NationStates Jolt Archive

This is probably going to be met with a profound 'meh' or 'what?' or 'who?' or 'I'm supposed to care?' or 'they're going to Hell along along with all the other non-fundamentalist evangelicals' or 'Christians are all the same - go away' from the majority of people in NS general....

But, for the minority of people out there who might be Orthodox Christian (whether Russian, Greek, Serb, Antiochian, etc...) and/or have some sort of Russian cultural connection (whether through birth, descent, marriage or general interest)....

Ladies and Gentlemen, the post-revolution schism in the Russian Orthodox Church is at an end.

Link-type thingy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6664491.stm)

After 80 years of disunity caused by the Bolshevik revolution and the Russian Civil War, the Russian Church is one again. And I, for one, am pleased.

Even if you don't care about the religious implications, there are some interesting historical and political resonances at work here.

I just wish Putin could keep his grubby little paws off the celebrations.

I would make a comment about that first picture, but, it's just too easy.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42935000/jpg/_42935555_kiss_afp203bo.jpg

"Let's get it on, sugar... let's get it on, whoo-ooh-ooh..."

This is probably going to be met with a profound 'meh' or 'what?' or 'who?' or 'I'm supposed to care?' or 'they're going to Hell along along with all the other non-fundamentalist evangelicals' or 'Christians are all the same - go away' from the majority of people in NS general....

But, for the minority of people out there who might be Orthodox Christian (whether Russian, Greek, Serb, Antiochian, etc...) and/or have some sort of Russia cultural connection (whether through birth, descent, marriage or general interest)....

Ladies and Gentlemen, the post-revolution schism in the Russian Orthodox Church is at an end.

Link-type thingy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6664491.stm)

After 80 years of disunity caused by the Bolshevik revolution and the Russian Civil War, the Russian Church is one again. And I, for one, am pleased.

Even if you don't care about the religious implications, there are some interesting historical and political resonances at work here.

I just wish Putin could keep his grubby little paws off the celebrations.

Took em long enough...now if we can fix the Catholic and Protestant thing as well as the Sunni-Shia schism

"Let's get it on, sugar... let's get it on, whoo-ooh-ooh..."

You're just jealous because you don't get to dress up like an Orthodox hierarch :p

Or maybe you do.... Many are the mysteries of Fass

This is probably going to be met with a profound 'meh' or 'what?' or 'who?' or 'I'm supposed to care?' or 'they're going to Hell along along with all the other non-fundamentalist evangelicals' or 'Christians are all the same - go away' from the majority of people in NS general....

But, for the minority of people out there who might be Orthodox Christian (whether Russian, Greek, Serb, Antiochian, etc...) and/or have some sort of Russian cultural connection (whether through birth, descent, marriage or general interest)....

Ladies and Gentlemen, the post-revolution schism in the Russian Orthodox Church is at an end.

Link-type thingy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6664491.stm)

After 80 years of disunity caused by the Bolshevik revolution and the Russian Civil War, the Russian Church is one again. And I, for one, am pleased.

Even if you don't care about the religious implications, there are some interesting historical and political resonances at work here.

I just wish Putin could keep his grubby little paws off the celebrations.

Very good. Now if we can just unite the church of the East with that of the West...

Glad to hear that a subsidiary institution has been strengthened. I don't get that pleasure very often. (In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard about any such institution being strengthened.)

You're just jealous because you don't get to dress up like an Orthodox hierarch :p

Or maybe you do.... Many are the mysteries of Fass

Many are the ways in which my prop department is enriched.

Very good. Now if we can just unite the church of the East with that of the West...

On whose terms?

If they drop those non-canonical monarchical papal claims, we might just want to those Catholic schismatics who left the One True Church 950 years ago join back up again*

Not sure we want anything to do with those Protestant offshoots of Catholicism, however (Anglicans possibly excepted). The West can keep those frankly weird American fundamentalist evangelical heretics.**





*in a classic case of Orwellian doublethink, this is simultaneously tongue in cheek and partially serious on my part.

**as above, though I'll note that a senior Russian theologian, when asked if Orthodoxy was closer to Catholicism or Protestantism replied something along the lines of 'neither... from our perspective they're two sides of the same coin.'

Many are the ways in which my prop department is enriched.

Ah well, I suppose you're already quoting the soundtrack to an Serbian Orthodox lesbian softporn prayer in your sigfile, so you're apparently doing quite well out of us Orthodox right now....

