Russian Orthodox Church, close to Catholics, but far from Protestants
Steve Hayes
The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill notes closeness between Rome and
Moscow on the major challenges of modernity, globalization, secularization,
erosion of traditional moral principles. Instead distances increase with
Protestants accused of betraying the Christian heritage to the standards of
the world.
Friday, February 05, 2010
By Asia News
Moscow (AsiaNews / Agencies) - As it finds itself drawing increasingly closer
to the Catholic Church at least on the major challenges of the contemporary
world, the Moscow Patriarchate can not say the same of the Protestants. So
says the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Kirill, speaking at the meeting
of bishops that took place in the capital on 2 February. "With the Church of
Rome - he said - we have similar positions on many issues facing Christians in
the modern world. Such as secularization, globalization and the erosion of
traditional moral principles. It should be noted that in many matters,
Benedict XVI has taken positions which are close to Orthodox ones".
However, its distance from the various Protestant denominations seem to be
increasing. In recent years, "there has been a decrease in the collaboration
of Protestant communities in an effort to preserve the Christian heritage"
and that, says Kirill, is because of "constant liberalization" of their world.
"Not only - adds the Patriarch �have they failed to propagate Christian values
in secular society in a practical manner, rather many Protestant communities
have preferred to adapt to those standards." The reference appears to be to
the recent election of a woman bishop, Margot Kassmann, as head of the
Evangelical Church in Germany.
Kirill says clearly that in dialogue with Protestants, the Orthodox Church
must seek ways to overcome the fundamental differences and if this is not
possible, " many other important issues will remain, not directly related to
the achievement of unity in faith and ecumenical structure, but important in
terms of cooperation for the sake of peace, justice, of creation and to
resolve other important problems that require a joint effort by those who
believe in the Trinity. "
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-28265?l=english
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Agrees With Pope
Notes Similar Stances With Catholic Church
MOSCOW, Russia, FEB. 5, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All
Russia is affirming that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
stand together on many current social issues.
The Russian Orthodox leader stated this Tuesday while addressing a bishops'
meeting of his Church in Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral, Interfax
reported.
He observed: "We [together with the Roman Catholic Church] have similar
positions on many problems facing Christians in the modern world. They include
aggressive secularization, globalization, and the erosion of the traditional
moral principles.
"It should be noted that on these issues Pope Benedict XVI has taken a stance
close to the Orthodox one."
The patriarch, who celebrated his first anniversary as leader of the Russian
Orthodox Church on Monday, added that on the other hand, he is noticing
"growing differences with Protestant denominations."
Recently, the patriarch said, "the Russian Church has seen less Protestant
communities cooperating in the cause of preserving the Christian legacy" due
to "the relentless liberalization of the Protestant world."
He continued, "Alas, not only have they failed to conduct a real propagation
of the Christian values among the secular society, many Protestant communities
prefer to adjust to its standards." The patriarch made a particular reference
to the recent election of a female bishop, Margot Kaessmann, as head of the
Evangelical Church in Germany.
New page
Patriarch Kirill also spoke to the bishops about inter-Orthodox relations,
talking in particular about the official visit he made last June to the Church
of Constantinople, the Department for External Church Relations reported.
He underlined the significance of that visit, stating: "There are reasons to
hope that in those days a new page was opened up in relations between the two
patriarchates.
"These relations should not be built in a spirit of rivalry but in an
atmosphere of trust and cooperation."
The patriarch reported that the Moscow Patriarchate has opened 900 new
parishes in the last year, and the total number of clerics has grown by 1,500.
The Russian Orthodox Church currently has 30,142 parishes (compared to 29,263
in 2008), 160 dioceses (three more than last year), 207 bishops (an increase
from 203), and 32,266 clerics (compared to 30,670 last year).
When the 1000th anniversary of the Christianization, or the baptism, of Russia
was celebrated in 1988, the Moscow Patriarchate counted 6,893 parishes, 76
dioceses, 74 hierarchs and 7,397 clerics.
For more see:
http://www.zenit.org/article-28265?l=english
I omitted the link for the previous article. It is:
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Protestants from their "globalised"
leadership instead of their highly
diffuse grass roots.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
Percival P. Cassidy
I would have expected the Patriarch to be far more upset about the
endorsement by many Protestant denominations (I include the
Anglicans/Episcopalians, even if they don't accept that classification
themselves) of homosexual practices even among their clergy. Is not the
ordination of women a far less serious problem?
Perce
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Perversely and persnickedly, it is easier to PROVE the
breaking of Apostolic Succession with women clergy.
Remember the Pope made Charlemagne emperor because as St
Irene was a woman, the throne was considered vacant.
