianity, but at least they have some damn fine architecture.

*holy

[Constantinopolis]

Right across the river from the university where I am pursuing my PhD, there's a beautiful Orthodox Church with a majestic golden roof.

Say what you will about the Orthodox Christianity, but at least they have some damn fine architecture.

I wanna go to Russia just to see the Basilica (I think it's a Basilica) of the Annuniciation. It's so big and it has the spiraling gold roof...OH MY GOSH. That, and I want to see the Winter Palace. ^^

So I heard you like golden domes...

[Herskerstad]

I wanna go to Russia just to see the Basilica (I think it's a Basilica) of the Annuniciation. It's so big and it has the spiraling gold roof...OH MY GOSH. That, and I want to see the Winter Palace. ^^

So I heard you like golden domes...

Nonsense, the T1 mass produced church offer strategic advantages and low production costs. Once the priests are paratrooped behind capitalist lines these will break through into Poland in a true orthodox mechanised wave. Armed with a 76mm holy hand grenade launcher and holy water supersoakers, it will cause hostile priests to flee to Siberia for patriotic ecumenism quicker than the gulag train can carry them.

[Constantinopolis]

So I heard you like golden domes...

Nonsense, the T1 mass produced church offer strategic advantages and low production costs. Once the priests are paratrooped behind capitalist lines these will break through into Poland in a true orthodox mechanised wave. Armed with a 76mm holy hand grenade launcher and holy water supersoakers, it will cause hostile priests to flee to Siberia for patriotic ecumenism quicker than the gulag train can carry them.

That is the most hilarious thing I read today!

That mobile chapel actually looks like a really good idea, though, for places with few or no Orthodox churches.