I just saw this one on YouTube and it is very good. Here what it says about this video in the “About” section of the YouTube page: (with original spelling).
“UA priest calls to deprive parishioners of Moscow Patriarchate churhces of rights to be elected and work in official organizations. A bit ironic, as in fact he talks not about churches in Russia, but canonical local Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church which formally subordinates to Moscow Patriarchate and is opposed by not-recognized “Church of Kyiv Patriarchate” which splitted from Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Church after Philaret (patriarch of Kyiv Patriarchate) failed to be elected as new Patriarch in the beginning of 90’s“.
Now, longtime readers already know that I do not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate part of the Russian Orthodox Church (for details, read this: http://10.16.86.131/russia-and-islam-part-two-russian-orthodoxy/ where I explain this little known but crucial issue) and I also oppose the use of the term “canonical” in the sense of “recognized by the powers that be” which is, apparently, how the author (and most modernist and ecumenist Orthodox people understand it to be). In the Ukraine one side recognizes one Orthodox Church as “canonical” because the secular power in Kiev happens to recognize it as such (for purely political reasons) and calls the other “schismatic” while the other side also recognizes one Orthodox Church as “canonical” because the secular power in Moscow happens to recognize it it as such (also for purely political reasons) as calls the other “schismatic. In the authentic Christian tradition “canonical” does not mean “recognized by the secular regime” but rather “in accordance with Church canons”. That is a topic where neither the Ukie Church nor the Moscow Patriarchate wants to go, or even mention [those interested in the topic, please see the note at the bottom of this page]. With all these caveats in mind, I have to say the following:
What this Uniat priest proposes is quite amazing. Not only do they want to seize the church buildings which belong to the “autonomous” Ukrainian Orthodox Chruch to which the Moscow Patriarchate granted autonomy (for purely political reasons, what else?) but he wants to deprive of political rights (hold an official position) those Ukrainians who attend these “autonomous” UOC parishes. The Ukies call that “lustration“. See for yourself:
I have been getting a lot of flak from offended Latin Christians about my posts in which I claim that the Vatican is the “creator” of the Ukraine and that it still plays a central role in feeding the anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox hatred in the Ukraine. I already posted one such example recently, and today I am posting this second one. Not because I want to bash Latin Christians, but because I believe, strongly, that the truth about the Ukraine cannot be understood unless the behind-the-scenes “feeder mechanisms” are brought to light. And since my blog has never been a popularity contest, I fully plan to continue “covering” this topic (-: it will never get me as much flak as my unrepentant use of the “AngloZionist” anyway :-)
To me, this is quite simple, really: intellectually honest Latin Christians will be distressed by this, but they will not bother denying it or “explaining it away”, and they will do whatever they can in their personal lives to oppose and denounce this. Those less encumbered by honesty will try hard to deny it, blame “a few bad apples”, try to find “Orthodox equivalents” in the past or say they personally never saw any manifestation of anti-Orthodox hatred (those interested in the techniques used by these Latins can see here and here).
Still, I hope that most readers will find this topic relevant, important and not discussed elsewhere (which is one of the key goals of this blog).
Some of you might point out that the Moscow Patriarchate has a long record of using state power to persecute non-MP Orthodox Christians. This is quite true, even today. But I would point out a crucial difference: in the past, such actions were the result of the policies of the top MP clergy – bishops, not priests – and in more recent times, I would even argue that only a small minority of MP bishops. This is a small consolation of those on the receiving end of such actions (they typically get their parishes taken away by OMON forces), but I think that it is important to be honest here and say that nowadays the vast majority of MP laity and a strong majority of MP clergy does not support that kind of thuggery. That does not make the MP more legitimate in a (correctly used) canonical sense, but it most definitely makes it much more “Christian” in an ethical sense, certainly more than it was even 15-20 years ago. Uniat hatred for Orthodoxy is a normal and widespread phenomenon, it is a core feature of the Uniat identity and it has no equivalent inside the Moscow Patriarchate.
Finally, just to preempt another attempts at equating the unequatable, you may notice that this Uniat is disguising himself – with cross and all – as an Orthodox priest. You will never see an Orthodox priest disguising himself as a Latin. This is a purely Latin thing to do to con the ignorant. Likewise, the Units are obliged to accept the Frankish version of the Symbol of Faith (aka “Creed”) in which the words “and the Son” (or filioque) are added to the original text, but they are not obliged to say that when they recite the Symbol. This “believing one thing, but not saying so” is also a unique Latin feature which serves the same purpose at the disguise: to con the ignorant and erase visible differences (not matter how crucial – there is no higher dogma in Christianity then the Symbol). This is also why the Latins always speak of geography (eastern Churches) or appearances (eastern Rite) but almost never about fundamental dogmatic disagreements (of which there are plenty!) or about the undeniable fact that the West has been Orthodox for the first 1000 years of its history.
Cheers,
The Saker
Note for those interested in the topic:
In the true Christian tradition a Church *never* derives its authenticity (or, to misuse the modern term again, its “canonicity”) from the secular state nor from the number of churches (in the sense of church, parish, *buildings*) you have acquired courtesy of state patronage. As I have mentioned it here in the past, the “criterion of truth” or the “authentic Christian character” from a Church is derived according to the following ancient principles:
The full unadulterated preservation faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian” (St. Athanasius)
and
The full unadulterated preservation of that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all” (Saint Vicent of Lerins). So no innovations, especially no dogmatic ones.
