Question for former Orthodox

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

As one Orthodox theologian said, "do not argue with the Latins over the (papal) primacy - it is good for the Church. Only let the successor of Peter confess the faith of Peter - and then let him have the primacy."

Who was that?

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Who was that?

He is quoted in Meyendorff's book on Byzantine theology. I gave my copy to a seminarian and never got it back.

I am not going out to buy another copy though . . .

Alex

[Schism hater]

Originally Posted by John of Patmos

You may want to check out "The Russian Church and the Papacy" by Soloviev. Very helpful.

Soloviev didn't write a book called "The Russian Church and the Papacy". He wrote a book called "Russia and the Universal Church" which has been edited by a contemporary Roman Catholic apologist to make it read like nothing more than an argument for papal primacy as understood by Rome. It is this work which bears the title "The Russian Church and the Papacy". Soloviev did make some arguments for papal primacy, but there was a lot more to his original work. He also died in communion with the Orthodox Church.

[Schism hater]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

I will always insist that I am already Orthodox and in communion with Rome - just like the Orthodox Church of the first millennium.

Rome has added dogmas since the first millenium.

[Byz Guy]

Originally Posted by Alexander Roman

He is quoted in Meyendorff's book on Byzantine theology. I gave my copy to a seminarian and never got it back.

I am not going out to buy another copy though . . .

Alex

I think this is the quote (perhaps a bit of a different translation but essentially the same). It's quoted in an article by Metropolitan Hilarion:

'We should not contradict the Latins,' wrote St. Simeon of Thessalonica in the 15th century, 'when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. But only let them show that he is true to the faith of Peter and his successors; then let him have all the privileges of Peter, let him be first, the head of all and the supreme hierarch. Only let him be faithful to the Orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agathon, Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we too shall call him apostolic father and the first among hierarchs; then we will be under his authority not only as under Peter, but the very Saviour Himself' (PG 145, 120 AC)

The article is here:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...ionPrimacy.php

[L piperatus]

Originally Posted by MrsNoahMoerbeek

Hi, a Russian Orthodox woman is currently trying to convert me, but she's...well, very confused, to say the least. My question to you is (as she's given me contradicting answers):

Why do the Orthodox venerate certain saints (pre-schism) that supported the belief of papal primacy-infallibility?

I asked her, but like I said, I've received different answers. "They're wrong" and "Faulty translation". Anyone have an answer aside from either of those? And, what convinced you to convert?

Mrs Noah, if you don't mind me asking, has your acquaintance discussed the Calendar issue with you? The Russians I know believe that the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) is a heresy, and thus not only Catholics, but also "New Calendar Eastern Orthodox" (i.e. Greek and Antiochian EO who adopted the New or Gregorian Calendar) are heretics. Thus Russians will not attend and commune in New Calendar EO churches, except maybe out of economy in extraordinary circumstances. They do commune with those who stick to the Old (Julian) Calendar - i.e. Serbian EO, the monks on Mount Athos, and Old Calendar factions of Greek EO who are in schism with New Calendar EO Churches.

I'm just curious, does your Russian EO acquaintance feel as strongly about the Calendar issue as the Russian people I knew and who regarded the Calendar as an extremely important issue?

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Schism hater

Soloviev didn't write a book called "The Russian Church and the Papacy". He wrote a book called "Russia and the Universal Church" which has been edited by a contemporary Roman Catholic apologist to make it read like nothing more than an argument for papal primacy as understood by Rome. It is this work which bears the title "The Russian Church and the Papacy".

Interesting, I didn't know that. If I had had any desire to read "The Russian Church and the Papacy" (although, honestly, I didn't anyhow) that would have killed it.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Byz Guy

I think this is the quote (perhaps a bit of a different translation but essentially the same). It's quoted in an article by Metropolitan Hilarion:

Ah. I think I have actually encountered that before. I didn't realize I until I saw the exact quote.

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Schism hater

Rome has added dogmas since the first millenium.

Yes and I only said what I said to get that wonderful Presbytera off my back. I don't appreciate being accosted in that way and I would never do that to anyone myself.

