When will Rome be in the Church?

Sorry for late reply. I am not able to post here often.

TheLostCoin said:

The problem is, "Nationalism" as we understand it today didn't exist back in the day. Long before the Enlightenment and the printing-press, Nations constantly fluxed and changed in terms of identity.

Click to expand...

I fail to see your point. Nationalism has always existed since the first nations, which were formed by God as stated in Scripture. Ideas regarding Nationalism evolving over time does not change my point, and National identities definitely did exist in Ancient times.

To clarify, when i say Nationalism i mean the religion, the culture, the philosophy/values and the ethnicity of a people. Israel is a perfect example of a nation.

TheLostCoin said:

People certainly obeyed their leaders and accepted myths which legitimized the leader's rule, but there was no real idea of a biological continuity of peoples over the centuries.

Click to expand...

That is completely wrong. Israel being a perfect example. Rome also had national pride in their heritage both biological and religious from Troy.

TheLostCoin said:

In fact it became famous when scholar Eugene Weber found out that in France, up until World War I there were many French peasants who didn't really see themselves as having a salient French identity - they lived life, rarely leaving their own villages, and didn't know much of the world outside their own villages.

Click to expand...

I think you are defining nationalism differently than i am. The peasants may not have had an overall connection to the country of France and its government, but they would most certainly have had there own culture and beliefs. The culture, religion, ethnicity, etc of a people is what makes a nation.

TheLostCoin said:

It wouldn't be until the printing press where people could record oral traditions about their own identity, where nations begin to stop changing rapidly, but even then, the idea of aligning oneself to a Nation rather than a leader for a political or religious cause was all created when the importance of religion was destroyed in society from the French Revolution onwards.

Click to expand...

Not true and I only need to point to Israel to prove it. Nationalism as I define it has always existed. It is divinely instituted, the Scriptures and Church fathers supporting this.

Sorry for the late reply.

Light of the East said:

You are conflating oranges with apples when you compare the situation of the Church (aka the congregation of God's people) in the OT with that of the NT. In the OT, God was at war with the evil one, who was trying to stop the predicted coming of the Messiah to save the world through the Jews. The nations around Israel were, either consciously or unconsciously, in opposition to the truth found in Israel and were trying to destroy the nation and the promise of the Messiah. They were PAGANS and not BELIEVERS.

However, in the NT we now have the one Church in all the countries of the world in some form. The idea that Christians in France would sally forth to kill Christians in Spain, under the pretext of some form of "enmity" (usually a king or emperor lusting after property or other goods) should cause scandal and horror among all who are in the family of God.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but that is completely irrelevant to what I said.

You implied Nationalism was wrong because it led to Christians killing Christians. I replied that devotion to God has led to the same thing and did not mean only in the Old Testament but also in Christian times. Christians have been killing Christians in the name of God for hundreds of years. If you say Nationalism is a sin for this reason then you must also call devotion to God a sin for the same reasons.

Light of the East said:

While this is true, they represent only a very small percentage of 8 BILLION people in the world. The majority of people are sheep who blindly follow these evil leaders and their lies and lying agenda. Most folks are just interested in staying alive and having the best life they could have. So, in order to get what they want, world leaders will lie through their teeth about other countries to stir up the peasants and make them willing to fight for their "freedom." This includes most of the unthinking drones who are in the military who are - bless their hearts - just following their orders in order to be good soldiers. One wonders just how the Middle East would look today if the Armed Forces had called BS on George Bush and his corporatist buddies who used 9/11 to attack a country that had done absolutely NOTHING to them on September 11. People who don't think are easy targets for despots like Bush and his cabal of corporatist scoundrels.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Light of the East said:

I agree, but would ask this question. While each country and nationality would keep its sovereignty and cultural particulars (many of them being quite beautiful), could you see a global family united under a single leadership (i.e., King Jesus) yet retaining those individual traits? I am not in favor of homogenizing mankind inasmuch as we are created different and placed in different countries with different cultural norms.

Click to expand...

Yes, in fact I have believed for many years that when Christ returns the nations will all still exist but in service to Him and in the fullness of what God meant them to be. I don't know if this is the normal Orthodox understanding though.

Light of the East said:

In another thread (I was doing some archiving on a couple of topics) Fr. Matt stated that Rome stopped being in the Church when She left the Church (circa 1054 aka "The Great Schism.")