Very good. Now if we can just unite the church of the East with that of the West...

Maybe if John Paul II had lived another decade (except of course, not as a vegetable). He sort of started the ball rolling, almost, with official apologies for 1204 and other mistreatments. But whether unification is even possible there, I doubt it.

Maybe if John Paul II had lived another decade (except of course, not as a vegetable). He sort of started the ball rolling, almost, with official apologies for 1204 and other mistreatments. But whether unification is even possible there, I doubt it.

I tend to agree but it would make things interesting if they did.

Took em long enough...now if we can fix the Catholic and Protestant thing as well as the Sunni-Shia schism

You'd have a difficult time with the Catholic-Protestant schism, as Protestantism is a blanket term for a ridiculous number of Christian denominations, stretching anywhere from Anglicans and Lutherans to Born-Agains to Fred Phelps. Hell you can consider Mormons to be Protestant

Hell you can consider Mormons to be Protestant

Maybe if it's sanity they're protesting. :p Though really, that's not entirely fair.

Maybe if it's sanity they're protesting. :p Though really, that's not entirely fair.

It's a bit of a stretch but LDS comes out of American Protestantism

I tend to agree but it would make things interesting if they did.


A serious reply on my part.... It won't happen in the foreseeable future. Whatever the merits of John Paul II's attempted apology for the 4th Crusade(and it's also worth noting that the Papacy and Ecumenical Patriarch also theoretically ended their mutual total anathemas of 1054 in the 1960s), the deep-seated historical resentment on the Orthodox side make it virtually impossible at present. The Moscow Patriarchate won't even allow the Pope (whomever holds the position) to visit Russia at present.

There's also the important organisational point that the Orthodox Church doesn't have a single jurisdictional centre like the Catholic Church does. Certain patriarchs have a primacy of honour above others (the first five, in order of precedence, are Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow), but all Orthodox bishops are canonically equal. Even the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is merely primus inter pares (if I can ironically use the Latin). While the various national Orthodox churches recognise each others canonicity and are in full communion with each other, and in theory consider themselves all part of a single church (indeed, the only true church), in practice each autocephalous church is entirely self-governing*

Put bluntly, there's no single Orthodox head for the Papacy to negotiate union with. While I wouldn't pretend to speak for the entire Orthodox Church, the Orthodox position would most likely be that full church union can't take place without the Papacy surrendering its claim to be sole head of the church (though, canonically, it would concede to the Pope a primacy of honour), and that it would need a full, properly recognised, Ecumenical Council of the church for the first time since the 7th Ecumenical Council in the 8th century. [For those who know what the filioque is, I actually see this as less of a practical obstacle since I can argue a compromise that allows the West to use it, but with the East considering that use as a theological opinion as per St. Gregory of Nyssa rather than a doctrinal certainty]

The Ecumenical Council somehow seems more likely than the Pope giving up the claims of primacy and infallibility.

So again.... not in our lifetimes.


*the recent case of the deposition and replacement of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is an unusual case of multiple autocephalous patriarchates working to a common goal across jurisdictional boundaries.

Maybe if it's sanity they're protesting. :p Though really, that's not entirely fair.

Oh look, from the Orthodox perspective, I don't even consider the Mormons to be Christian. Some weird American gnostic cult, perhaps, but Christian?

And from my perspective as a professional archaeologist who's worked extensively in the USA, I find Mormonism to be point blank historically and archaeologically indefensible. Great white civilisations in the Americas? 'Reformed Egyptian'? Just what was Joseph Smith smoking anyway?

At which point, as this thread's founder, I'll offer a forlorn and perhaps hypocritical plea (in light of the previous paragraph) to keep this thread to Orthodoxy and schisms rather than Mormonism.

Ah well, I suppose you're already quoting the soundtrack to an Serbian Orthodox lesbian softporn prayer in your sigfile, so you're apparently doing quite well out of us Orthodox right now....

Soft porn? Either you don't speak Serbian, or you're really, really into Victorian sensibilities.

Oh look, from the Orthodox perspective, I don't even consider the Mormons to be Christian. Some weird American gnostic cult, perhaps, but Christian?

And from my perspective as a professional archaeologist who's worked extensively in the USA, I find Mormonism to be point blank historically and archaeologically indefensible. Great white civilisations in the Americas? 'Reformed Egyptian'? Just what was Joseph Smith smoking anyway?


mormons are christians. they are just "heretics" because they believe things that no other christian denomination believes in. (unless you consider reform mormons and mormon fundamentalists to be other christian denominations).

anyone who follows the teachings of jesus (and especially those who consider him divine) is a christian.