These tactical legalistic remarks are
NOT indicative of my moral sentiments.
Steve Hayes
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>I would have expected the Patriarch to be far more upset about the
>endorsement by many Protestant denominations (I include the
>Anglicans/Episcopalians, even if they don't accept that classification
>themselves) of homosexual practices even among their clergy. Is not the
>ordination of women a far less serious problem?
No it isn't, because the clergy have never been perfect, and at various times
the church has connived at their imperfections. A priest who lives an immoral
life does not invalidate the sacrament and break apostolic succession, which
the ordination of women does. Of course most Protestant denominations don';t
claim apostolic succession, and have a different view of the saraments. Some
Anglicans did claim that they had apostolic succession, and thought it was
important, but those who believe that are a diminishing minority. The Roman
Catholic Church does believe in apostolic succession, and in that respect is
closer to the Orthodox than Protestants, including Anglicans.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:5l5sm51lt7muid1le...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:34:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
> <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>
>>I would have expected the Patriarch to be far more upset about the
>>endorsement by many Protestant denominations (I include the
>>Anglicans/Episcopalians, even if they don't accept that classification
>>themselves) of homosexual practices even among their clergy. Is not the
>>ordination of women a far less serious problem?
>
> No it isn't, because the clergy have never been perfect, and at various
> times
> the church has connived at their imperfections. A priest who lives an
> immoral
> life does not invalidate the sacrament and break apostolic succession,
> which
> the ordination of women does. Of course most Protestant denominations
> don';t
> claim apostolic succession, and have a different view of the saraments.
> Some
> Anglicans did claim that they had apostolic succession, and thought it was
> important, but those who believe that are a diminishing minority. The
> Roman
> Catholic Church does believe in apostolic succession, and in that respect
> is
> closer to the Orthodox than Protestants, including Anglicans.
And few of you have been baptised by water immersion once coming to a
knowledge of Christ.
Thus you have not "Put on Christ" or have a covering for your sins.
So all such religious sects "Are in vain" .
__
Veff...
Steve Hayes
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>And few of you have been baptised by water immersion once coming to a
>knowledge of Christ.
>Thus you have not "Put on Christ" or have a covering for your sins.
>So all such religious sects "Are in vain" .
Since your knowledge of Christ and baptism seems pretty shaky, better get
yourself sorted first.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
The instruments of the churl are evil: he deviseth
wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words,
even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things;
and by liberal things shall he stand (Isaiah 32:7-8).
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:55:13 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>And few of you have been baptised by water immersion once coming to a
>>knowledge of Christ.
>>Thus you have not "Put on Christ" or have a covering for your sins.
>>So all such religious sects "Are in vain" .
>
> Since your knowledge of Christ and baptism seems pretty shaky, better get
> yourself sorted first.
Did it 34 years ago, when are you going to 'take the plunge' yourself,
Steve.
Better hurry before the grim reaper calls out for you, it will be too late
to wish you had been baptised by water immersion after you came to a
knowledge of Christ, by then.
"16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Acts 22:15-16 (KJV)
You know it makes sense.....!
__
Veff...
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope
when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.
Jim
1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should
be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea;
1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea;
Alexander Arnakis
Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Did it 34 years ago, when are you going to 'take the plunge' yourself,
>Steve.
>Better hurry before the grim reaper calls out for you, it will be too late
>to wish you had been baptised by water immersion after you came to a
>knowledge of Christ, by then.
>
>"16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
>sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
>Acts 22:15-16 (KJV)
>
>You know it makes sense.....!
>
that makes sense from a cultural standpoint, since in some countries
you don't have an official name until you are baptized.
Metaphysically, whether you are baptized or not should make no
difference to your ultimate salvation. A just and loving God wouldn't
reject people just because they lack a particular rite. Nor, even, is
belief itself a requisite for salvation, since God doesn't play little
"quid pro quo" games. Either *all* will be saved, or we're worshipping
a horrible deity.
Alexander Arnakis
>knowledge of Christ.
>Thus you have not "Put on Christ" or have a covering for your sins.
>So all such religious sects "Are in vain" .
>
repent of them and not do them again.
The biggest problem is identifying what is a sin, and what is not.
Some things are clear-cut, but most situations are ambiguous. Example:
Is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family a sin?
Perhaps *not* feeding your starving family is a greater sin.
pyotr filipivich
on or about Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:38:35 +0200 did write/type or cause to
appear in alt.religion.christian.episcopal the following:
>On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:34:24 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
><Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>I would have expected the Patriarch to be far more upset about the
>>endorsement by many Protestant denominations (I include the
>>Anglicans/Episcopalians, even if they don't accept that classification
>>themselves) of homosexual practices even among their clergy. Is not the
>>ordination of women a far less serious problem?
