“Whether our Russian brothers like it or not, sooner or later, they
will follow the decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarch, because they
have no other choice.”
Bartholomew I
Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and New Rome
Source
The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
3 hours ago
3 comments:
Was Solovyev, then, a prophet?:
"It is obvious that there are questions on which the Russian Church could and ought to negotiate with the Mother See, and if these questions are carefully avoided it is because it is a foregone conclusion that a clear formulation of them would only end in a formal schism. The jealous hatred of the Greeks for the Russians, to which the latter reply with a hostility mingled with contempt — that is the fact which governs the real relations of these two national Churches, in spite of their being officially in communion with one another. But even this official unity hangs upon a single hair, and all the diplomacy of the clergy of St. Petersburg and Constantinople is needed to prevent the snapping of this slender thread. The will to maintain this counterfeit unity is decidedly not inspired by Christian charity, but by the dread of a fatal disclosure; for on the day on which the Russian and Greek Churches formally break with one another the whole world will see that the Ecumenical Eastern Church is a mere fiction and that there exists in the East nothing but isolated national Churches. That is the real motive which impels our hierarchy to (p. 69) adopt an attitude of caution and moderation towards the Greeks, in other words, to avoid any kind of dealings with them. As for the Church of Constantinople, which in its arrogant provincialism assumes the title of “the Great Church” and 'the Œcumenical Church,' it would probably be glad to be rid of these Northern barbarians who are only a hindrance to its Pan-Hellenic aims. In recent times, the patriarchate of Constantinople has been twice on the point of anathematizing the Russian Church; only purely material considerations have prevented a split." (p. 70)
Vladimir Solovyev, *Russia and the Universal Church,* trans. Herbert Rees (London, 1948: Geoffrey Bles), pp. 69-70.
What Solovyev did not foresee was that by the time Moscow and Constantinople split, Rome would itself be in an extremely unattractive mess of its own making. Solovyev's idea that Moscow and Constantinople's split would somehow make Rome's claims more attractive has proven a sham.
Today Roman 'unity' is itself a counterfeit unity: liberals, conservatives and traditionalists all holding to different religions under a sham external unity.
Unfortunate, Mr. Tighe, that you gloss over that completely.
I take great stock in fishwives tales and hoary proverbs. "Pride goeth before a fall" comes to the fore as this travesty unfolds.
Specifically, I predict this (and what is the point of writing if not to prognosticate?): there is no there, there, when one considers the EP. It is the greatest Potemkin village ever created (and if that doesn't show that God has a sense of humor, what does?).
No more than 5000 people constitute the Church in Constantinople, ie faithful who live in and around Instanbul and might attend services. It too is subject to the immutable law of demographics is destiny. It will fall hardest and swiftest, as its overreach is so much greater.
Post a Comment