Because the Bishop of Rome (Pope) in the original Church structure was the ‘First Amongst Equals’. Even today the Orthodox regard the Bishop of Rome as such but also a ‘schismatic’ in error. The problem arose when the Byzantines wanted equal recognition for the Patriarch of Constantinople and eventually small petty differences like the ‘Filoque’ led to the schism of 1054 but still a line of mutual respect was provided given they were the first two branches of one body for nearly a thousand years. However, even when Constantinople fell to the Mohammedan hordes in 1453, the Pope urged a call to retake the city. We are in essence the same Church, but just separated with mutual respect. The kiss on the hand is to indicate the Pope’s original primacy amongst all the Bishops, however the Pope recognises his primacy as supremacy over all of Christendom.

On the other hand the Orthodox Churches in places like Serbia and Russia are becoming more and more instruments of the state for mass propaganda and cohesion among ethnic lines with a strong aversion to outsiders. I’ve never known the Orthodox to want to spread the Gospels among the nations, they seem to think that it’s something ‘special’ for Eastern Europeans. There’s also a benefit to being stubborn, you insulate yourself from modernism and heresies. The Catholic Church has done the best it can to prevent this, but I must admit, not as strong, contributing to a much weaker Christian theology. Catholicism is a step from nationalism while Orthodoxy especially the Russian variant is irrevocably a step toward nationalism.

In no way would Orthodox Christians from Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and many of the darker skinned nations survive in Russia, based on Orthodox Communion alone. By the way, I’m an Anglican fleeing the many heresies of that Church, most notably homosexual marriage, and the ordination of women and homosexuals into the Priesthood. If I had to make a decision based on theology alone, it would be Orthodoxy, if I had to base it on spirituality, it would be split and if I had to base it on transcendence of nation, race and all that’s material… it would be Roman Catholicism.

Friend, at every turn, the West battles against the Orthodox peoples: Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Caucasus, Croatia, Ukraine, Baltic countries, Middle East etc. etc. etc. Soon there will be no Christians left in the Middle East, thanks to your greed and lust. Russian “aggression” is nothing compared to the West’s wars. Russian oligarchs and mafia bad? Yes! But they all given asylum in the West in order to battle Russia. Why? Communism bad? Yes, mostly, but the truth is that Russian guts also won WWII. Yes Russia made mistakes, but a world without an independent Russian voice is an even bleaker prospect, given that the West are behaving as blindly and recklessly as drunken sailors. The world needs Eurasia, a spiritually renewed one. And having learned from its past errors, it may well be such.

L.

“Eurasians” are the only ones who bought communism. And have not apologized for it yet, much less held any kind of Nuremberg to duely punish people who like Putin and Dugin were accomplices of the most genocidical empire on Earth. “Eurasians” have the most widespread disonformation institution in the world FSB/KGB. No intelligence service in the world has a ratio to civil citizen like that of FSB. Russia has done her lot of aggression too in their neighboring countries and around the world, with the difference that the intolerance for criticism is so far greater that the only russians and victims that could protest against it were those in the West.

There is no innocent civilization in the world, but for the bad the West has done like every other civilization, it’s distinctive redeeming attribute is its capacity of self-criticism, of repenting from past mistakes and improving in time. You can even say that the West has made the sacrament of Confession an inherent part of its culture – and it is the only civilization that has done so. That demands a certain level of freedom of speech – never perfect, true, but still far greater than in any Asian or Slavic country. This is not say that the West is perfect. Theologically, it is heretical, but *nobody* is perfect. The heretical West neve adopted communism. The heretical West produced the United States of America, a young country which became an inspiration of freedom and liberty for all the world, a military potency which defeated the greatest empire of its time to get independent, emerged victorious from World War II and, having the opportunity to conquer by military and economic power all Europe and Japan, being the sole country with an atomic bomb, not only did not do that, but helped those countries get back on their feet again. During this time Russia was persecuting the Church and spreading communism around the world through military power and disinformation.

So, stop being dichotomic about this. Both West and Russia have made big-time mistakes. Yet, at this time in history the West has the advantage because it built a tribunal to punish many of the people responsible for Nazism. Where is the Nuremberg of Communism? If Russia wants to become “Holy Russia” again, it will have to persecute, imprison and punish the previously communist leadership, the mafia leaders, the KGB torturers and strategist of disinformation. It will have to make public *in English* all the documents about infiltrations in Western countries during the Cold War.

Until then, Eurasianism is just same-old, same-old about the worst there is in Russia. And the Holy Church is not part of that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regarding Papism and ethnofilitism – they may have been the same during the Frankish/French dominion of the Rome the Church. But it developed into another thing entirely. Educated Catholics see their affiliation to the Church as something above their ethnic identities. I’m not sure if it was Chesterton who said it, but whoeve it was, felt that their Catholicity was a healthy refreshment and vacation from his national identity.

The Tutsis and the Hutus must’ve not gotten the memo. Perhaps what Chesterton thought was Catholicism was just Europeanism. And no doubt one teeming with plenty of what you describe as a “deluded sense of self-importance.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Regarding Eurasianism – It is far worse than Europeanism. It’s not only a delluded sense of self-importance. There are clear references to the nedd to destroy the West. One may feel it’s just a hyperbole, like we did with the promises of all utopian dictators of the 20th century. I don’t. I think it is literall and they mean it. Not mere “cultural” destruction -as if this was not much – but real, actual physical destruction by means of war and territorial conquest. The fact that it is unfeasible and unsustainable is not the matter. You’ve got to be crazy to think you can kill all the jews in the world or enslave all the blacks. But there was no lack of tries in that, and it’s the genocide in the trying that worries me.