>
>No it isn't, because the clergy have never been perfect, and at various times
>the church has connived at their imperfections. A priest who lives an immoral
>life does not invalidate the sacrament and break apostolic succession, which
>the ordination of women does. Of course most Protestant denominations don';t
>claim apostolic succession, and have a different view of the saraments. Some
>Anglicans did claim that they had apostolic succession, and thought it was
>important, but those who believe that are a diminishing minority. The Roman
>Catholic Church does believe in apostolic succession, and in that respect is
>closer to the Orthodox than Protestants, including Anglicans.
I will observe that just because two groups speak the same words,
they do not necessarily mean the same thing. My understanding is that
in the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession is not merely that you
were ordained by a properly ordained Bishop, in unbroken line going
back to an apostle, but that they also continued "in the teachings" of
the apostles. And any priest who goes astray enough to be removed
from his office, also is to be removed from his priesthood.
Not for the Orthodox is the idea that "once ordained, always a
priest" as seems to be the thinking of the Romans.
That said, there are elements of Roman Catholicism, as well as
"English Catholicism" (the Anglicans), which transfer more easily to
Orthodoxy, than of some more 'modernist' Protestant communities. E.G.,
they know about liturgy, an ordained clergy, and sacraments.
Unfortunately, they know about liturgy, ordination and sacraments. "we
do that" - well, not the same way we do it, with the same
understanding.
Which is part of what causes the problems in cross cultural
communications. Such as between the Patriarchs and the Cardinals.
-
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Yes indeed.
The Anglican understanding of apostolic succession, especially (and the Roman,
to some extent) has led to the phenomenon of "episcopi vagantes" -- wandering
freelance bishops who boast about their "lines of succession".
When the Roman pope declared that Anglican orders were invalid, back in the
19th century, some Anglican clergy has themselves reordained, sometimes
several times, just to be sure that the sacraments they administered were
"valid".
Western Christianity has tended to be legalistic, and preoccupied by questions
of "validity". Orthodoxy is less so, and also does not regard ordination as
conferring an indelible "character", which seem to be part of the Western
understanding of the validity of ordinations.
Basically the Orthodox understanding is that one has to have "remained in the
apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers".
A couple of years ago a group of old calendrists were received into the
Patriarchate of Alexandria by our bishop, His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim,
Archbishop of Johannesburg and Pretoria.
Among them were two priestmonks, Fr Nazarius Pribojan and Fr Elias Palmos. The
former was a priest ordained within the Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA (he
served for several yerars as a parish priest in St Petersburg, Florida). Fr
Palmos was a South African who went to stay with Fr Nazarius in his rectory in
Florida as a novice, He was tonsured and ordained in Serbia.
They wanted to come to South Africa as missionaries, but not under the
Patriarchate of Alexandria, which generally fol,lows the new calendar. The
Serbian Synod would not send them, so they apploed to ROCOR, which also would
not send them. Eventually they came under the auspices of a Greek old
calendrist group, which is not recognised or in communion with any Orthodox
group.
They had some good ideas about mission, and then Fr Nazarius, the moving
spirit behind it, became ill. He realised that the Greek Old Calendrist Group
under Cyprian of Oropos and Fili would be in no position to support and
continue what they started, and so he was reconciled to the Orthodox Church on
his death bed. Fr Elias was released from his monastic vows, and received as a
priest by economia, because his ordination was by a recognised Orthodox bishop
in Serbia. Fr Frumentius, a South African who had been ordained by one of the
old calendrist bishops from Greece, was reordained, because the bishopp who
ordained him was not in communion with any other Orthodox bishops other than
those of his own sect.
This illustrates some of the differences between the Orthodox understanding of
apostolic succession and those of Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Clergy
ordained within the Church, who go into schism, but repent and return, can be
received back without reordination. But those ordained outside the Church,
that is, outside the "apostles' fellowship" referred to in Acts 2:42, are
reordained.
But, as I said, the number of Anglicans who retain any idea of apostolic
succession at all is rapidly diminishing.
>
> That said, there are elements of Roman Catholicism, as well as
>"English Catholicism" (the Anglicans), which transfer more easily to
>Orthodoxy, than of some more 'modernist' Protestant communities. E.G.,
>they know about liturgy, an ordained clergy, and sacraments.
>Unfortunately, they know about liturgy, ordination and sacraments. "we
>do that" - well, not the same way we do it, with the same
>understanding.
> Which is part of what causes the problems in cross cultural
>communications. Such as between the Patriarchs and the Cardinals.
>-
>pyotr filipivich
>Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
> 1) There is a God.
> 2) It's not you.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa