/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>714960

It's like God's true Church is invisible and not built with hands.

>>714960

Honestly, for me, it's schismatics schismatizing, sorry orthobros I have to be honest.

>>714966

It's like God's Church consists of 40 000 interpretations of what He actually said we should do.

>>714966

God's Church was built on St. Peter. You don't have St. Peter, you do not have the true Church of Christ.

>>714970

>>714966

>>714972

thanks for having ruined the thread.

go to be americans somewhere else now

>>714970

More like

>people don't read the Bible, and when they do, they read it with certain preconceived notions.

And

>Not everyone is going to be saved, and the vast majority of those who call themselves "Christians" actually aren't

>>714960

>>714970

I really wish people would read more history. This type of thing happened multiple times in the East and the West before and after 1054.

Not to say that it isn't tragic when it does happen.

>>714960

>The Orthodox presence in Turkey itself is small; however the majority of Orthodox in North America (about two-thirds) are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, primarily in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The Patriarchate also enjoys an even greater majority in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Albanian, Rusyn and Ukrainian jurisdictions in America are also part of the Patriarchate.

Even though they're based in Turkey, I'm guessing per the above membership stats that this is a political move to further separate from the West and especially the US.

>>714979

I know all about the Western schism. It isn't the same as what's happening in the East now. It started when cardinals elected a man who was a terrible pope and chose to elect another one. Half of Europe supported the one that was elected 1st, another half the 2nd one. It was a result of confusion, not some disagreement over papal jurisdiction.

>>714970

>schismatics schismatizing

One could say the same thing about the Protestant Reformation.

>>714960

Bartholomew is wrong for overstepping the bounds of a patriarch but the Russians are also wrong for leaving.

>>714960

Cath 1: Orts 1

>>714960

Russia abandoned the faith during Communism. They, their "Patriarch" and Putin are anti-Christs.

Nothing of value was lost.

>>715003

>every Russian Orthodox Christian is the same

You're disgusting.

This over the Ukraine situation. Can't say I'm surprised. As I said in that thread, too much money, turf and prestige on the line for nothing to happen in the end.

Anyway, now we wait and see what the next step is.

>>714997

Sadly more like both below zero.

Catholic here. What does this mean? Is the schism official? Wtf lads.

>>715012

Well, there's scratch involved here too, so good luck with that. With money in the mix, even if this thread can keep civil, future ones are in trouble.

>ITT: People confuse temporary excommunication with permanent schism

This is not a permanent separation of the Church. This is a punitive move by the Moscow Patriarchate against Constantinople for political reasons. Many instances of squabbling between patriarchs have happened in the past and they will certainly continue as long as fallible humans make up the Body of Christ.

THANK YOU US STATE DEPARTMENT AND CIA FOR CAUSING THIS

>>715017

>This is not a permanent separation

this

we will wait for russians to return into the Church, we are patient

>>715019

>1/2 of the Eastern Church is CIA

Wew, that's some hot garbage, but I can't say that people won't run with that in order to save face over the next few days.

>>715012

>If we could avoid turning this thread into nationalist polemics this would be very helpful and charitable.

I understand what you mean. But….isn'tt this Russian vs Ukrainian church thing a thing steming from somebody using the nationalism as a pretense to break the unity of the church? (I'm not well informed on this so please feel free to redpill me on the subject) I understand the ukrainian woes as far as politics is concerned (Communism, Holodomor, sovereignty) but at the same time the enemies of God use anything to break unity….even things that seem good. Like Ukraine for Ukrainians. They use it to pit one slavic nation against the other.

>>715015

I second this request.

Can an Orthodox give a guick rundown on the situation from Russian and from Ukrainian perspective?

What does this mean for the Eastern Orthodox church?

>>715023

I'm not Orthodox, but in my mind, there's no reason why Ukranian Church shouldn't be controlled by Ukranians. Like, us Catholics, when you're a German living in France, you go to French mass, you don't explode when you enter the church just because there's a French priest saying mass in French and his archbishop is French too.