You invoke all the bogey-men: “they want to destroy us”–culturally, physically, territorially; they want to enslave the Blacks; they want to kill the Jews; Genocide. Well played. But the truth is that this litany of ills you enumerate could probably be laid at the feet of the West rather than the Eurasians. Enslaving Blacks (and Slavs), putting Jews (along with Slavs) in ovens–no, they’re Western pastimes. Even today, it is the West launching war after war, robbing the world with an evil monetary/banking system, circling nations with bases and missile facilities, fostering various insurgencies etc. etc.. Yet you accuse the…Eurasians? Orwellian much?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Russian Orthodox Church is certainly not an accomplice of Eurasianism. But what I was trying to say is that Eurasianists would like to instrumentalize her. The Russian hierarchy will have to be very intelligent, even “shrewd as the serpents” (S. Mat. 10:16) to avoid letting ideological movements like these to use the Church.

The last twenty years have shown that the world needs a solid multi-polarity, and in this quest Eurasianism is a must. Papism and its unipolar-minded spawn is a vicious heresy. Orthodoxy, for all its dysfunctions, has it right, because it is what Christ gave us.

Regarding Papism and ethnofilitism – they may have been the same during the Frankish/French dominion of the Rome the Church. But it developed into another thing entirely. Educated Catholics see their affiliation to the Church as something above their ethnic identities. I’m not sure if it was Chesterton who said it, but whoeve it was, felt that their Catholicity was a healthy refreshment and vacation from his national identity.

Regarding Eurasianism – It is far worse than Europeanism. It’s not only a delluded sense of self-importance. There are clear references to the nedd to destroy the West. One may feel it’s just a hyperbole, like we did with the promises of all utopian dictators of the 20th century. I don’t. I think it is literall and they mean it. Not mere “cultural” destruction -as if this was not much – but real, actual physical destruction by means of war and territorial conquest. The fact that it is unfeasible and unsustainable is not the matter. You’ve got to be crazy to think you can kill all the jews in the world or enslave all the blacks. But there was no lack of tries in that, and it’s the genocide in the trying that worries me.

The Russian Orthodox Church is certainly not an accomplice of Eurasianism. But what I was trying to say is that Eurasianists would like to instrumentalize her. The Russian hierarchy will have to be very intelligent, even “shrewd as the serpents” (S. Mat. 10:16) to avoid letting ideological movements like these to use the Church.

Really? “Submitting,” no less? You’re so sure about that?

Maybe I am just blind, but I don’t think the Russian Church is being instrumentalized to do anything of the sort. If anything, of all the local Orthodox Churches, the Moscow Patriarchate is the least guilty of ethnophyletism. Also, as an idea, Eurasianism is no worse than Europeanism, and to call it “extremist right-wing slavo-fascism” is as unfair as calling “the West” a Carolingo-Nazistic Reich 4.0. It is simply a theory of organization of a historically and culturally peculiar space that stays true to a string of historical antecedents in the region. Yes, people like Dugin might understand land-based Eurasianism as almost metaphysically necessary (land v. sea) to counter the “sea-culture” of Anglo-Saxonism, but again even this is just a meta-theory giving meaning to the fact of a historic continuum of Eurasian power dating back to medieval times. Also, I notice you present Papal Infallibility/Filioquism as an antipode to Ethnophyletism. Interesting. No possibility they’re the same thing?

If the Church were instrumentalized to put forward a national ideology – even if it’s one of the European nationalities, even if it were American or Brazilian – than it is phyletism.

To use it to give credibility to the revolutionary mentality that created Bolshevism, only with the inverted signal of an extremist right-wing slavo-fascist group just makes it worse.

It’s a lot like how different religious organizations in the US might come together when, say, a court case that would severely restrict religious freedom works it way to the Supreme Court. You end up working with people that you otherwise would have little in common with. But sometimes you need to work together and it is appropriate that you do.

Hi. Why is Eurasianism phyletism? Is Europeanism phyletism?

It is getting increasingly difficult for me to understand how any such a coalition would help. It is not just past errors but also many abuse scandals still raging. Who would be impressed by such a coalition … Muslim fanatics or secular organization? I doubt it. It would be more beneficial to distant ourselves from their errors and avoid bringing about more confusion. I am having a hard time trying to understand why Moscow Patriarchate clergy kiss the Pope’s hand.

The bitterness toward Rome is unwise and possibly harmful, given the common and deadly threats we face. We can have a collegial relationship without accepting dogmas with which we disagree. We can love those who love Christ, accept the Holy Trinity and the proper view of the Sacrament, and not let past poison the future. Whatever happened to forgiving 70 x 7?

Careful here Alexis. The Orthodox history has it’s share of disputes too. People were lost during the Arian controversy even after it was settled (some historians argue the lands that remained Arian tilled the soil for Muhammad). Then there is the Chalcedonian schism which is still with us to this day. I am not making a back-handed defense of Rome here. I am saying that the problems you attribute to Rome have been with the Orthodox too. We deal with them, but not perfectly. OTOH, you could also argue that the Protestant problem, at least from Rome’s POV, is resolving itself as a lot of Protestants return to Rome.

Again, not making a defense of Catholicism here, only point out Orthodox history is messy too in places.