I applaud what Putin has done. It would be wrong however to blame “democracy” for the collapse of Christendom in the West. I believe that the Reformation had started the undermining of Christianity in the West even before the Enlightenment. It’s rationalism that led to the Reformation IMO and it was rationalism that foisted the “higher criticism” of Scripture on the Protestant seminaries going on 300 years now.

Correction, in my post 11.1.1 above, the events I referred to were in 1917 rather than 1918. Also, by the Western calendar, the two revolutions occured in March and November, respectively.

It might be more accurate to say that the Russian Orthodox Church has a better chance of christianizing Russia than any church does of christianizing America or the West, but not in ways that democrats [small ‘d’} would approve. If change means “democratization”, then I pray God it does not take hold there.

Because of the fact that Russia has, practically speaking, a more authoritarian government, there is greater potential for the Church to influence the culture through that government. Those who deplore the disadvantages that Catholic and Protestant churches encounter in Russia are simply transposing the Amerian model of the religious marketplace on Russia. This is not an Orthodox idea but a late product of the “Enlightenment”. If truth is truth then there need be no marketplace. If man is the measure of all things, then all ideas are equal, to be judged by the masses. “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”.

Orthodoxy has been taught in public schools for some time now. Because of the population problem, abortion is beginning to be discouraged by government health professionals.

Fr. Jacobse is right about the communist takeover of Russia. There were two revolutions in 1918. One in February which installed a provisional government run be people we might call “social democrats”. The Bolsheviks, after a short period, endorsed this government at the same time they worked to undermine it. These “social democrats” were indecisive and weak and refused to suppress the Bolsheviks. At one point, they even armed the Bolsheviks to assist against a possible Royalist resurgency. Lenin’s party, of course, never returned the arms to the government.

Later, in October, the Bolsheviks seized power. An election had already been scheduled though. So after the election was over and the new Duma first met in November, after a couple of days Lenin sent in troops to dissolve it since he thought it was not going to recognize the authority of the communist party. For several months in 1918, Russia was one of the most free states in Europe.

Putin has ruled more wisely than many Orthodox rulers through history. The fact that he isn’t really a democrat isn’t something I hold against him. Look how moral democracy has made America and Western Europe. Democracy isn’t the test.

“Moscow, February 2, Interfax – For the recent year, the Moscow Patriarchate has opened 900 new parishes, while total number of clerics has grown for more than 1,5 thousand people.

Patriarch Kirill voiced the statistical data on the Russian Orthodox Church on Tuesday at a Bishops’ Meeting in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Today the Russian Church has 30 142 parishes (in December 2008 their number equaled to 29 263), 160 dioceses (compared to 157 last year), 207 bishops (compared to 203), total number of clerics is 32 266 people (compared to 30 670.)

When the 1000th anniversary of Russia’s Baptism was celebrated in 1988, the Moscow Patriarchate had 6893 parishes, 76 dioceses, 74 hierarchs and total number of clerics made 7397 people. ”

Much of this was done with the assistance of Putin. The government has restored many confiscated churches and assisted in any number of other ways.

I’m not sure that a Russian EP would change things much: after all, as Patriarch he would be no doubt taken by being THE successor of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Photius, etc. which would counterbalance nationalist tendencies. In the previous centuries, the Russians supported Photios of Jerusalem as Pope of Alexandria: Egypt was the protectorate of Britain (and hence Russia had no interests there), and promoting him there would get him, one of the most virolent Phanariots, out of their hair in Palestine and Syria. The Phanar was delighted to have its own promoted to the second see, but soon learned to regret it. Pope Photios forbade the EP from having a legate set foot in Egypt, and when it was pointed out that Alexandria depended on C’pole for her bishops, Photios revived the Holy Synod, and Alexandria has been independent de facto as de jure ever since.

Which may segway into the issue of Orthodox politics this century. Alexandria is a wild card: it is the only place free (including the Mother Churches) of jurisdictional problems, and that throughout a whole continent, where Orthodoxy and Christianity are spreading: Muslim clerics wail on al-Jazeerah that millions of Muslims are converting. If the reunion with the Oriental Orthodox comes to pass, it will go overnight to be one of the largest Orthodox Churches, with world wide jurisdictions (the Copts are on every continent now), and with the view that Ethiopia and Eritrea Oriental Orhtodox look to Alexandria, and the EO there are under Alexandria, and given the demographics of the continent, Alexandria would even rival Russia, particularly if Ukraine becomes Autocephalous, and particularly if Greece’s control of Alexandria lessens. Or rather, native control comes to power. I do not think Alexandria will be able to or inclined to take Russia on, but it will change the Orthodox landscape, in particular in Orthodoxy in the Third World.

