In other news, the "world orthodox" continue to embrace the Vatican.

[JasonV]

"On October 19, 2018, in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, a meeting took place between the Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, and the Pope Francis.... Metropolitan Hilarion emphasized, the bilateral relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to develop."

Митрополит Волоколамский Иларион встретился с Папой Римским Франциском | Русская Православная Церковь


Lord have mercy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

having discussions is not embracing the Vatican.

 

[ArmyMatt]

you do realize that St Mark of Ephesus did a prostration before the Roman Pope before the discussions of Florence? and Patriarch Jeremias began with good dialogues with the Lutherans about combating Roman errors? simply showing a photo op isn't the Church moving toward the Vatican. it's actually what the Church had always done in dealing with heretical bodies.

plus, His Eminence has written much about Roman heresy, and why we reject them. if you think this is us embracing the Vatican, I suggest you actually read some of what His Eminence has said about them.

do that actual research converts are supposed to do.

 

[JasonV]

"Mutual understanding" is not teaching. It's ecumenism in sheep's clothing.

And I suppose that visiting the demonic shrine of Fatima is also forgivable because "Hey, St Mark of Ephesus once did something dumb."

Cardinal bishop of Leiria-Fatima welcomes Hilarion to Marian shrine

 

[TheLostCoin]

Would it be incorrect to say, Father, that many of the thoughts and patterns of the Soviet Church still plague the Russian Orthodox Church today - including some ecumenical tendencies?

If you can't read Russian, this is a ceremony dedicated to Patriarch Sergius.

Yes. That one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Mutual understanding" is not teaching. It's ecumenism in sheep's clothing.

And I suppose that visiting the demonic shrine of Fatima is also forgivable because "Hey, St Mark of Ephesus once did something dumb."

Cardinal bishop of Leiria-Fatima welcomes Hilarion to Marian shrine

it's only ecumenism if you isolate these things from other stuff His Eminence has said and done.

and I don't think what St Mark did was dumb or wrong. I don't think I am more Orthodox than the saints, but that's just me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would it be incorrect to say, Father, that many of the thoughts and patterns of the Soviet Church still plague the Russian Orthodox Church today - including some ecumenical tendencies?

If you can't read Russian, this is a ceremony dedicated to Patriarch Sergius.

Yes. That one.

of course Russia still struggles with what she ensured from communism. but before we condemn stuff like this, Fr Roman Braga, a Romanian monk who was tortured under the communists, pointed out that many of the bishops under the Ottomans did similar things that Patriarch Sergius did, and they are saints because their actions kept the Church alive under the Turks.

now I am not saying I agree with what Patriarch Sergius did, but it's not as black and white as the schismatics make it out to be.

St Tikhon of Moscow, the same bishop who condemned the atheists and was NOT an ecumenist by any means, wore a dog collar and suit when he would dialogue with the Anglicans when he was bishop in the US. he would go to their seminaries and parishes as well, basically the same thing Metropolitan Hilarion does. so much so that at Nashotah House Seminary (Anglican), there is a stained glass window of him in their chapel.

schismatics are typically selective and inconsistent in what they view as condemnable.

 

[All4Christ]

of course Russia still struggles with what she ensured from communism. but before we condemn stuff like this, Fr Roman Braga, a Romanian monk who was tortured under the communists, pointed out that many of the bishops under the Ottomans did similar things that Patriarch Sergius did, and they are saints because their actions kept the Church alive under the Turks.

now I am not saying I agree with what Patriarch Sergius did, but it's not as black and white as the schismatics make it out to be.

St Tikhon of Moscow, the same bishop who condemned the atheists and was NOT an ecumenist by any means, wore a dog collar and suit when he would dialogue with the Anglicans when he was bishop in the US. he would go to their seminaries and parishes as well, basically the same thing Metropolitan Hilarion does. so much so that at Nashotah House Seminary (Anglican), there is a stained glass window of him in their chapel.

schismatics are typically selective and inconsistent in what they view as condemnable.

With respect....Even though I am not schismatic, I can’t condone what Patriarch Sergius did. I think it was extremely damaging to the Church. That was a time where the faithful kept the Church alive and well. It’s a good case showing that Christ is our head, and will keep the Church’s integrity even if leadership has issues.

I’m not saying that the Russian Church is too ecumenical and I don’t believe we can use that as a reason to say that they all are falling into the trap of ecumenical thinking....but I cannot excuse the actions of Patriarch Sergius, even if another saint did something similar. Saints are not infallible. Good intentions - or even good results - don’t make actions acceptable.

The Gates of Hell will not prevail upon the Church, even if the government at the time (or anyone else) oppresses the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

With respect....Even though I am not schismatic, I can’t condone what Patriarch Sergius did. I think it was extremely damaging to the Church. That was a time where the faithful kept the Church alive and well. It’s a good case showing that Christ is our head, and will keep the Church’s integrity even if leadership has issues.

