Ping!
....let us be frank: we are not dealing here with theology. Theology is merely a masquerade for questions of geopolitical significance and Russian nationalism. We are dealing with a country still reeling from the collapse of its Soviet empire in 1991, still struggling to find its way, still trying to differentiate itself (as recent and ongoing events in Ukraine make plain) from its neighbors, to say nothing of Western Europe or the United States. In this light, the Russian statement makes more sense: it is an attempt to keep "far from the madding crowd" and the emerging consensus, both within the rest of Orthodoxy and between that Orthodoxy and Catholicism, on the issue of primacy. For Moscow knows that if Orthodoxy and Catholicism unite, then its claims to being some kind of centre of significance and power will be forever dashed—and just as it seems on the precipice of finally toppling Constantinople and its pitifully few remaining Orthodox Christians (as Metropolitan Elpidophoros rightly argues, the Russian statement is really about advancing a wholly novel "primacy of numbers" [2, ii]). But if united to Rome, with its 1.5 billion Catholics (and growing by hundreds of thousands every year), then Moscow will return to being—if crude numbers are what we are considering—very peripheral indeed, and continuing to sink farther and farther down the list as its demographic death-spiral deepens. In sum, this is a statement born of desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity.
In the East there is someone that causes the western liberal's maniacal laughter to stop. Vladimir Putin. He has real world power, which causes the liberal media to fearfully ignore or warp his image. Like a good Christian King he leads a nation to Christ. Deep down in their evil souls they shriek like devils because they know Christ is true God and true power that they cannot defeat. They thought the Bolshevik revolution destroyed Holy Mother Russia. Christ cannot be defeated and his servant Putin has welcomed Christ and His church.Related threads:
-- from the thread US threatened by Russia's Christianity
All of the rushin’ and the roamin’ around gives them plenty of exercise. ;-)
All of the rushin’ and the roamin’ around gives them plenty of exercise. ;-)
There is no theological argument against a reunification, but plenty of political ones. This is one of them, a specifically Russian one; this one exists because, having lost the Cold War, the USSR 2.0 of which the Moscow Patriarchate is the state Church would like to wax as a Eurasian (emphasis on Asian) power.
However, do we in the West wish a reunification with a servile Church of Stalinist make?
And, at the same time, can the Orthodox expect preservation and stability of the Eastern Rite when Rome cannot settle it with SSPX?
In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople.FIRST WITHOUT EQUALS
This shows that the real player in reunification talks should be the Ecumenical Patriarch, who also happens to address the issue in good faith, -- unlike someone else we know.
This guy is dripping with naked hatred for the Orthodox Church, so it’s hard to take him too seriously.
“the kind of thing that makes knowledgeable people resort to laughter, mockery, and sarcasm.”
Even wish-casting with enthusiasm for the demographic demise of Orthodox Christians:
“Moscow will return to being very peripheral indeed, and continuing to sink farther and farther down the list as its demographic death-spiral deepens.”
Then an over-the-top insult comparing a church document on primacy with the Soviet Constitution, because it doesn’t agree with his view of primacy. The Russian church suffered one of the biggest martyrdom’s in Christian history at the hands of the Soviets, really disgusting for him to throw this kind of words around.
The phrase “primacy of honor” is not some new innovation or corruption. It’s from the 3rd canon of the 3rd ecumenical council.
“‘The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, since this city is the New Rome.’”
This is further explained by the 4th ecumenical council (451) which said,
“‘The fathers properly gave preference to the see of the Ancient Rome since this was the imperial capital. For the same reasons the 150 holy bishops also granted equal privileges to the most holy see of the New Rome, rightly judging that the city that received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate and having equal privileges with the Ancient Rome should also be elevated in church matters, just as the former was, and that it might be second after it.’”
Notice the reasons stated for the grant of Primacy was because of the political importance of these cities within the empire. Not because of succession from Peter or anything like that.
The pope signed off on this document, as did an overwhelming majority of Bishops from the early Christian Church at the time.
Maybe he can write a story about how the early Christian Church was “less than convincing” and full of “desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity”.
Take a look at the sucess of the Eastern Rite Churches which are under the leadership of Rome, what a united Church could truly be.
Tagline.
BTW, I have a lot of respect for Metropolitan Hilarion
. He’s an extraordinarily gifted man.