Before any of that, there will be the issue of Ukraine, which should (I believe) and will become Autocephalous. In time, hopefully, there will develop the same relationship with Moscow as between CoG and C’ple. That will be a loss for Russia, but by no means a fatal or even crippling blow. There is no chance Urkaine will go under C’ple. The question is what happends with the Ukrainians in their diaspora with an autocephalous Ukraine:my guess Kiev, or the local Orthodox authority, perhaps in that order.

Tha era of colonialism will end, and with it C’ple’s means to play Vatican. North America and perhaps Austrialia/NZ will become autocephalous, South America and Western Europe at least autonomous. If the OO and EO reunite, India will have her own Church. China is difficult to ascertain.

I’ll go out on a limb and bring up the issue of the Muslim World: despite lethal persecusion, the Church and other Christians are spreading. Once the Islamists have spent themselves (and I don’t think the rise of Eurabia is going to prevent that), there is going to be vacuum.

In the context of all that, the issue of a Russian EP becomes less of an issue. The big question is what happens after the present EP, who I expect to last another decade. If he lasts that long or longer, I think the Turks will have no choice but to allow a successor: the dynamics will have created a vested interest by World Orthodoxy. Vs. Islamism and Secularism, I think Moscow is going to join forces with the Vatican, although she is not going to submit to Ecumenism. In that context, the Orthodox led by Russia will depend on the prestige on the continued existence of the ancient patriarchates to bolster our claims (Alexandria, in any case, will be viable, as will Antioch but less so. Jerusalem is going to be viable but divided: conversions among the Jews have now created a Hebrew majority, Jordan is still viable, and then there’s the Russian presence). The EP will go back to what he was in the first millenium, with Russia and perhaps Alexandria leading the other Churches in enforcing conciliarity.

One thing that the Russian colony is going to do is make the Church viable in Turkey. And conversions among the Turks are small but steady.

Cynthia

Given the recent experience in Washington, maybe we should be worrying about whether the church can change the course of history in THIS country.

Just a thought, provoked by your comment….and Isa’s.

Best Regards,
Dean

Hi Isa,

As usual, your perspective is genius.

That’s quite an interesting way to look at it, that “things are returning to what they were in the Orthodox World in 1914.” Had honestly never thought about it that way.

But it makes all the sense in the world, as does your conclusion that Moscow will be setting the agenda. You are right on the mark with that one, for sure.

Let me think more about what the other implies…I’m sure it will be more than currently meets the eye.

Best Regards
Dean

Isa, I think you’re right. The center of gravity has definitely switched to Moscow. Certainly a case could be made that from 1918 to the present, C’pole has been in a twilight period enchanted by novel teachings, egged on by a quasi-papalist envy. As such, this shift to Moscow should be welcomed.

Let me go out on a limb here. Tell me what you think: Although I do not look for the MP to arrogate the title of EP to itself, I don’t think it has to. I fully believe that within this century, the see of C’pole will be occupied by ethnic Russians. That’s one reason for Moscow to let it stay there.

Things are returning to what they were in the Orthodox World in 1914, except Constantinople no longer has a large base to play from.

For a varieity of reasons I do not think the Patriarchate of Moscow will supplant the EP. For one thing, his Church is too big-bigger than the rest combined-to make the other local Churches comfortable.

Moscow will, however, be setting the agenda this century.

Hi Isa,

I’m just curious about your “take” on what’s going on here?

I just can’t see what is motivating all of this (i.e. the sudden jump to warp speed in the Inter Orthodox Preparatory talks, this visit, Patriarch Kyrill’s visit to Istanbul).

The closest thing I’ve read is this article, which comes from an unlikely source – which i posted on the St Andrew House Forum:

http://members5.boardhost.com/STANDREWHOUSE/msg/1264134428.html

Hope all is well with you.

Best Regards,
Dean

Of course, Istanbul plays the same double-game today, trying to have it both ways. And since clearly un-Christlike behavior, it will fail.

IMO if current trends hold we will see an official Orthodox Church and an authentic one which will be labeled schismatic and uncanonical by the official Church. The authentic Church will be small, widely dispersed, poor and invisible on the political stage. It will not be within any of the current ‘jurisdictions’.

I have to say that this is more than a mere opinion, it is what has been foretold by the Holy Fathers.

Those very few preserved by God through the atheist/communist madness wrote about what we are to expect.

From Great Anthony and contemporary ecumenism:

(Saint Anthony) interrupted twice his lengthy absence from the world, in order to struggle for and contribute in the rescue of Orthodoxy, which as now, so was then, in peril from both external and more so from internal enemies. Christianity was never present in conversations and negotiations “on equal terms” with the other religions, […] but as the sole truth, the only way to salvation, the true light which replaced not the weaker lights but the darkness of fallacy and ignorance of God.

Today, Orthodoxy appear to be at peril mainly due to internal enemies. I am not talking only about evil-intended enemies. The most corrosive factor is the worldliness and the ignorance of some of those in charge (perhaps specially appointed there).