Alex

[Alexander Roman]

Originally Posted by Byz Guy

I think this is the quote (perhaps a bit of a different translation but essentially the same). It's quoted in an article by Metropolitan Hilarion:



The article is here:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...ionPrimacy.php

Aye, aye sir!

You are a far bettter man than I!

A blessed Pascha to you and yours!

Alex

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by L piperatus

Mrs Noah, if you don't mind me asking, has your acquaintance discussed the Calendar issue with you? The Russians I know believe that the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar) is a heresy, and thus not only Catholics, but also "New Calendar Eastern Orthodox" (i.e. Greek and Antiochian EO who adopted the New or Gregorian Calendar) are heretics. Thus Russians will not attend and commune in New Calendar EO churches, except maybe out of economy in extraordinary circumstances. They do commune with those who stick to the Old (Julian) Calendar - i.e. Serbian EO, the monks on Mount Athos, and Old Calendar factions of Greek EO who are in schism with New Calendar EO Churches.

I'm just curious, does your Russian EO acquaintance feel as strongly about the Calendar issue as the Russian people I knew and who regarded the Calendar as an extremely important issue?

The Russians you knew must have been part of an old calendarist sect. The Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR are in full communion with all of the churches on the revised Julian Calendar (those old calendarists would call them heretics too), meaning that the laity and priests are free to intercommune, and the hierarchs commemorate the hierarchs of the other churches.

It's also possible that they were part of ROCOR many years back, which had an old calendarist bent to it, but ROCOR's main raison d'être back then was that the Russian Orthodox Church had been infiltrated by communists, and that thus all churches in communion with her had fallen. ROCOR has since reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church and now exists as an autonomous hierarchical structure within the Russian Orthodox Church.

[carlos19]

Originally Posted by Schism hater

Rome has added dogmas since the first millenium.

in all fairness the Orthodox have added the doctrine of Palamism.

[L piperatus]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The Russians you knew must have been part of an old calendarist sect. The Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR are in full communion with all of the churches on the revised Julian Calendar (those old calendarists would call them heretics too), meaning that the laity and priests are free to intercommune, and the hierarchs commemorate the hierarchs of the other churches.

It's also possible that they were part of ROCOR many years back, which had an old calendarist bent to it, but ROCOR's main raison d'être back then was that the Russian Orthodox Church had been infiltrated by communists, and that thus all churches in communion with her had fallen. ROCOR has since reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church and now exists as an autonomous hierarchical structure within the Russian Orthodox Church.

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR's reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by L piperatus

The people I know are some formerly ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) priests and laity within the reunited Russian EO Church. Priests in the reunited Church keep instructing the faithful, after ROCOR's reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2006, not to attend or commune in Greek and Antiochian EO Churches that use the New Calendar. The Russian faithful I know, will rather drive close to three hours to attend Divine Liturgy two states and more than 100 miles away (some even drive 400 miles to the closest Old Calendar church) in a ROCOR church under the umbrella of the reunited ROCOR-MP, rather than attend the New Calendar Greek EOC some 10 minutes away in the city, or the New Calendar Antiochian EOC which is also right there in the city some 20 minutes away.

I have a Greek Orthodox parish walking distance from my house.

I go to the OCA normally, and the bishop doesn't care which parish I go to, there are no parish bounderies so I drive past several about forty or fifty minutes to the one uptown.

I had a good friend (of Italian Roman catholic background) whom I knew from the old Bielorussian mission in Chicago. The Bielorussion mission was closed by the Cardinal but the Romanian Catholics took over the physical plant for their mission so he could have actually stayed there. He lives all across the metro area and his drive takes up to 1 hour 20 minutes one way to get to the only Ruthenian parish in the state. He drives past several UGCC, one Melkite parish plus the Syro-Malabar cathedral and only God knows how many Latin Catholic parishes, but to him (for his reasons only) that's where he goes.

People do that sort of thing and I have heard every conceivable reason why they would, including the advice of priests.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by carlos19

in all fairness the Orthodox have added the doctrine of Palamism.

What doctrines of Palamism?