Sadly, countries such as Russia and Serbia (Serbia is now concerned autocephaly will be given to Montenegro so they will support Russia) use their churches as a political tool, a hand in other countries.

>>715021

I believe he is referring to the deep state's involvement in Ukraine. Poroshenko is their puppet and they are pushing for autocephaly

Presumably blood will flow.

Just add Ukraine to the list of Syria, Lybia, Iraq, and the rest of the long of proxy wars brought to you in the name of freedom.

>>715026

Well, if you want to talk about the secular political situation, that's just a mess. But skullduggery by the CIA and SVR combined, wouldn't be enough to cause a problem like this normally. This situation merely informs delusions that already existed within Constantinople and Moscow. I'm also sure that there are internal situations in both Turkey and Russia that are also influencing things here, outside of the Ukraine altogether.

>>715023

>Can an Orthodox give a guick rundown on the situation from Russian and from Ukrainian perspective?

>What does this mean for the Eastern Orthodox church?

Orthobro here to help explain. Here's some context.

In the Orthodox Church, new churches are founded by pre-existing bishops in other territory. A Patriarch is essentially a head bishop for a territory, and he can order priests and bishops to be sent out to spread the church to new places. While the new church is still growing, they're supported by the Patriarchate that helped them get started. This also means a lot of Church bureaucracy is involved, including the new church being integrated into the Patriarchate's hierarchy and learning the mother Patriarchate's specific rituals and traditions. Language and Liturgy length are good examples of this – a branch parish founded by Moscow might use Church Slavonic and have a long Liturgy, and one founded by Constantinople might use Church Greek and have a shorter Liturgy. One from Antioch might use Arabic and so on.

Russia's Moscow Patriarchate helped create the Church in Ukraine. For more than a millennium, Ukraine has been supported by Moscow and fallen under their authority. This is for a number of reasons. The most obvious of those is geographical closeness to Russia – Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for many centuries.

The process of a national church becoming independent can be messy. As an example, let's say the Example Patriarchate founded and operates a church in Illustration country. The church would be known as the Examplian Church in Illustration country, and they are trying to become the Church of Illustration. Once they do this, the Examplian Patriarchate loses out on a lot. They lose attendance numbers, they lose tithes, and they can't tell the Church of Illustration to closely follow their traditions anymore since they're more independent.

That's your background. Now to the actual issue in my next post.

>>714974

>Cites St Peter

<Ugh so American

Are you a bit simple?

>>715023

>>715031

This whole issue is deeply rooted in historical events during Soviet rule in the 20th century and recent developments in Ukraine. It's also related to the fall of Constantinople, if you can believe it.

When the Soviets took over Russia and killed the royal family (God rest their souls), they also cracked down hard on the Moscow Patriarchate and all the national Churches in the USSR at large. Formally, it was because of the state atheism policy, but the Church also represented a threat to the ultimate power they wanted over the mind of the people. There were imprisonments in gulags, countless disappearances, mass executions, burnings of parishes, the works. There's a reason that the Church condemns Communism, we'll leave it at that. Still, many people were deeply angry with the Soviet government for doing this and continued to worship in secret. After plenty of crackdowns, the USSR eventually gave up and put up a dummy church that supported the state. This controlled branch caused huge problems with the rest of the Orthodox Church, since recognizing it or not recognizing it essentially amounted to a political statement on what the the Soviets were doing. In America, for instance, the Russian branch parishes broke in two – some loyal to the national Soviet church and others (correctly) calling the new Russian church illegitimate. The international divisions were long-lasting and deeply ingrained in the minds of those who lived through it. People considered those helping the Soviet traitors who betrayed their brothers in Christ; some Soviet loyalists bought the propaganda but others genuinely tried to save souls through the system. It was and continues to be a huge mess that we're still mopping up nearly half a century after the USSR collapsed.