The short-term combining the two above is often referred to as “consensus of the Fathers” (consensus patrum): that upon which the saints and councils of the early Church agreed upon.
One could say that the innovating “got-their-canonicity-from-the-secular-state” Churches are all in communion with each other, but not in communion with the original, early Church.
I’ve just found a true hero of the Ukraine, in the Moscow Patriarchate….. http://houseofmaedhros.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/a-hero-of-the-ukraine/
Saker, your wisdom and insight about Christianity is pretty good.
There is an Islamic scholar who speaks the same as u, named Imran Hosein.
In this youtube clip especially, at the 14 minute mark he says about western and eastern Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD0U5Ll7yb0
Just a related link without endorsing its argument:
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/crisukra.htm
With regard to filioque: With my very limited theological knowledge, however, my understanding is that the core of the problem is the ideology of the Trinity of the father, the son and the holy ghost (Augustinus of Thagaste, 354-430). The ideology of Trinity is critical because it fought the Arianic concept of Jesus being born as human, and the potential of every human being to become a reflection and incarnation of god. The counter-ideology is the heretic Roman-Catholic “Extra ecclesiam salus non est”, there is no salvation outside the Roman-Catholic church, which considered humans as beeing condemned to sin by birth, stating the monopoly of the Roman-Catholic Church for any salvation. This is a fundamental issue conceptualising humanity.
Augustinus, btw, had been adherer of the Manichean cult, the dominant belief among the soldiers of the Roman Military Dictatorship of the late Roman empire. Consequently, he understood after his conversion history as a fight between God and the Evil, proclaimed the idea of a just war and considered humans a being condemned to hell by birth.
This ideology has been the direct path to the dictum of the Papal Legate Arnaud Amaury responding to the question what to do with the inhabiants of Béziers, one of the capitals of the Katharer until 1209: “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” (Kill them all. God will know how belongs to him). This line continues until today, both in its church dogmatic and its secular form. Read Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the holocaust.
There are THREE Orthodox (or so-called Orthodox) churches in (ex-)Ukraine, not two:
UOC-Moscow Patriarchate
UOC-Kiev Partriarchate (Philaret)
and
UO Autocephalous Church.
@ Andrew and Daniel Rich,
Thank you very much for your insightful comments.
“The temple of the most high begins with the human body
Which house our life essence and existence…
We must stop confusing religion and spirituality
religion is a set of rules regulations and rituals ceated by humans which were supposed to help people grow spiritualy
due to human imperfection religion has become corrupt
political
divisive and a tool for power struggle sprirituality is not a theology or ideology
it’s simply a way of life
Pure and original as was given by the most high of creation
spirituality is a network linking us to the most high
the universe and each other as the essence of our existence
it embodie our culture
true identity
Nationhood and destiny…”
Hailé sélassié I
Salam Dearest Saker,
If it is not off-topic then I always wanted to ask you about your following two statements:
Saker said: Every single Orthodox Christian is, to use an Iranian comparison, a “Guardian of the Faith” and this is why no amount of “Ecumenical dialogs of love” and bishop hugging will ever be enough to subordinate the Church to the Papacy.
And,
Saker said: Just as Iran has its Islamic Republic which combines Islam and democracy, so much Russia find a kind of democracy which confirms to her Orthodox and Muslim worldview and traditions. A single man cannot be entrusted with that.
If you think that it is off-topic than can you please answer it in any other post.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Reading through the thread, it is quite disturbing how the Saker seems to revel and rejoice in the fracture of Christendom: “Let’s stop this “dialog of the deaf” (as the French say). Do your thing, we will do our. We will all meet at Judgment Day :-)”
Its nothing to smile or laugh or sneer about, Saker. Christ only created one Church, and if you believe that yours is the correct one, then you should be trying to convince and convert us “papists” not sneering at our possible damnation. Christ never sneered at anyone to my knowledge. The only word I can think of for delighting in the division of Christendom, as you so obviously do, Saker, is “diabolical.”
So, Saker, you believe Catholics do not have sacraments because you pretend they would be heretics, and you base this accusation of heresy on a pure slander about the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibility?
Here are definitions of these dogmas, please compare with what you believed them to be :
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Now, do you remember who told you the slanders you have believed, about what were these dogmas? Were they not the same persons who gave you this awful general prejudice against Catholics which discredit your writings because if you are so much moved by blind hatred against Catholicism, your other writings appear way less reliable? (of course I know there are also people who are also in such a blind hatred against Catholicism that whatever negative you say against us, true or wrong, they will agree and believe you about everything… I am speaking of objective people)
I should not speak of being sad myself because it is little relevant.
Do you really think the people who taught you such a hatred were reliable people?
The French Saker, in a text yesterday (“L’insidieux pouoir de la Propagande”, warned against the pollution of our “tacit knowledge” : can we not see it in this hatred?
TR
Why is rationalism not up to the task assigned to it in Western civilization.
==============================
This is a good explanation:
http://souloftheeast.org/2014/09/13/thomism-deism/
“There is no hope of returning to a traditional faith after it has
once been abandoned, since the essential condition of the holder of a
traditional faith is the he should not know he is a traditionalist.”
— Al Ghazali
@TR:So, Saker, you believe Catholics do not have sacraments because you pretend they would be heretics, and you base this accusation of heresy on a pure slander about the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibility?