The schism is over? :eek:

DEAR LORD!!

The end times surely is a-commin'!!!

*Flees*

Oh look, from the Orthodox perspective, I don't even consider the Mormons to be Christian. Some weird American gnostic cult, perhaps, but Christian?

The basic theology and belief structure is against many of the notions of Gnosticism. First off they believe the God of the Old Testament is the God of the new testiment, which is a direct contradiction to Gnosis. Second, Mormons claim that God is a physical being. Gnosis claims God as a immaterial spiritual being. Third you do not need spiritual understanding to be a Mormon and get to heaven, Gnostics believe that you need spiritual understanding (I.E. enlightenment) to reach the heavenly plains and the AEons.

Mormons, like most of Orthodoxy Christainity differ greatly from the Gnostic Christain traditions.

What mormons have in common with Gnostics, is one simple fact. By Orthodox, Catholic and Protestants, they are considered a heresy.

For those that the end of the schism affects, to you I would say congradulations, and I am glad you have peace and unity at last.

Took em long enough...now if we can fix the Catholic and Protestant thing as well as the Sunni-Shia schism

Why would we want to? The more time and effort they put into fighting each other the less time and effort they can put into hassling me?

Just so I understand the main problem between the Catholic/Orthodox schism, it is the role of the Pope?

So theoretically should a reformist Pope be elected, instead of a hardliner like Ratzinger (even though he is incredibly intelligent and a very learned theologist he is,... let's admit old fashioned).
This Pope would have to step down a notch from "his" percieved power as the only ruler of the true christians and being infallible? In other words, he instead of being a lone monarch of sorts, admits to merely being the Bishop of Rome and joins the Orthodox Council as a member in a group of equals?

Also the Pope would have the largest following of people in his (1+ Billion Roman Catholics in the world). This would mean that he alone is the Bishop of more than double the amount of people than all other members of the ecuneumical council put together (I believe the total numbers of Orthodox in this world is somewhere from 400-450 million believers???).
Would this mean that if the council would accept the entrance of the Bishop of Rome and the end of the schism, which member would have the most presence? As you said theoretically some are a bit more senior in certain traditions than others even though in practice they are all equals. Would the Bishop of Rome take the role currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople?



PS: Most important of all, was I correct in finding out the problem between the Catholic vs Orthodox schism?

I'm sorry, but the only interesting thing about the story (to me) is that we can shove that picture in the face of anti-gay bigots.

Now, if the jews and muslims make peace...

Why would we want to? The more time and effort they put into fighting each other the less time and effort they can put into hassling me?

Because their fighting gets people killed?

I guess I'm just being a pussy then :p

Took em long enough...now if we can fix the Catholic and Protestant thing as well as the Sunni-Shia schism

why not throw in Scientology while you're at it :rolleyes:

On whose terms?

If they drop those non-canonical monarchical papal claims, we might just want to those Catholic schismatics who left the One True Church 950 years ago join back up again*

Not sure we want anything to do with those Protestant offshoots of Catholicism, however (Anglicans possibly excepted). The West can keep those frankly weird American fundamentalist evangelical heretics.**





*in a classic case of Orwellian doublethink, this is simultaneously tongue in cheek and partially serious on my part.

**as above, though I'll note that a senior Russian theologian, when asked if Orthodoxy was closer to Catholicism or Protestantism replied something along the lines of 'neither... from our perspective they're two sides of the same coin.'

Catholicism isn't an offshoot of the Original Church and neither is Eastern Orthodoxy, they're just brothers

Just so I understand the main problem between the Catholic/Orthodox schism, it is the role of the Pope?

So theoretically should a reformist Pope be elected, instead of a hardliner like Ratzinger (even though he is incredibly intelligent and a very learned theologist he is,... let's admit old fashioned).
This Pope would have to step down a notch from "his" percieved power as the only ruler of the true christians and being infallible? In other words, he instead of being a lone monarch of sorts, admits to merely being the Bishop of Rome and joins the Orthodox Council as a member in a group of equals?

Also the Pope would have the largest following of people in his (1+ Billion Roman Catholics in the world). This would mean that he alone is the Bishop of more than double the amount of people than all other members of the ecuneumical council put together (I believe the total numbers of Orthodox in this world is somewhere from 400-450 million believers???).
Would this mean that if the council would accept the entrance of the Bishop of Rome and the end of the schism, which member would have the most presence? As you said theoretically some are a bit more senior in certain traditions than others even though in practice they are all equals. Would the Bishop of Rome take the role currently held by the Patriarch of Constantinople?