Now, about Constantinople. When the city of Constantinople was conquered by the Turks, the Church was allowed to continue existing but only under strict control. It's a complicated situation and I won't harp on it too much – what you need to know is that the Church there was strictly forbidden from winning converts, building new churches, and even repairing existing ones. Aside from encouraging corrupt bishops from working with Turkish officials, the church was forced to become small and stick together fiercely. Over time, the Constantinople Patriarchate became synonymous with Greek identity in a time of occupation. This idea spread around the whole Orthodox Church in general and stuck particularly fiercely during the birth of nation-states in the modern age. Many Orthodox Churches are considered part of national identity. As you can imagine, this has led to a number of issues with outreach in new territories, the popular image of national Orthodox churches being only for a specific nationality of people, lax parishioners that only think of their faith as part of their image, and so on.

Like I said, this is a very nuanced issue and I brushed over a lot of detail – if you're interested, I'd suggest reading some more about how the Church in Constantinople survived in Turkey.

Last post incoming about this situation with Ukraine.

>orthofags give everyone shit constantly since the conception of /christian/ claiming theyre superior

>they then go and rip a part their own communion over petty political struggles

I couldnt be more smug if I tried

>>715023

>>715031

>>715041

So, what all of this is driving at is that the split with Constantinople and Moscow is a complicated one.

The Russian Church in Ukraine wants to be free after all the persecution and horror last century. Additionally, Ukraine as a country has been trying to be more independent since the fall of the USSR. The Ukrainian government tightening relations with the West, even trying to join NATO, was a threat to Russia's influence and access to resources, so they invaded. The American government also quietly supported Ukraine's push to be more independent to weaken Russia, but I digress.

So Russia is in open conflict with Ukraine, and because the Church is so tied to national identity, it gets dragged along for the ride. Intentionally or not, nationalistic bishops in Russia consider this a move by a Constantinople Patriarchate that still doesn't fully trust them to weaken their influence. Ever since the war started, the Ukrainian Church has been screaming for independence, partially to be free from Russian power. It's making the independence process of a Church that's been under Moscow's control for a very long time even more messy than it would have been normally. Constantinople recognizing Ukraine may or not be warranted depending on where you stand, but their timing is a direct political statement. The Russian Church recognizes this, and that's why they've broken communion. The Ukrainian Church is a pawn for a fight between Russia and the West as well as a greater power move by Constantinople, which is formally in charge of the whole Church, in an era where Moscow Patriarchate dwarfs them in size and influence.

And like I said earlier ( >>715017 ) don't think that the churches excommunicating each other is a permanent schism. If you weren't aware, the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem are currently not in communion with each other over a long-standing squabble on the jurisdiction of Qatar. The split between Constantinople and Moscow is more deep-seated, but the action taken isn't anymore serious than what Antioch and Jerusalem have done. It will take them a while to come to terms, but they will eventually.

>In addition, the Synod decided to re-establish the office of the Stavropegion of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Kiev, which means its head would be subordinate directly to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Moreover, the Synod lifted anathema from the heads of two non-canonical churches in Ukraine - Filaret of the Kiev Patriarchate, and Makary of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

Sounds like Bartholomew wants to cut an arm from Moscow and gain one for himself. Maybe balancing the numbers a bit between the two.

Are his fears of Moscow playing the third rome ambition justified?

>>715057

Yes and no. Moscow trying to hold onto Ukraine isn't justified given how long the Ukrainian Church has been around. If Romania and Bulgaria get to be Patriarchates, Ukraine should too. With that said, trying to make them one right now is a huge reach by the EP. Moscow is right to be frustrated.

It's just politics on both sides. I personally think Constantinople is in the wrong here but it's ultimately Moscow's fault this is an issue in the first place.

>>715017

When has there ever been a schism that was intended to be permanent? You are trying to draw a distinction where there is none.

>>715024

Catholic priests say mass in Latin, not in French or German.

>>715012

>This division is entirely caused by the earthly and opposed political agendas of the russian and ukrainian governments.