So here's my simple question: what actions will the Patriarch of Rome have to take to rejoin the Church in unity?

Click to expand...

Fr. Tom Hopko did a podcast several years ago on what it would take for Rome to join the Orthodox Church. He had a long list of things the RC would need to do. If I find the podcast (it's on AFR), I'll post it.

You know what the Orthodox Church needs to do?
Create a Pan-Orthodox committee where at least almost all the Churches are present (including the conservative ones), and write a list of what is expected for Rome to do to be accepted as Orthodox, so they have a reference to look back to to see how Rome is doing, and they don't arbitrarily shift their positions of acceptability of Rome.
They can all discuss and agree / disagree what's required or not (for example, if leavened bread is such a big deal, if Rome can venerate her own Saints liturgically, what's required to change from the Novus Ordo or even the Tridentine Mass), such that there isn't outcry when the Church is accused of being too chauvinistic or too indifferent.

TheLostCoin said:

You know what the Orthodox Church needs to do?
Create a Pan-Orthodox committee where all the Churches are present (including the conservative ones), and write a list of what is expected for Rome to do to be accepted as Orthodox, so they have a reference to look back to to see how Rome is doing.

Click to expand...

Of course at the end of the day this is up to the bishops, not to me, but I really don't think that's a big issue that needs to be discussed. I think it's more pressing to address things like the reception of converts (chrismation/baptism), the jurisdictional divides in America, Antioch vs Jerusalem and Constantinople vs Moscow, the Western rite, etc.

I think focusing on Rome is missing something. We shouldn't focus on them any more than on the Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. We're Orthodox, not Catholics-with-long-beards

AMM said:

Of course at the end of the day this is up to the bishops, not to me, but I really don't think that's a big issue that needs to be discussed. I think it's more pressing to address things like the reception of converts (chrismation/baptism), the jurisdictional divides in America, Antioch vs Jerusalem and Constantinople vs Moscow, the Western rite, etc.

I think focusing on Rome is missing something. We shouldn't focus on them any more than on the Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. We're Orthodox, not Catholics-with-long-beards

Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think creating a Pan-Orthodox Committee to make a universally-accepted list will allow for more productivity to solve these issues, rather than creating pointless conflicts whenever a Church makes a statement with / about Rome that is controversial.

For instance, the "Balamand Declaration" was a declaration that was mainly spearheaded by the Great and Holy Phanar, said that the schism has inhibited "the Lord's Commandment" that "they all may be one", rejected any forms of Uniatism as a method to communion, said that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "Sister Churches," and rejected a required re-baptism for each Church.

This statement has only divided the Orthodox Church and led to huge in-quarreling, especially when such a controversial document had an arrogant policy of the expectation of universal acceptability on the basis of it being done by the Phanar, while deliberately denying certain Orthodox Churches from participating in the discussion like a tyrant - something which the Holy and Great Phanar tends to do a lot, as can be seen in the so-called "Holy and Great Council" and the Ukrainian-Kiev Patriarchate.

All this in-quarreling has only regressed a fixing of the problems of the Orthodox Church, rather than progressing it.

TheLostCoin said:

Create a Pan-Orthodox committee where at least almost all the Churches are present (including the conservative ones)

Click to expand...

Are the Orthodox on this forum anti-conservative or something?

Varangian Christian said:

Are the Orthodox on this forum anti-conservative or something?

Click to expand...

No, not that the Churches of the Ecumenical Patriarch aren't conservative, it's just that in comparison with each other, some Orthodox Churches (and the monks of Mount Athos) are more strict in comparison to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

I mean, even though I think Patriarch Bartholomew has written some great things, could you ever imagine him comparing the LGBT movement to Nazism in an interview? (I don't think I would even do that)

TheLostCoin said:

No, not that the Churches of the Ecumenical Patriarch aren't conservative, it's just that in comparison with each other, some Orthodox Churches (and the monks of Mount Athos) are more strict in comparison to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Click to expand...

Oh ok, cool.

TheLostCoin said:

I mean, even though I think Patriarch Bartholomew has written some great things, could you ever imagine him comparing the LGBT movement to Nazism in an interview? (I don't think I would even do that)

Click to expand...

I can actually see where he is coming from. I get why it sounds shocking, but Sodomy is endangering souls and poisoning cultures on a global scale and will influence the moral compass of our descendants.