Russian Synod Announces Reception of 102 African Priests into its Jurisdiction.

[ArmyMatt]

I’ve heard the MP is setting up jurisdictions on the Martian colonies and a few of Jupiter’s moons, most notably Io.

just so long as they stay away from Arrakis. the last time Arrakis was involved with a guy named Vladimir…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Archbishop Rabban really ran the place into the ground, I swear!!!

just so long as they stay away from Arrakis. the last time Arrakis was involved with a guy named Vladimir…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve heard rumors that the MP is looking into taking over jurisdictions in black holes before anyone else gets to them. They’re exploring dark matter as well.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Archbishop Rabban really ran the place into the ground, I swear!!!

they shoulda listened to that Greek guy: Paul

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Definitely not the French guy: Mental Piter DeVries

they shoulda listened to that Greek guy: Paul

 

[ArmyMatt]

Definitely not the French guy: Mental Piter DeVries

definitely not

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Those mentats trying to get you to drink the juice of Sapho….not good.

definitely not

 

[E.C.]

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that the entire Orthodox world has in fact accepted the entire continent as Alexandria's territory, at least for a few decades now.

There's one very simple reason why the Orthodox world has allowed Alexandria to have all of Africa vice other so-called "diaspora" locations: money.

Europe, the Americas, and southeast Asia all have money, but Africa does not. Therefore that's the simple reason that everyone just let Alexandria have it and it is the same reason why the EP and other patriarchs refuse to recognize OCA autocephaly.

Up until now I've been on the Russian side of the Ukrainian Crisis. However, not with Africa. I get it the priests requested it and I wouldn't be surprised if there were other longstanding problems between them and Alexandria that inspired their move. But, with Moscow having the clergy swear allegiance "for life" takes away an prospect of a later reconciliation. Same with Moscow setting up shop over the entire continent instead of just the areas where the aforementioned clergy are.

It's all a shame, but I'm not surprised. This and the Romanians setting up shop in Japan and refusing to work with the Japanese Orthodox Church show just how xenophobic, phlytist, and unreasonable the Old World patriarchs are.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Those mentats trying to get you to drink the juice of Sapho….not good.

nope, sure not

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When the MP starts expanding into the Phantom Zone, we need to start worrying.

 

[ArmyMatt]

When the MP starts expanding into the Phantom Zone, we need to start worrying.

just so long as he doesn’t rehabilitate that unrepentant Zod character

 

[rusmeister]

What strikes me is that there are dividing lines separating everyone from everyone. Even when we find folks we agree with on something important, we find that they disagree with us on something perhaps equally important. I would love to root for AB Hilarion, who's very right on so much, but then he spoke up in favor of vaccine mandates (and thank God the Patriarch at Christmas declared it to be a matter of personal conscience). I am currently being excoriated by Stalinists in my parish for condemning Stalin and Stalinism (with the death of my priest, a student of Men' and a liberal-ish intellectual, they have felt more freedom to assert their views) and praised by local liberals, while at the same time those liberals effectively support sexual anarchy, seeing it as unimportant and tolerable in the Church.

Here we see how people who disagree wildly on important issues can find some common ground - and vice-versa. What I see is division spiraling out of control in all directions, all confessions, and all relationships.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I was on the fence about this as both sides are making good points. Fr. John made a good argument about how there are Russian parishes in Western Europe even though it was traditionally Rome's jurisdiction.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was on the fence about this as both sides are making good points. Fr. John made a good argument about how there are Russian parishes in Western Europe even though it was traditionally Rome's jurisdiction.

didn’t watch the video (yet) so they might address this, but there is a difference between Rome who fully broke from the Church, and Alexandria who didn’t.

 

[E.C.]

What strikes me is that there are dividing lines separating everyone from everyone. Even when we find folks we agree with on something important, we find that they disagree with us on something perhaps equally important. I would love to root for AB Hilarion, who's very right on so much, but then he spoke up in favor of vaccine mandates (and thank God the Patriarch at Christmas declared it to be a matter of personal conscience). I am currently being excoriated by Stalinists in my parish for condemning Stalin and Stalinism (with the death of my priest, a student of Men' and a liberal-ish intellectual, they have felt more freedom to assert their views) and praised by local liberals, while at the same time those liberals effectively support sexual anarchy, seeing it as unimportant and tolerable in the Church.

Here we see how people who disagree wildly on important issues can find some common ground - and vice-versa. What I see is division spiraling out of control in all directions, all confessions, and all relationships.

Pardon my French, but considering the hell he unleashed upon the former USSR; how in the hell can anyone in those countries today support Stalin???

 

[rusmeister]

Pardon my French, but considering the hell he unleashed upon the former USSR; how in the hell can anyone in those countries today support Stalin???

You need to understand that people who became adults essentially after the fall of the Soviet Union never experienced the USSR as adults. Even with the older generations, there were the "children/grandchildren of the oppressors" and the "children/grandchildren of the executioners". The former became dissidents, either openly or quietly, the latter supported the existing social and government structures. But in both groups, the last generation, the of my wife (born from @1970-1990 or so) were protected by their parents. They knew the good, and knew little to nothing of the bad. And so the human tendency to idealize the past, and the natural and patriotic desire to see mainly or only the good, and dismiss and forget the bad, predominated. It's not at all as if everyone had experienced or remembered either Stalinism or the Soviet evils.
For our part, we are all too eager to see their evils and not so eager to acknowledge our own. Expanding NATO to the east, right up to Russia's border, has produced an attitude similar to Americans seeing the Soviets occupy Cuba and put their missiles on it. They want to feel strong as a nation, and respected, even feared if necessary, rather than tolerate what we are actually doing to them. And so the actions of our foreign policy are (I think intentionally on the part of the planners) fueling the resurrection of Stalinism among people who have erased the bad from the minds while keeping and even exaggerating the good.