No, not at all. The dogmas you refer to were only 19th century innovations. The Franks separated themselves from the Church in the 11th century, at which point they fell into both schism and heresy (of course, any justification of a schism is, in itself, an ecclesiological heresy). As for the absence of Grace in schismatic and heretical communities, this is not my opinion, but the unanimous opinion of all Christian Church Fathers. I will grant you that for the next couple of centuries following 1054 the separation did not affect most people, but by the time the 14th century False Union of Florence took place, it was already too late. Saint Mark of Ephesus began his first disputation with greetings which clearly implied that he was talking to fellow Christians, but by the time he investigated the substance of the divergences between the two groups he clearly came to a conclusion which he bluntly stated: you are heretics.
The nonsensical dogmas adopted (after 19 centuries without them!) at the First Vatican Council are really the logical climax of a process which began with the megalomania of the Dictatus Papae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae) immediately adopted after the schism of 1054 or the forgery of the so-called Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals). So no, neither the “Immaculate Conception” nor the Papal Infallibility are at the core of the Latin heresies – they are just a very late addition, an icing on the cake, so to speak. The sacraments of the Latin have not been devoid of Grace since 100 years, but since *1000* years.
Cheers!
The Saker
The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, through the Son.
So say the Lord (St.John’s Gospel), and that’s it!
Roman Catholics can surely find something more useful to do than arguing against the Word of God.
Word begotten by the Father, through Whom only proceed His Holy Spirit, because the Son, the Word, is the only relation of God with His Creation. His essence is and will always be beyond our realm of understanding, imagination AND feeling.
I wish to congratulate Andrew here, because he has explained the thing in a very clear and straightforward way. It’s not frequent to find such good understanding, not even between Orthodox.
I wish to ask him: do you believe in any of the innovations concocted by the Vatican hierarchies since 1,014 (it’s NOT a refuse, so please no need for kind correction here)?
I wish also to point out what is, in my understanding, one of the principal cause of the gradually evolving chasm between Western and Eastern Christianity: the hijacking by the rabbis of the text of the Old Testament, an adulteration which has been adopted by all the Western churches.
The thing is explained very well in this article by Israel Shamir:
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/ranslating-the-bible-into-hebrew/
The essay also propose a solution (inspired by a Russian elder): translating back into Hebrew of the original text, as it is possible to deduce it by the LXX, which we have available in various languages today.
Mr. Shamir has just confirmed me that the project is going on. I consider it very important, a tool subtracted to the masters of the discourse (and what tool!), so that I urge all Christians here to help speed up the project with encouragement and small donations.
The links are in the article.
@Andrew:
I just read your interesting comments. But I think, I disagree with your analysis of the inner-trinitarian processes.
You seem to say that the only difference between the person of the Holy Spirit and the Person of the Son is the kind of process by which they originate. The Holy Spirit comes from the Father by procession, and the Son by Generation. But both come solely from the Father. The Son only sends the Spirit, but which is not an inner-trinitarian event, if I understand you correctly.
As I understand the term “generation” it means a begetting of a living being from a living being, both having the same nature. Thats why the first procession gives the Son, being a living being, as the Godhead is also living being, and having the same nature as the father. Thats why the first process is called generation. The Image of God is called the Son. Its origin is gods reason, as far as there is something akin to reason. The Son is Gods hypostasized , self-understanding, so to speak. Thats why the Son is also called the Word or the Image of God. The origin and the object of the Word of God being God himself.
But the second process has to involve the Son. I explain why: The second process does not originate from the father alone, since then it would have been again a kind of generation, and God would have had a second son, which is false (remember the definition of “generation”, or which is the same “begetting”)And because the second process does not originate in the Father alone its not called “generation”. Its called more general: “procession”. It results from the self-understanding of God, i.e. it involves the Word of God, or his Son. Its origin is Gods will, or what is akin to will. Thats why the Church Fathers call it Gods Love. It is the hypostasized Self-Love of God, taking its nature again from the Godhead, in this sense the Father is origin. Its object is the Trinity. But since “you cannot love, what you dont know”, Gods Love comes through the Son.
You say further: “The Son does not partake of the Fatherhood of the Father. So your statement is not correct or logical.
For the same reason (the Father is NOT the Son and therefore the Son is NOT the Father) this is also why the Son does not partake of the procession of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit.”
It is true, that the Son does not partake in the fatherhood, because he is “begotten” (generation). But he partakes in the Godhead, being equal in all else. Thats why he also partakes in the procession of the Spirit, which is not generation. If the Spirit came from the Father alone, then it would have been generation, as I explained above. The reason for the second process is not the Fatherhood, as you seem to impy, because the Fatherhood expresses a relation to the Son and not to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes from the Godhead in which the Son equaly partakes.
Second Part follows.
Second Part
@Andrew
You say: “Well, if that was so, what in the world is it that so many monks and nuns (and laymen!) in both east and west have experienced in seeing God in the here and now? What did the Apostls see on Mt. Tabor? Or Moses in the burning bush? Who did Abraham converse with? Who walked in the Garden with Adam? They certainly seemed to understand exactly what they saw.
If you think you understand God, it is a sure sign that you have erred. As St. Augustine says: “If you understand it, it is not God”.
God is beyond understanding. He is “infinite”. He cannot be defined. Understanding is always of limited things. They are understandable, because they have a definition. But there is no proper definition of God, because of his infinity. And thats why I said above, that the Word of God is only *akin* to reason, or understanding. This process of generation is completely different than everything we can think or imagine.
But maybe you mean by “understanding” the beatific vision. What I meant is, that this is not a natural act. It is not within the natural powers of a limited creature to “see” God. Thats why the “Vision of God” is a supernatural gift, it is beyond our natural powers and comes from the Son. By this we get the Love of God. Heaven is nothing else than to have this eternal bliss, which also God himself enjoys, of which no created being is worthy.
To say that we “see” God by our natural faculties is to teach that we can have salvation just by our own powers.
@Andrew
You mentioned Palamos. I always wanted to examine his thinking more closely. Do you have some good literature on him, or some good starting point in the original in his original works?
I have always been interested in the Old Believers’ schism, as here in Latvia there still are a strong number of them (they settled here to escape persecutions, I think, far enough from the center). Alas, most of the literature is still only in Russian, and so out of my reach.
Therefore, I cannot figure out the matter. For example, I did not know about their innovation and still don’t understand what was that innovation.
Anyway, I think it’s unfair to lean the blame for that schism upon Patriarch Nikon.
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/nikon.htm
Saker:
after Vatican II the Vatican very strongly toned down its previous hostility not only towards Orthodox Christians, but towards all other forms of religion?
Yes, seemingly as a ploy. But it seems no real rejection of the previous position of “Photian schismatics”, which blamed the very existence of Orthodoxy upon Patriarch Photius and falsified the history of 850 to 1400. This is sad because so much historical work from 1920 onwards by French and eastern Catholics and by Russian Orthodox emigres has clarified the real events of this time such that the truth of the Orthodox position on these events is quite apparent to any literate person.
Vatican II was, at least on a human, ethical, level a healthy rejection of the kind of totalitarian maximalism of Vatican I?
Vatican II was clearly a healthy rejection of extreme Ultramontanism and all its misinterpretations of the real structure of the Church. Christ did not create the modern centralized Roman bureaucracy when he made St. Peter the primus. But the Papal Curia right now is all that holds the Church together now precisely because previous centralizing Papal actions, anti-traditional innovations, and involvement in secular power politics since the Middle Ages have tended to sever the roots holding the common people to the Church. If it were taken away, the Church would quickly fold as all the dissenters took power and scattered the flock. The post Vatican II chaos was a small taste of what would happen if a further pull-back occurred.
would you not say that the (pre-) Tridentine “Catholicism” is much more hostile to us, Orthodox Christians, then the new, modernized one?
No. I think the hostility stems from the Roman declaration around 1730 forbidding intercommunion by the laity of Latins and Greeks, which tended to sever all low level contacts between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, especially in the Ottoman Empire. Up to that time there was a lack of overt hostility and ill will aisde from lingering bitterness over the 4th Crusade and the failure of Florence. This was also the time period when most of the modern uniate structures were formed, including the Galicians. It was also in this later period that the sort of extreme bitterness towards the Russians for failing to become uniates began under Polish and Austrian propaganda. The Catholicism of 1730-1960 was a hostile stupidity that failed to account for its own beliefs, which is why it collapsed so rapidly.
The new “dialogue of love” rubbish is actually more hostile because it hides its continuing goals behind sweet sounding words. It wishes to smother the Orthodox into union with a gloss over of doctrinal issues rather than coming to an understanding and resolution of substantive questions. This is the classic western weakness of abhoring schism before heresy, and the common illusion that heresy can be tolerated if union is maintained.
the Curia backing a modern day Pavelic for example. In the case of the Ukraine, even if there is a kind of “circling the wagons” and “right or wrong – my country” reflex about defending the Uniats, I have yet to see a senior Bishop or Cardinal endorsing Iarosh, Timoshenko or Tiagninok.
Give them time. The mindset of liberalism fits with the recent London Review of Books article “Why not kill them all?”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/keith-gessen/why-not-kill-them-all
You know what made the Church upset in Latin America? Killing Archbishop Romero, not killing his flock.
support for the local oligarchy. Would that have happened before Vatican II?
I believe that voice has been present since the time of the Conquistadors. You are asking which voice is stronger and louder.
(end 1 of 2)
part 2 of 2
So was Vatican II really that bad? Was it not, at least in part, a healthy reaction to the excesses of Vatican I?
Vatican II was a reaction not only to excessive ultra-montanism, but also a reaction to condemnations of Americanism, modernism and liberalism between 1830 and 1914. In fact, the illegitimate reaction to the latter three hijacked the reaction to papal supremacy, so the the necessary reorientation of Church power relations was clouded by the introduction of the poison of liberalism.
how your (pre) Tridentism is different from the one of the Old Catholics in Europe
The Old Catholics reject the papacy entirely and quickly united themselves with the Jansenists. They also in short order began rejecting the Catholic theological and moral order and started by communing with the Anglican Protestants and have since ordained women as priests – in other words they are trendy liberals. The Jansenists are the ecclesiastic equivalent of evangelical neoconservatives (which is why they would get along so well with a group of liberals like the Old Catholics). They are obsessed with sins against the 6th commandment, for an austere liturgy simplified of pomp, and turned St. Augustine into a totem, where dogmas and canons are interpreted via St. Augustine, rather than St. Augustine being interpreted via dogmas and canons of the Church. Not surprisingly then, the Old Catholics reject transubstantiation and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and almost anything to do with Scholasticism. The Old Catholics like to play down their Jansenist heritage, but if you read the condemnations of Pistoia in the Bull Auctorem Fidei, and the condemnations of Jansenius and Augustinus in the Bull Unigenitus, the link of heritage is clear.
Thomas:
the Unate Church (aka “greek katholic”) was set up in the 16th century by the pope
The Union of Brest in 1596 was a Polish-Lithuanian state activity to eliminte religious dissent within her boundaries, which then encompassed the lands up to Smolensk and Kiev. It took Rome 6 years (1590 to 1596) to wrap their heads around what the Poles wanted to do with the Russians in their country.
to establish the “Roman Catholic” church as the only true christian religion, and to denounce all others who claimed to be christian curches as sects or heresies
That has been going on since the beginning. Its hardly a Tridentine innovation. St. Cyprian already wrote “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salvus”.
the majoritarian orthodox regions of the Habsburg empire, Transsilvania and Galicia, in an effort to reduce the influence of the orthodox churches
You are confusing the Union of Brest in 1596 under Poland with the later Union of Lviv and Przemysl around 1730 also under Poland and the Union in Transylvania (1698) and in Transcarpathia (1646) were political acts by the Hungarian Kingdom. None of the originl Union of Brest survives. The dioceses involved in that returned to the Orthodox Church in 1839.
@Saker
Where-Wolf: Sincerely, pull me in!
No less sincerely, I try :-)
Yeah.
And you do a fine job of it too.
With great respect, I would very much like to find your source of energy. When I think of following your example wrt to a blog I am confronted with the enormity of the task. I need to work multiple jobs just to stay affloat and it’s not worth doing in a half assed way; not after seeing it done properly the way you have.
And I don’t have your patience for hard heads like me.
Andrew,
I’m not going to argue theology with you but you’d do a lot better keeping your reactionary POV relegated to that realm than trying to throw in either politics or history; as has been noted before, you don’t do too well in either of those realms. So how ’bout not muddying your religious arguments with specious, spurious and 100% inaccurate references to Liberals or Liberalism, about which you deep demonstrating you know less than nothing.
@Nora: I truth I think that Andrew uses the word “liberal” in a very different sense then you and I would. Also, I have to say that his knowledge of history and politics is nothing short of exceptional. That does not mean that I agree with his views or interpretations, but that I do see him as somebody who is knowledgeable, intelligent and who does not deliberately try to misrepresent facts, use fallacies or obfuscate.
Nowadays, most traditionalist Christians (from whatever tradition) agree that “liberalism” is bad and consider themselves as “conservatives”. I know because I also used to think that way. I have since come to the conclusion that true Christianity is neither of the Right, nor of the Left, but of the Upwards (to paraphrase Berdaev) even though on a personal level I feel infinitely closer to the folks on the hard far left then I do with conservatives most of which I cannot stomach any more (been around them for too long). Still, these categories are always misnomers and one can be liberal or conservative for the right and for the wrong reasons. Rather then separate people along the lines Left/liberal – Right/Conservative I found it more useful to differentiate between them in the categories of “truth seekers” vs “ideologues” or, even worse, lukewarm indifferent people. I call that the “extreme center” and those truly make me sick.
To paraphrase Orwell, if there is hope, it has to be with the extremists :-)
That is not to say that extremism is good, or that extremists are good. Only that extremists can be good or bad whereas lukewarm “centrists” are always and only bad. To me the labels “extremist” or “fundamentalist” are words of high praise, not insults. “Moderate” – that is a mortal insult, at least in my mind. As my wife says, “moderation” is what you want for your bowel movements :-)
Andrew is, for sure, an extremist. So are you. I respect you both for that. Disagree with him, as I often do, but don’t be too quick to judge and never underestimate him.
Right now, I am much closer to a Marxist or a hard-Left progressive, then to any variety of “conservative”. Even the word “conservative” make me fills me with disgust. But I have immense respect for quite a few conservatives (starting with Ron Paul). So how long can these words, these categories, separate us? At the very least, we should carefully define them.
I am quite sure that the kind of “liberalism” Andrew condemns is one which you would condemn too, and the one you uphold is one he might not agree with, but that he would at least respect.
Anyways, these are my two cents :-)
From your fellow Pinko-Leftie-Progressive (and yet still strict Christian traditionalist) friend,
The Saker
To Radik at 14;36
In answer to the following:
“…It is true, that the Son does not partake in the fatherhood, because he is “begotten” (generation). But he partakes in the Godhead, being equal in all else. Thats why he also partakes in the procession of the Spirit, which is not generation. If the Spirit came from the Father alone, then it would have been generation, as I explained above. ..”
I apologize for not being a theologian, as one of the anonymous admitted above, though I have read what Orthodox theologians have to say on the matter, and indeed there is a distinction to be made between generation and procession because the Spirit is described very differently from either the Father or the Son, and yet they are one God…’who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped, who spoke by the Prophets…’
‘And the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.’
To me, it has been amazing how boldly Saint John took the opening word of Genesis concerning creation and said ‘In the beginning was the Word…’ Orthodox speak this text about the Son, (in my church we have done so in all the different languages of the congregation) at Easter. And it blew my mind to consider that yes, there is the Son at the beginning of Genesis in the word of God: ‘And God said…’ If we were going to go in linear fashion, we would say that the Son came after the Spirit, but we are not going to do that. These are eternal relationships. What we can do is say each relationship with the Father is of a different kind.
I’m very happy with the distinction between the relationship of God the Father to the Holy Spirit as carefully distinguished from the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. And then also that between the Son and Spirit. The Spirit descends on Christ in the form of a dove at his baptism, remember. Who is proceeding in that case, and from whom?
It’s during the Last Supper that Christ tells the disciples not to sorrow because he will send the Comforter, and at Pentecost the Spirit descends on each of them – very different from what happened in Creation or to Isaiah in the temple. Or to Christ when he is baptized in the River Jordan. These are our Scriptural bases.
We aren’t called upon to understand – how can we? Only to recognize the mystery and the distinctions as we dimly perceive them, and adore. Three persons in one God.
And, yes, it’s a language problem – I don’t know Russian or Slavonic but I know a little Greek and a little Latin. I apologize to the Latin liturgicals, but Greek is so much finer in expression, and you really cannot ‘que’ the above glorious manifestations as those who witnessed have described them; you really can not.
Thanks for this enlightening discussion everyone. I hope I haven’t muddied the waters too much.
I think that time has come to uncovering the lies of the catholic church. René Guénon believed that the roman church (and not catholic) is the continuation of the roman imperial power, in its symbols and its geographical expansionism. The roman church is a truely western phenomenon with a pretense to world power (one of the three temptations proposed to the Christ by the devil in the desert). The roman church has broken the unity with the other oekumenical churches in the tenth century, and from that time try to restore this unity by force and by cunning.
The perfect example of the methods used by catholics to “restore the unity” of the Church when they have the power over the orthodoxs in a country, was the case of catholic Croatia during WWII. The ustasha regime of Ante Pavelic was not a fascist (statist and pagan) regime in the classic sense, but a catholic dictature in the 20th century, a catholic theocracy. From the first day of the implemnting of that state, only two choices were left to orthodox Serbs : disappear or convert. A sociological analysis of this regime has revealed that the leadership and the executers of horrible slaughters were all educated in the hate of orthodoxs in catholic colleges and were all “devout” catholics. That’s the reason why pope Pie XII praised so much the Ustashe regime and refused to condemn its crimes. They “did their job” as good catholics. The second particularity is that the most evil psychopath killers were recently converted Serbs. In psychology, it is well establish that incomplete conversion produce compensation mechanisms that express themselves in murderous zele.
The problem of Ukraine is the same. A tiny minority of 5% catholics has took all the power in Ukraine. Could the results be very different from the reign of croatian ustashas in Croatie. In the long run no, but in the short term yes. They are a minority and can’t exterminate and convert a majority of 90 % orthodoxs, while neighbouring with a great orthodox power as Russia. In the first time they have to create inimity between ukrainian orthodoxs (affiliated to the schismatic ukrainian partiarchate) and the “russian” orthodoxs (affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate). In other words devide and rule. Their hate for the moment is directed against the russian orthodoxs. This hate is very concrete and potentially genocidal (“hang the Moskals” had an equivalent in Croatie “Serbs on the willowtrees”. Then when they will solve this problem, they hope to be 20% or 30% and detain all the power (The Banderists hope to establish a military dictature)they will implement the program of catholicisation of Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalism, folklore, orthodox ritual, are only a mask of trichery. They real program is the establishment of completely unrooted, westernized latin Ukraine. That’s why catholic Europe (I think to the EPP group in the European parliament)is supporting the ukrainian project, in spite of every good sense and economic self-interest. The destruction of the russian world and implementation of a catholic dictature in Ukraine is simply a too great temptation for Europe.
I think that time has come to uncovering the lies of the catholic church. René Guénon believed that the roman church (and not catholic) is the continuation of the roman imperial power, in its symbols and its geographical expansionism. The roman church is a truely western phenomenon with a pretense to world power (one of the three temptations proposed to the Christ by the devil in the desert). The roman church has broken the unity with the other oekumenical churches in the tenth century, and from that time try to restore this unity by force and by cunning.
The perfect example of the methods used by catholics to “restore the unity” of the Church when they have the power over the orthodoxs in a country, was the case of catholic Croatia during WWII. The ustasha regime of Ante Pavelic was not a fascist (statist and pagan) regime in the classic sense, but a catholic dictature in the 20th century, a catholic theocracy. From the first day of the implemnting of that state, only two choices were left to orthodox Serbs : disappear or convert. A sociological analysis of this regime has revealed that the leadership and the executers of horrible slaughters were all educated in the hate of orthodoxs in catholic colleges and were all “devout” catholics. That’s the reason why pope Pie XII praised so much the Ustashe regime and refused to condemn its crimes. They “did their job” as good catholics. The second particularity is that the most evil psychopath killers were recently converted Serbs. In psychology, it is well establish that incomplete conversion produce compensation mechanisms that express themselves in murderous zele.
The problem of Ukraine is the same. A tiny minority of 5% catholics has took all the power in Ukraine. Could the results be very different from the reign of croatian ustashas in Croatie. In the long run no, but in the short term yes. They are a minority and can’t exterminate and convert a majority of 90 % orthodoxs, while neighbouring with a great orthodox power as Russia. In the first time they have to create inimity between ukrainian orthodoxs (affiliated to the schismatic ukrainian partiarchate) and the “russian” orthodoxs (affiliated to the Moscow patriarchate). In other words devide and rule. Their hate for the moment is directed against the russian orthodoxs. This hate is very concrete and potentially genocidal (“hang the Moskals” had an equivalent in Croatie “Serbs on the willowtrees”. Then when they will solve this problem, they hope to be 20% or 30% and detain all the power (The Banderists hope to establish a military dictature)they will implement the program of catholicisation of Ukraine. Ukrainian nationalism, folklore, orthodox ritual, are only a mask of trichery. They real program is the establishment of completely unrooted, westernized latin Ukraine. That’s why catholic Europe (I think to the EPP group in the European parliament)is supporting the ukrainian project, in spite of every good sense and economic self-interest. The destruction of the russian world and implementation of a catholic dictature in Ukraine is simply a too great temptation for Europe.