PS: Most important of all, was I correct in finding out the problem between the Catholic vs Orthodox schism?


I guess the Pentarchy would be re-established or something...

Very good. Now if we can just unite the church of the East with that of the West...

NEVER gonna happen. :p

I guess the Pentarchy would be re-established or something...

I believe Moscow would lose its seat, then, and I don't think they'd want to do that.

NEVER gonna happen. :p

That is not necessarily true.

True; maybe at the end times it'll happen, and the pope will be revealed as the antichrist, and *insert the rest of Revelations here* :D:p

But, on a slightly more serious note, no, it won't happen. For an east-west unification, Rome would have to renounce its infalliablity, and renounce its claim as total head of the christian church. Which won't happen.

Even though it is well known that it is infallible and that the pope is not the total head of the Christian Church. It is sad but funny as well.

That is not necessarily true.

True; maybe at the end times it'll happen, and the pope will be revealed as the antichrist, and *insert the rest of Revelations here* :D:p

But, on a slightly more serious note, no, it won't happen. For an east-west unification, Rome would have to renounce its infalliablity, and renounce its claim as total head of the christian church. Which won't happen.

True; maybe at the end times it'll happen, and the pope will be revealed as the antichrist, and *insert the rest of Revelations here* :D:p

But, on a slightly more serious note, no, it won't happen. For an east-west unification, Rome would have to renounce its infalliablity, and renounce its claim as total head of the christian church. Which won't happen.

exactly.

but everyone involved understands that. the goal is brotherhood more than unification.

exactly.

but everyone involved understands that. the goal is brotherhood more than unification.

Right. Being a Calvinist, I would never recognize Rome as anything but the antichrist. But I can deal with a sense of brotherhood with the Christian churches; in fact, I would look forward to it. Especially with the Eastern churches. I like their stuff better anyways. The Christ the Saviour Cathedral is one of the most beautiful buildings I've ever been in.

Even though it is well known that it is infallible...

Say what now?

and that the pope is not the total head of the Christian Church. It is sad but funny as well.

It's in the RCC doctrine. The pope is supposed to be the head of the One True Holy Catholic and Apastolic Church. the actual splits are meaningless -- the pope still rules.

Right. Being a Calvinist, I would never recognize Rome as anything but the antichrist. But I can deal with a sense of brotherhood with the Christian churches; in fact, I would look forward to it. Especially with the Eastern churches. I like their stuff better anyways. The Christ the Saviour Cathedral is one of the most beautiful buildings I've ever been in.



Yep and the Catholics view you as heretics who have parted from the True Way and Mother Church.

Also Catholicism and Orthodox are the two directions that both originate from the one Church before it split.

So it would be somewhat like this I think. At first there was one, then it split. Which means that Orthodoxism and Catholicism are brothers. And Protestantism is somewhat the bastard child of Catholicism, too young and new to play in the league of the Catholicism and Orthodox.

the Pope is only infallible on matters relating to doctrine and morals it's not like if he's says Coke is Pepsi he's right.




It's in the RCC doctrine. The pope is supposed to be the head of the One [True] Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. the actual splits are meaningless -- the pope still rules.

that's not doctrine, thats in the Nicene Creed which existed before any of these schisms or reformations.

the Pope is only infallible on matters relating to doctrine and morals it's not like if he's says Coke is Pepsi he's right.

Yes, yes, I know.



that's not doctrine, thats in the Nicene Creed which existed before any of these schisms or reformations.

The Nicene Creed mentions nothing about the pope. :p

Because their fighting gets people killed?

I guess I'm just being a pussy then :p

Yeah, but the key point is they're killing each other. If they're willing to kill people who have slightly different beliefs then I shudder to think what they'd do to people like me who have completely different beliefs if they ever teamed up.

Yeah, but the key point is they're killing each other. If they're willing to kill people who have slightly different beliefs then I shudder to think what they'd do to people like me who have completely different beliefs if they ever teamed up.

I think it would be immensely entertaining. (nothing against you, of course)

A FULL OUT christian/muslim/jewish war in the middle east. I'd enjoy myself.

*wipes out Cyprus and turns it into a popcorn machine for Your Viewing and Eating Pleasure*