I’m not saying that the Russian Church is too ecumenical and I don’t believe we can use that as a reason to say that they all are falling into the trap of ecumenical thinking....but I cannot excuse the actions of Patriarch Sergius, even if another saint did something similar. Saints are not infallible. Good intentions - or even good results - don’t make actions acceptable.

The Gates of Hell will not prevail upon the Church, even if the government at the time (or anyone else) oppresses the Church.

I absolutely agree that Patriarch Sergius was wrong, and Sergianism is a heresy. I only pointed that out to say it ain't as black and white. I am not defending his action.

 

[JasonV]

of course Russia still struggles with what she ensured from communism. but before we condemn stuff like this, Fr Roman Braga, a Romanian monk who was tortured under the communists, pointed out that many of the bishops under the Ottomans did similar things that Patriarch Sergius did, and they are saints because their actions kept the Church alive under the Turks.

In another thread you suggested that real saints would rather be martyrs than betray the church. Which is it then? You say I cannot have it both ways. (consistency) Well Fr, neither can you. It seems you too apply a double standard.

now I am not saying I agree with what Patriarch Sergius did, but it's not as black and white as the schismatics make it out to be.

In what way is it not black and white?

St Tikhon of Moscow, the same bishop who condemned the atheists and was NOT an ecumenist by any means, wore a dog collar and suit when he would dialogue with the Anglicans when he was bishop in the US. he would go to their seminaries and parishes as well, basically the same thing Metropolitan Hilarion does. so much so that at Nashotah House Seminary (Anglican), there is a stained glass window of him in their chapel.

schismatics are typically selective and inconsistent in what they view as condemnable.

Wearing a Roman "dog collar" is not a heresy. Your analogy is flawed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In another thread you suggested that real saints would rather be martyrs than betray the church. Which is it then? You say I cannot have it both ways. (consistency) Well Fr, neither can you. It seems you too apply a double standard.

well, it depends on what was going on in Sergius' heart. if he thought what he was doing was to save the Church under the Bolsheviks, then he is not condemnable even though what he espoused eventually was. again, reading the life of someone like Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who preached heresy but himself is not a heretic, shows this.

plus the earlier thread I believe the context was martyrdom or schism, since you said schism was preferable, which means I am not applying a double standard. especially since what I referenced is a part of our common history.

In what way is it not black and white?

the saints, who both you and I share, who submitted to the Turks and practically did the same thing Patriarch Sergius did, show that it isn't.

Wearing a Roman "dog collar" is not a heresy. Your analogy is flawed.

that wasn't the analogy. the analogy was St Tikhon often met with Anglicans, even dressing like them, to build bridges between us and them. yes, it began with finding common ground. it's pretty much the same thing His Eminence did in Rome, only a step further since St Tikhon also looked like an Anglican bishop. I suspect if the Metropolitan had dressed in a clergy shirt and jacket, you would have been even more adamant of his ecumenism.

I am just being consistent with what history has shown, not trying to have anything both ways or whatever.

 

[Erik Nelson]

it's only ecumenism if you isolate these things from other stuff His Eminence has said and done.

and I don't think what St Mark did was dumb or wrong. I don't think I am more Orthodox than the saints, but that's just me.

ceteris paribus, ecumenism (in orthodoxy) would be good, right? Like the seven ecumenical councils?

 

[ArmyMatt]

ceteris paribus, ecumenism (in orthodoxy) would be good, right? Like the seven ecumenical councils?

sure, and dialogue with other Christians, forcing us to know our own faith, etc. ecumenism is bad when we water down Orthodoxy and try to be one with heretical bodies without those bodies repenting.

 

[~Anastasia~]

sure, and dialogue with other Christians, forcing us to know our own faith, etc. ecumenism is bad when we water down Orthodoxy and try to be one with heretical bodies without those bodies repenting.

I think definitions are important.

Genial dialogue, treating others with respect as human persons, leaving doors open for possibly returning to the Church - these are surely all good things? Even "being all things to all men" as the Scriptures speak of.

Changing our own theology to suit another, or mixing in some way - is unacceptable. Of course I think we need to be aware and watchful against any such thing. But simply being mutually respectful is not that.

I'll be honest that I can't understand why one might want to light a candle and say a prayer at Fatima, but then many visitors come to our Narthex, light candles, and say prayers. We don't prevent them from doing that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think definitions are important.

Genial dialogue, treating others with respect as human persons, leaving doors open for possibly returning to the Church - these are surely all good things? Even "being all things to all men" as the Scriptures speak of.

Changing our own theology to suit another, or mixing in some way - is unacceptable. Of course I think we need to be aware and watchful against any such thing. But simply being mutually respectful is not that.

I'll be honest that I can't understand why one might want to light a candle and say a prayer at Fatima, but then many visitors come to our Narthex, light candles, and say prayers. We don't prevent them from doing that.

me either. but I think the point is just because a bishop does something questionable, that's no reason for schism. even under the Turks, the Sultan was part of the enthronement ceremony of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and yet no one just lumps all of them as apostates because of that.