@ anon 21:29 – “The ideals of communism are not different from the ideals of christianity.”
You should consider completely wiping your current stance and begin anew with both the bible and communism.
True christian values as taught by Jesus are the exact opposite of any form of collectivism and thus a deadly enemy of both communism and fascism (which are only superficially different anyway).
Proof being that religion was either forbiodden or viewed with scorn in every single communist country ever. A christian can not and will never be able to accept the communist dictate and the loss of individuality and freedem involved.
Wake up. Communism is a scam, always was, always will be. Communism is just fascism in disguise.
Holy Quran: Chapter 6, verse 103
No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is above all comprehension, yet it acquainted with all things
The Hindus started with One God, moved to Three Gods and in the end winded up with umpteen Gods.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Nora:
Liberalism is a specific (and condemned) theological phenomena that also manifests itself in the political and economic sphere.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholicism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirari_vos
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singulari_nos
Please read up on this topic with these leads if you would like to know more. I won’t further dignify your personal attacks on me with a resposne and I refuse to be drawn into a contest of ad hominems with you.
Noun: person (people,persons)
1. A human being
2. A human body (usually including the clothing)
3. A grammatical category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or a third party
individual
mortal
somebody
someone
soul
Holy Quran: Chapter 42, verse 11
[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the all Hearing, the all Seeing.
As juliania said, “Thanks for this enlightening discussion everyone. I hope I haven’t muddied the waters too much.”
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Saker:
Nowadays, most traditionalist Christians (from whatever tradition) agree that “liberalism” is bad and consider themselves as “conservatives”.
I think it is a sign of a fall from grace that a religion shatters into “liberal”, “conservative” and “traditional” wings (and more – “reform”, “renewal”, etc.). See, for example, Judaism, most Protestant sects, or Catholicism of the past 250 years. I would imagine you see similar signs developing among the Orthodox in the past 90 years with the calendar controversy and similar issues.
As can be seen also in the political sphere, “conservatives” are simply the opposite tack of “liberals” – really both aim in the same direction and achieve the same results – the difference is a matter of the speed of disruption. I do not view these labels as truly distinctive, and the ability of the same people to serve “liberal” and “conservative” political administrations without any heartburn shows there is no real difference.
I also reject the description of being a traditionalist, because that implies wanting to retain or go back to a mythical past riddled with problems just like today. So I am not a monarchist or a counter-reformation ideologue either. We go forward with time. What is important is to learn from the past and make the right future choices to head in the correct direction – not to turn around and attempt to go backwards. And in fact, it is not possible to go back to a prior fork in the road and turn down it when you realize a mistake was made in a previous choice. You can only try out a new fork and hopefully rejoin that way via another route.
I know because I also used to think that way. I have since come to the conclusion that true Christianity is neither of the Right, nor of the Left, but of the Upwards (to paraphrase Berdaev)
I refuse to adopt a political label to my religious beliefs. I am just a Catholic. True religion does not have factions and parties and although I recognize that many other people may want to place themselves in these camps who are within my Church, for me personally, I treat all of them as my borthers and sisters and leave it to God and the heirarchy to sort out their errors.
even though on a personal level I feel infinitely closer to the folks on the hard far left then I do with conservatives most of which I cannot stomach any more (been around them for too long).
I feel exactly the same. I prefer either hard communists or reactionaries to any sort of “conservative” and especially to any “liberal”.
Andrew is, for sure, an extremist.
The alternative is to be mushy milquetoast. And what does Christ say of the lukewarm to the Church of Laodicea in Revelation? “… you are lukewarm and are neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit you out of my mouth.”
Radik:
As a starter, I would reccomend John Meyendorff’s books as they are written in an easily accesisble style. Possibly Saker may wish to add to this.
A Study of Gregory Palamas
http://www.amazon.com/Study-Gregory-Palamas-John-Meyendorff/dp/0913836141
St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0913836117/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0913836141&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1DYC8JH7FJT7X6CPGQX9
I would like to note that the Catholic Church accepts St. Gregory Palamas as a saint as he is commemorated publicly by the uniate bodies.
You might also want to read this and then investigate further.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2005/03/03/st-gregory-palamas-and-his-importance-on-the-issue-of-the-filioque/
Andrew, in case folk don’t go to the last link you provided, here is a quote from that link which states in theological terms the distinctions I was trying to make (clumsily I admit) from Scripture, and let us remember that all theology has to conform to the four evangelical Gospels, and that rule was established from the first Ecumenical Councils onward. It is always with respect to conforming to those eyewitness accounts that theological reasoning takes place, by inference from the given axioms of faith. “We have this, so we may deduce that.”
“From my reading of the Fathers and from Orthodox and Catholic theologians, particularly Fr. Vladimir Lossky who seems the clearest on this issue, I have outlined what I think are 3 types of processions of the Spirit:
1) hypostatic existence: from the Father alone. εκπορεύεσθαι is the term that denotes origin of the Spirit. This was St. Photius concern and correct assessment, and this is the term used in the Nicene Creed.
