--- In email@example.com
, Aleksandr Andreev
> Mr. Woodson writes:
> "Don't worry Peter, Viatch et al. see protestants everywhere because
> they look through Roman eyes at the world, peering out from the
> familiar lenses of the Moscow Patriarchate."
> On this issue, I side with A. S. Khomiakov, who held that Roman
> Catholicism and Protestantism, from the standpoint of Orthodoxy, are
> really one and the same. Both constitute a replacement of the catholic
> infallibility of the Church with the infallibility of an individual,
> either the Pope of Rome or the Protestant with his Bible.
And yet, the above view of Khomiakov puts a few billion people in the
same mold, and substitutes God's insights into the heart with a
convenient differentiating mode of thought that borders on
self-justification and self-highlighting. By wishing to be higher
than the protestants and Catholics, one becomes both spiritually,
while excluding oneself dogmatically and theoretically. That's the
point of joining in an argument dialogue on the matter -- using
polemics much as theologians employed by Rome did to prove Rome correct.
The protestant phenomenon in 15th century Europe and following reacted
to the establishment of not only "infallibility" on moral issues, but
worse, "Supremacy" and the Magisterium in Rome. Dominance and
Legalism ruled Rome and this led to violence and the mark of Cain by
order of the dark age Popes, followed by dark "giving over" to
unspeakable sins. The whole mess begins with the grasp for more and
more power and influence, and with the desire to maintain control
rather than defend freedom. Where that grasping exists, you can bet
that trouble is close behind.
> In this sense, I do not think it's fair to accuse "Viatch et al.", to
> whomever that reference was intended to apply, of "look[ing] through
> Roman eyes at the world." After all, "Viatch et al." are simply siding
> with the catholic decision of the Church, expressed by her first in a
> council of her members in San Francisco, then by her bishops in New
. . . who are as we speak awakening to the wool pulled over their eyes
by the MP during this process.
If the events of San Francisco were "simple" there would not be
delegates who are crying foul that their votes were not correctly
represented. And, if the decision were Catholic, we wouldn't be
having this conversation about a very real rift in belief about the
wisdom of lifting the suspension on communion. Unlike the serial
mischaracterizations made here by some, all that many people opposed
ask is that the ROCA *wait* a while until the MP leadership has
changed over. Patience is a virtue in situations like this that call
The entire Church is not the ROCA nor even the Russian Orthodox
Church, and to speak of Catholicicity is premature within one
"jursidiction." The Creed clearly contemplates an Orthodox Church
well beyond Russia, and the Holy Scripture does not require that
ethnicity be associated with it, rather it eschews it.
> On the other hand, without attaching epithets to anyone, I think we can
> conclude that certain individuals on this list are placing their own
> personal infallibility over the catholic decision of the Church.
See above on that one, oh spokeman for the Catholic.
> Then, Mr. Woodson writes:
> "The MP's worldwide political competition with Rome is in full swing,
> ... [the MP] winning pride of place as Rome faces mounting problems of
> influence worldwide."
> I refer Mssrs. Woodson at al. to the following text posted on the MP's
> website, and ask: who, in this instance, is having "Roman pretensions"
> and who is trying to counteract them?
Pretensions? Counteract? Neither. See "political competition" above.
> Aleksandr Andreev
> Duke University