Pretty much. This is my problem with the Orthodox church, it's not really a single church anymore, it's a bunch of nationalist sects that have more loyalty to national politics than they do each other. Some churches, like the Russian Orthodox church have been completely subsumed into the politics of their country to the point that they're practically a wing of their local nationalist party.

>>715092

You're right that a schism isn't supposed to be permanent. Excommunications become schisms when one side is clearly in the wrong and refuses to change. People often refuse to admit fault, but even in schism all it takes is to renounce one's mistakes to return to the Church.

>>715102

That's been taken out with Vatican II, except for a few priests that really, really loved the Tridentine mass. You can get your mass in any language you need these days.

>>715161

>That passage is interpreted as not implying a special prominence to the person of Peter, but to Peter's position as representative of the Apostles.

Special prominence to the Petrine position, yes.

>Also, you need to contend with the fact that the history of the RCC has been very controversial even up to present day.

Controversial to those who reject the Catholic Church.

>>714972

God's Church was built upon Jesus Christ. If you rely on anything else and dare claim superiority over others for it, it's you who are seeking to be condemned for condemning others. God doesn't care about your doctrine, but about your soul. Read the Prophets.

>>715234

>God's Church was built upon Jesus Christ.

Which He then built upon St. Peter, He says it in the Scriptures.

>If you rely on anything else and dare claim superiority over others for it, it's you who are seeking to be condemned for condemning others.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

I rely on the Word of God, do you?

Pretty sure we've had this same conversation before, repent.

>>715236

You do not rely on the Word of God, you embellish it with your daring misunderstanding.

You rely on your own (i)literacy and glorify yourself like a pahrisee.

You reduce the Lord's word to your own cause and deny others their faith.

You actually reduce the Lord himself.

Why should I repent for your foolishness? Neither St. Peter, nor Mary, nor anyone else will save you from your blasphemy.

>>715251

>You do not rely on the Word of God, you embellish it with your daring misunderstanding.

Prove it. If Christ had meant to proclaim Himself Cephas, He would have said so, and if He had meant to proclaim St. Peter an Apostle among equals, He would have said so.

Going back to the story of Korah's rebellion, it's fairly obvious a hierarchy is part of God's plan and Holy Will, or do you pretend there is not those whom are higher and lower in Heaven as well?

>Neither St. Peter, nor Mary, nor anyone else will save you from your blasphemy.

I wonder what Our Lady has to say about that.

>>715204

The Council of Trent explicitly declared anyone who attempts to replace the latin mass anathema, so no, the conciliar church is not Catholic.

>>715161

When you find a Church without a controversial story tell me.

>>715254

Lo, our Lord build his Church upon Peter and the Church stands across the world, it's foundation in the heart of all true of faith.

Now comes the hypocrite and steals away Peter, claiming, "he is ours, upon him we stand and so we are the true church."

He builds and idol out of the Lord's mother, unbidden, placing it equal to him, yet he curses the one pointing to his falsehoods by that that which the Lord did not say.

You're an idiot and your very first statement proved it. I have no reason to quote scripture so bent on bending it to himself.

>all the orthodox I know have suddenly went from "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" to "communion is a mystical union the physical church doesn't matter" overnight

I don't even dislike orthos but this absolute anal flustering is hilarious

>>714966

fpbp

>>714972

begone papist

>>715041

>>715052

>>715031

Thank you for your insight. Very appreciated.

I know about bolshevism and Ukrainian woes but I also see NATO using Ukraine as a pawn in their dirty game. That's not to say I am fully aboard with Putin's Russia. But I will prefer him/them before west at any time right now.

It's sad there are those schisms - even if temporary - over politics. They should be united in faith.

>>715280

none of that is in the Bible

>>715311

Whatever you say, Brother Dimond.

>>715231

>Controversial to those who reject the Catholic Church.

So pedophilia and corruption aren't controversial to Roman Catholics? Oh my…

>>715284

To be honest the true doctrine of both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church is that salvation is only possible in the Church.

However many who are part of the physical Church are not true members and will not be saved, likewise some outside its visible borders will be saved if they have invincible ignorance, true faith, etc..