 

[JasonV]

me either. but I think the point is just because a bishop does something questionable, that's no reason for schism. even under the Turks, the Sultan was part of the enthronement ceremony of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and yet no one just lumps all of them as apostates because of that.

Constantine was a pagan when Nicea was convened. Yet what he did promoted and helped the church, not to mention his conversion on his death bed.

What one bishop does, should not affect the church. What two or three bishops do, same story. But when every bishops holds his tongue, and silence is consent, then at what point do the faithful wall themselves off from such heresy?

 

[JasonV]

I'll be honest that I can't understand why one might want to light a candle and say a prayer at Fatima, but then many visitors come to our Narthex, light candles, and say prayers. We don't prevent them from doing that.

Especially considering that the Early Christians chose death rather than toss a few kernels of incense in front of a statue of a pagan god.

And of course we don't prevent heathens and cacadox from praying in our churches. On the contrary I should think we would encourage such a thing as the Holy Spirit is clearly working on them. I myself have a Hindu friend who occasionally asks me to pray for her and light a candle for her. Which I happily do in the hopes that the Holy Spirit will continue working on her conversion.

 

[All4Christ]

Constantine was a pagan when Nicea was convened. Yet what he did promoted and helped the church, not to mention his conversion on his death bed.

What one bishop does, should not affect the church. What two or three bishops do, same story. But when every bishops holds his tongue, and silence is consent, then at what point do the faithful wall themselves off from such heresy?

Perhaps that’d be the time to reach out to the rest of the Church, as the Russian Church isn’t the only Church in Orthodoxy. Schism isn’t a light matter, and today, there isn’t even a reason for that schism to persist since the situation no longer exists.

Not every bishop held their tongue though; there certainly were some that protested against it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Especially considering that the Early Christians chose death rather than toss a few kernels of incense in front of a statue of a pagan god.

And of course we don't prevent heathens and cacadox from praying in our churches. On the contrary I should think we would encourage such a thing as the Holy Spirit is clearly working on them. I myself have a Hindu friend who occasionally asks me to pray for her and light a candle for her. Which I happily do in the hopes that the Holy Spirit will continue working on her conversion.

I think we need to be very precise in what we are talking about to prevent misunderstanding.

Your comment about not tossing incense ... I'm not sure what exactly you're comparing it to. Or if you are.

My thought is that we can trust God rather than compromising in order to prevent personal suffering. If we must choose martyrdom instead of going against Christ, that is the right answer.

I need to read further. I know it came up in the early Church that some renounced Christ rather than face martyrdom, but then repented. I know there were discussions about how or if to receive them back. But I didn't read much further - I was researching something else when I came across it.

But I was actually generally thinking about the Russian visit to the Vatican. Which I can't really apply pagan worship to. Unless you mean the candle at Fatima?

I was thinking about it. It's not my place to judge hierarchy - at least while things are not apparent. If he said something clearly out of line, I think it's the place of all to protest. But perhaps he prayed the same any of us might pray for people who visit there? I always consider all candles to be lit to God, so maybe I'm not thinking. If he did intend the candle to the Fatima apparition, I'd see that as a problem. But I just think of all candles and prayer ultimately to/through God and that's what I would be doing if I were in such a situation. I can't really know what he was thinking or his intention. Though I do see it as something that potentially introduces some confusion and I'm not really looking favorably on the act. But I can't judge his heart at this point.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I think we need to be very precise in what we are talking about to prevent misunderstanding.

Your comment about not tossing incense ... I'm not sure what exactly you're comparing it to. Or if you are.

My thought is that we can trust God rather than compromising in order to prevent personal suffering. If we must choose martyrdom instead of going against Christ, that is the right answer.

I need to read further. I know it came up in the early Church that some renounced Christ rather than face martyrdom, but then repented. I know there were discussions about how or if to receive them back. But I didn't read much further - I was researching something else when I came across it.

But I was actually generally thinking about the Russian visit to the Vatican. Which I can't really apply pagan worship to. Unless you mean the candle at Fatima?

I was thinking about it. It's not my place to judge hierarchy - at least while things are not apparent. If he said something clearly out of line, I think it's the place of all to protest. But perhaps he prayed the same any of us might pray for people who visit there? I always consider all candles to be lit to God, so maybe I'm not thinking. If he did intend the candle to the Fatima apparition, I'd see that as a problem. But I just think of all candles and prayer ultimately to/through God and that's what I would be doing if I were in such a situation. I can't really know what he was thinking or his intention. Though I do see it as something that potentially introduces some confusion and I'm not really looking favorably on the act. But I can't judge his heart at this point.

Orthodox reject Fatima ( And Knock Ireland). Because 2 accept Fatima. Would be to accept that the Holy Spirit is still active in the Roman Catholic Church. Which Orthodox hold to be impossible? Is that correct?