2) eternal energetic procession (eternal manifestation): from the Father through the Son.
This one denotes the common substance or ουσία (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or υπόστασις (hypostasis) receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς (ousiwdws) that is, with regard to the one ουσία (ousia) common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία (ousia), but not of υπόστασις (hypostasis). We could also think of this one in terms of perichoresis.
The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son.–St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters, 36 (PG 150:1144D-1145A).
3) economic energetic procession: from the Father through the Son. This one denotes the same as the above but in acts of creation or sending a divine Person in time.”
********
I very much recommend an amusing little book called “Flatland” about dwellers in two dimensional space being visited by a three dimensional sphere. The two dimensional chap has difficulty describing the sphere, which to his ‘eyes’ appears as an ever shrinking or expanding circle. In some sense, we are that individual as we attempt to describe God.
I too enjoy Lossky, though, as he talks about vision of God rather than knowledge of God. The famous writings of Church fathers are called “Philokalia”, “Love of Beauty”, rather than “Philosophy”, “Love of Wisdom.” I think that’s at the heart of the matter. And personally with respect to the Creed, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’
@Andrew: Thank you for the material. Very interesting.
@juliana: This quote is good. Nice analogy.
—
I am quite surprised how close my last comment is to what is in Andrews last link. But I notice that my wording is not everwhery very precise.
Gives me really alot to think about.
I still suspect that the only difference between eastern and western teaching is in wording only, not in substance.
I think Thomas Aquinas’ Study “Contra Errores Grecorum” is highly relevant here. In this study he defends the teachings of the Greek Fathers against misunderstandings, and explains how these misunderstandings can come about.
It is very good exegesis of some passages in the writings of the greek Fathers:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Are they three equal Gods, or one of them is Higher than Another?
What I get the impression from reading the above, that there are not equal Gods.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
I am a new but regular reader of this excellent blog, and I link to it on my own little blog. I find much of what I read here of inestimable value. But I am frankly appalled by what I have read here, especially in the comments, and I can only marvel that both the Orthodox and the Catholics should be fighting each other here in view of the fact that they face a common enemy, which Saker has succinctly termed “Anglozionism”.
It sickens me to see my fellow Catholics in the Ukraine continue to harbor an almost irrational hatred of Russia, forgetting that the monsters who starved to death their countrymen in the Ukraine in the 1930s were the direct ancestors of those who are plotting their (and Russia’s) destruction right now. Their continuation of this old hatred is not Catholic.
And I am equally appalled by the irrational hatreds of some of those who have spewed ridiculous anti-Catholic legends and propaganda all in the name of defending Orthodoxy. The arrogance and hypocrisy is very sad to see.
The truth is we are both being played like fiddles by the
“anglo-zionists” whose strategy of divide-and-conquer could not be more obvious here. Orthodox and Catholics should be natural allies in this fight and yet we have both let our enemies divide us so as to prevent us from being an effective untied force. All wars are religious and the enemy knows this well, and that is why he wants to keep this thousand-tear-old schism alive and seething with hatred. And we are dancing to his tune every time we discuss theological points we are not competent to discuss or bring up old stories of violence committed by sinful men on BOTH sides. We should be ashamed of ourselves fighting like this while our beloved Russia is under attack by the real enemies. I will tell you something that perhaps you did not know: the number one enemy of Catholics is not the Orthodox; the number one enemy is, and always was, the enemy that rejected Christ on His cross 2,000 years ago, the enemy that has refused Baptism and has attacked the Catholics (and the Orthodox) with the powerful tools they have: finance, media, influence, fear. The descendants of these men are now running the anglo-zionist show here and now.
(End of Part One)
(Part Two)
As a Catholic I have a great respect and love for Russia, and I think I can see that that attitude is shared by some of the Catholics who have commented here. They have done so calmly and with understanding, unlike some of the venom coming from the non-Catholics I see here. That alone should tell us something. I and many other Catholics share the view of Father Adrian Fortescue who wrote in his book “The Uniate Christian Churches” the following: “We have no more right to think less of them than they have to despise us. This has always been most clearly the attitude of the Holy See, best summed up in the immortal words of Benedict XIV: ‘Eastern Christians should be Catholics; they have no need to become Latins.’ For our Lord gave his followers most explicit commands that they should belong to the one Catholic Church he founded; He never commanded them all to say their prayers in Latin or to use the Roman rite.”
That is the Catholic position which, while firm in its declaration is nevertheless kind and understanding of our Eastern Orthodox brothers. If individual Catholics don’t live up to that it is their fault, not the Church’s.
A week and a half ago there was a Conference for Large Families held in Moscow. Most of the participants were Catholics who came from all over the world to Russia because they sensed a kindred spirit, a people who shared their concerns. Many Orthodox were also there and representatives of the government offered their kind wishes. This was a near-momentous event and one that illustrated precisely what I am getting at: co-operation in the face of a common enemy.
So let us be together in this fight against a common enemy. Let us pray that we we can at least work together, for the enemies that our now encircling Russia, bombing Syria, supporting the murderers of the innocent in Gaza and elsewhere are the same enemies who are cleverly stirring up religious hatreds. They are clever men, and uniquely evil. Let us not give them any more ammunition with which to murder us.
Thank you for reading this long comment