Printable View
https://www.rt.com/news/331391-russi...rch-meet-pope/
Well, isn't this cool? The Pope and Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Kirril, are to meet in February in Cuba, no less.
This is the first meeting after almost a 1000 years and can be a step to heal the Great Schism.
Even the atheist such as myself is all giddy, and I have a serious crush on Pope Francis.
While I appreciate that this is important it is not, theologically speaking, as important as this:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/france...congiunta.html
There are also persistent rumours that Kirril is a Black Bishop in hock to Putin and the former KGB.
In terms of the healing of the Great Schism the Russians are certainly something of a stumbling block but the nature of the Orthodox Church means that the Catholics will need to separately persuade each Patriarch, and the most important one of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Of course, that will never happen so long as the Turks continue to squeeze the Greek-Turkish community whilst also requiring the Patriarch to be Greek-Turkish.
Don't know, don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Russians are the biggest stumbling block.Quote:
In terms of the healing of the Great Schism the Russians are certainly something of a stumbling block but the nature of the Orthodox Church means that the Catholics will need to separately persuade each Patriarch, and the most important one of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
From what I've been able to gather, Francis is open to negotiations, unlike most previous popes who expected unquestioned obedience. Francis just might be the man to pull this off, or at least bring us significantly closer to it.
I can see why it might seem that way, but that's not how it works in the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Rome and Constantinople are Pentrarchal Sees, as are Jerusalem and Anitoch - Alexandria is too but it's held by the Copts and largely outside the current discussion. Jerusalem is claimed by both East and West, Antioch has a an Orthodox See. Successful Union between East and West means reunification of Four out of the Five Pentrarchal Sees.
In this scenario the Patriarch of Moscow has two choices - refuse to recognise the Pope and create a new Schism between his Church and the centre of the Christian World or yield to the Pentrarchs. If the Russian people are not behind reunification then either choice is likely to fracture the Russian Church but on balance the Russian Patriarch would be better inside the new club than outside it. If Moscow forces a schism with Constantinople then those parts of the Russian Church that cleave to the Pentrarchs will default to Constantinople, leaving the remains of the Russian church to be gradually picked off. However, if the Russian Patriarch cleaves to Constantinople then he will be able to pick off the schismatic faction.
This is why Constantinople is essential and Moscow is now, Moscow can be cleaned up later if need be.
I think you are overestimating the influence of Ecumenical Patriarch, but I admit that I'm not very familiar with that, so I will yield to your superior knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Anyway, from what I've been able to gather, Ecumenical Patriarch isn't opposed to it a priori and is willing to talk about. Serbian church is willing to talk about it, and in the last few decades Serbian church was acting as a sort of go between Rome and Moscow, sometimes even Rome and Constantinople.
Also, it doesn't have to be right away. It is a long road, and it would have to taken step by step. A logical first step would to at least sync the calendars so that Christmas and Easter are celebrated on the same day.
http://www.newbyzantines.net/byzcath...thenagoras.jpg
The Ecumenical Patriarch is very weak, he holds effective power only on the orthodox community of Turkey. His fate was directly linked to that of the Ottoman Empire.
Moscow is the strongest patriarch, closely followed by Alexandria, where the Melkite Church is still present. There's a conspiracy theory concerning the death of the current Patriarch's predecessor, after the fall of the military helicopter that transported him to Mount Athos.
The advantage of the Patriarchate of Alexandria is that there's a huge lebensraum for conversion in sub-Saharan Africa. We pretend that we are against the catholic colonials and the locals convert like crazy. Very lucrative business.
That's not entirely true - the Ecumenical Patriarch is weak because the Turks are deliberately strangling the See by refusing to allow Greek Nationals to be considered for the Position whilst at the same time persecuting the Greek community in Turkey. As a result there are a dwindling number of candidates, within a few Decades the Patriarch will either have to translate his See to Greece or unilateral engineer the succession of the Greek national.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
Quite why the Turks are throttling the Patriarch I'm not sure, perhaps they fear a Byzantine resurgence? If so the Greeks should be flattered
Moscow has the most adherents and the most money, and it's supported by a powerful Tyrant. It's not essential to the question of the schism but the Pentrarchs are.Quote:
Moscow is the strongest patriarch, closely followed by Alexandria, where the Melkite Church is still present. There's a conspiracy theory concerning the death of the current Patriarch's predecessor, after the fall of the military helicopter that transported him to Mount Athos.
You are correct that the Ecumenical Patriarch is weak though and so long as that remains true full communion will remain out of the Church's grasp.
So, what do you propose?
Should they allow a foreigner occupy a position that gives his control over Turkish citizens? Nah, I wouldn't do that.
The Ecumenical Patriarch lost his power, because the churches of the independent Balkan states became autocephalous. Why? For the same reason that the Turks accept only Turkish citizens in the Patriarchal See. Because they didn't want their religious authorities being controlled by Ottoman citizens.
You have it backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
The Greek-Turkish community is irrelevant, down to about 2,000 now - the population of one large village.
The Turkish Republic exercises control over the Patriarch today for what are, I think, a combinations of historical and (more recently) Muslim theological considerations. Turkey is, I think, the only developed country which exercises control over the head of a faith which is a minority within the country. In reality the majority of the Patriarch's flock are in the UK, Italy, Malta, the US and Australia.
There's no practical reason why the Turkish Government need have any connection to the Patriarchate other than hosting him in Constantinople/Istanbul, plenty of other countries host religious leaders.
If I had to guess I'd say that the reason for controlling the Patriarch so closely is to keep him weak. Even when the Republic was secular it was important that the majority of the population feel confident in their Muslim Turkish identity and not to encourage reflection on their Greco-Roman Christian past, this is (of course) why the great churches of Constantinople were defaced and then converted into Mosques.
It's still weird that this level of control was built into the Turkish Republic and then maintained over decades during a period when said Republic really was quite secular and progressive.
The last statement is too grand a claim. And Russia is not interested in it anyway. With all anti-western propaganda that continues unabated in Russia with a special emphasis on moral degradation of the West any step in this direction at present is illogical. Kiril (and his Kremlin friend) will not brook any decrease in their influence and consolidation of the people is essential for the Russian government now. When the political situation changes and Moscow patriarchy and Russia are headed by different people (in ancient times they used the formula "when the sky falls upon the earth") we may expect some slackening of the confrontation. But I'm afraid Francis will not live to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Is it that weird? I think you already have a strand to pull.Quote:
It's still weird that this level of control was built into the Turkish Republic and then maintained over decades during a period when said Republic really was quite secular and progressive.
What you're talking about is basically a fascistic impulse towards an assertion and maintenance of the politically-constructed national identity. Look at Yesugey's recent BR posts for a cogent expression. We shouldn't be surprised that, in about a century of its modern form, Turkey has had so much friction with ethnic groups that refused to conform or did not sufficiently conform to the new cultural order. Modern Western states, even when democratic (but especially when transitioning to democracy), have shown many of the same tendencies, but eventually the State was always forced to acknowledge the marginal identity and cede ground. The Turkish state has never really been brought to that point - but on the other hand, they end up living in a sort of perpetual anxiety and paranoia, not helped at all by their geographical position.Quote:
If I had to guess I'd say that the reason for controlling the Patriarch so closely is to keep him weak. Even when the Republic was secular it was important that the majority of the population feel confident in their Muslim Turkish identity and not to encourage reflection on their Greco-Roman Christian past
The same can be said for almost all of Francis' innovations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
The dead weight of the past and the very conservative nature of the upper echelons of the church, make his change of emphasis in church policy vulnerable.
Unfortunately, the breath of fresh air that is pope Francis may disappear when he does.