 

[rakovsky]

Pardon my French, but considering the hell he unleashed upon the former USSR; how in the hell can anyone in those countries today support Stalin???

Part of it is the strong leader mentality combined with some other successes like winning WW2, Industrialization, social benefits, "Patriotism." I think this mentality is too one sided, but I'm trying to explain to you how people can think that way. A lot of people even felt that way under Stalin's rule. It's like how there are occasionally American EOs who identify as "Monarchists", even though growing up in a Republic they should know better. Khrushchev, trying to explain and disagree with this mentality, called obeisance level admiration for Stalin a "slave mentality".

IMO some people have this with Trump, where they basically would support or defend whatever he said, even if they would disagree if your average guy made the same kind of comments. Trump had charisma. Trump is not Stalin, but my point is that people can get drawn into a leader cult where they ignore real problems.

 

[rakovsky]

didn’t watch the video (yet) so they might address this, but there is a difference between Rome who fully broke from the Church, and Alexandria who didn’t.

There's a lot of factors for judgment on the topic.

-- For example, northern Italy is clearly Rome's territory per the Ecumenical Councils, whereas subsaharan Africa doesn't belong to Alexandria in the terms of the Ecumenical Councils.
-- Rome and Eastern Catholic appendages claim Rome has the right to interfere anywhere and this caused the Great Schism. The CP claims that it has jurisdiction to interfere anywhere and then recognized schismatics in Ukraine as "the" Church for Ukraine and sent the UOC-MP a letter saying that they are no longer a canonical Church.
-- Then Alexandria's Patriarch backed up the CP decision, saying, "I believe that after my intervention, other Churches will follow our Ecumenical Patriarchate." Is the CP The Patriarch of the EO Church whom EOs "follow"? He said, “a Church that wants autocephaly should receive it, and everyone else will see that it is no different from them.” (Source: Patriarch of Alexandria: Decision to commemorate OCU will lead to solution, not a schism) Would Alexandria's Patriarch agree with that in his own case and support the own desires of his African parishes to leave if they wanted to be autocephalous? Since he opposes them leaving to join the MP Exarchate, it seems that the answer would be No.
-- The African clergy want to leave the Alexandrian Patriarchate because they don't want to be part of the Alexandrian Patriarch's decision to be in communion with the OCU. How can we say to them, "No, you must go along with the decision", when most EO Churches consider the OCU to still be schismatic?
-- The MP has been doing Mission Work in Africa for a long time now but the Alexandrian Patriarch decision throws a wrench into it in practical terms. The MP has the options to: (A) keep working under the Alexandrian Patriarch with whom it suspended communion, (B) pack up and leave Africa, (C) accept the African clergy into an Exarchate.

The ideal is for the African clergy to stay under Alexandria, with Alexandria having orderly relations with the MP and not saying to "follow" "our" Ecumenical Patriarchate in recognizing schismatics as the one only EO Church for Ukraine. But we are not in an ideal situation. The ideal situation was before 2018. Personally I don't have a solution, but can see grounds and reasons for either way that the MP would choose to act in this tough tragic situation of conflict in the EO Church. OCA recognizes the Alexandrian Patriarchate, CP, and MP, wants them to get along, and has called for a pan-Orthodox synod on MP-CP relations. Strictly speaking, I don't have a more solid answer.

 

[E.C.]

Part of it is the strong leader mentality combined with some other successes like winning WW2, Industrialization, social benefits, "Patriotism." I think this mentality is too one sided, but I'm trying to explain to you how people can think that way. A lot of people even felt that way under Stalin's rule. It's like how there are occasionally American EOs who identify as "Monarchists", even though growing up in a Republic they should know better. Khrushchev, trying to explain and disagree with this mentality, called obeisance level admiration for Stalin a "slave mentality".

IMO some people have this with Trump, where they basically would support or defend whatever he said, even if they would disagree if your average guy made the same kind of comments. Trump had charisma. Trump is not Stalin, but my point is that people can get drawn into a leader cult where they ignore real problems.

The same can be said for Obama

 

[rakovsky]

The same can be said for Obama

This has some truth, but Trump came off a bit more in the "strong leader" direction than Obama, with the MAGA hats, and anyway, are you an Obama supporter? I am trying to bring to mind an "inside" experience that you may have had when you felt this way yourself, or at least had some pulls in that direction. George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt might be the closest we came to the Strong Leader phenomenon, since both were military leaders or at least had a military career. Eisenhower was military, but he did not really come off as authoritarian in the image he projected, and George Washington turned down suggestions that he become a king. It seems that in the American experience we would need to go back to the colonial or period to find the best examples of this (eg. some strong leaders in colonial Massachusetts or Queen Elizabeth in England during the Roanoke colony). Henry VIII has overlap with Stalin, since statistically per capita a similar percent of the population was executed under both rulers, the Church was persecuted, etc. In certain aspects Henry VIII and his successors were much more devastating to the native Church in England than Stalin was, eg. the scale of the destruction of monasteries. Currently only a tiny fraction of English are Catholics.