Kabane the Christian (Ortho) against Catholicism

It's not just since the last century. Tons of Orthodox hierarchs and theologians have taken onto the frankly Protestant notion that the Church is a confederation of independant churches, with unity being found solely in the common confession of faith, since the 19th century, essentially as an overcompensating response to Vatican I and the ultramontanism that preceded it.
Up to that point we still find the "mitigated papalism" that Kabane speaks of, however, and Constantinople is trying to re-appropriate this theology, but pretty much every other church has a problem with that, although Moscow especially so. The recent despotic and frankly not canonical moves of the Phanar really do not help the situation, particularly when added onto the mess that was the Council of Crete of 2016.

Anyway… Is no Catholic going to comment on Kabane's video?

I appreciate the insight. I'm just now learning about EO and I'm still on the side of the Papacy, but I'd like to learn more.

What did Dyer do to be a meme theologian on the level of HFM? The guy is a self-confessed layman and half of the time just talks about movies.

If everything was supposed to be so unified, then you wouldn't actually see any old traditions among different Orthodox - but they exist. And these traditions existed long before just this last century. It's not a new trend. There's a lot of little traditions that are peculiar to one (or just some) regions, but others aren't bound to do. There are different liturgies going back over a thousand years, different prayer books/rules, different hymns and chanting styles, different icon styles, different biblical canons, different beliefs on the details of the afterlife (i.e. toll booths), there's people jumping into cold water on Epiphany in some places, but not having the same tradition in another. The only centralized rule is the Ecumenical Councils, and that isn't the same as a Vatican and all of it's trappings. The difference being that Councils don't explicitly make a rule about every single thing under heaven.

This idea of unifying everything is purely just a Roman thing, from what I can tell. And always has been. I recall a story of St. Cuthbert (I think? He was circa 600s AD) who was an early monastic in Britain/Northumbria. The liturgies back then were an older style of Celtic Orthodox, peculiar to them. But at the Synod of Whitby, Rome demanded that all of the liturgies in the West followed Roman custom.. along with Cuthbert's monastic community being compelled to adopt Benedict's prayer rule. His monks were upset at the change and disputed it, but Cuthbert didn't want to be contentious and convinced them to adapt. After that, England always became Catholic in nature (even after the Reformation somewhat). But this kind of demonstrates that Rome was doing it's unifying thing even as far back as the 600s… when the rest of the Church never cared to interfere.

I agree with eveything you said here but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
Unity in dogma, diversity in theology and liturgy and customs. If anything it is an abbheration that the Byzantine rite (which is a Frankenstein monster made of the Hagia Sophia liturgy and monastic Antiochian liturgy) is 99% of the Church today (with the Russian rite being barely different from the Greek one, and both being Byzantine).

I watched it, but didn't find it convincing

Could you provide details?

It hasn't. The "Orthodox" Church hasn't managed to have a single successful ecumenical council since they chose to schism from the seat of Peter.

The amount of energy necessary to refute something is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

I like Jay too, I would like it if he would stop trying so hard to be funny and to be a "personality" though.

I think lots of people around here just hate his style and that he's American

Someone who has no hint of irenicism has no business discussing theology. I'll keep calling Jay a meme theologian until he shows actual empathy toward the people he disagrees with. I'll keep calling David Bentley Hart a meme theologian as well, while I'm at it.

ok dimond brothes

Ah, I'm not looking for some kind of step-by-step refutation. But I'd like to know what you disagree with at the very least. It doesn't help much that you say "I disagree" - of course you should disagree if you are a Catholic.

as an orthodox, this video, and the resulting discussion thread here, strike me as being very fringe, and that alone is enough to make me skeptical of it. There are certainly practical reasons for the hierarchy of primacy, but defending it like this reminds me of old calendarism.

Huh? Could you elaborate?

they both seem like attachment to non-essential aspects of church administration for the sake of "traditionalism". The fact that someone here has already thrown the prominent and practical 'confederacy of churches' view under the bus, suggests that this line of argumentation has the potential to create yet another needless wedge in the church like the calendar stuff is doing.

That's me, but I really wouldn't call this view "prominent" where I live (France). And of course, the whole Ecumenical Patriachate has been positing for years that this is problematic, so it's hardly "fringe" either (although because most Orthodox are Russian Orthodox, any view that does not come from within the Russian Patriarchate can come off as "fringe").

I mean, that's implicitly what's happening these days between Constatinople and Moscow. Jurisdictionally there's a dispute of course, but theologically there is the underlying disagreement about the role of the primate and how the churches relate to each other and to him. The controversy over the Ravenna document was basically the beginning of this dispute.

Considering that a number of other non-Russian churches disagree with the EP on this, I'd still consider it fringe, just as much as Rome was fringe when it started asserting itself enough to lead to schism, and as fringe as people believing Russia is the "3rd Rome".

I'm OCA, so I don't have a particularly strong affiliation with either side of the debate, though the dioscee as a whole does generally disagree with the EP on this issue. I'm more concerned with what the majority of patriarchs think than what the majority of laity believe, and there is a good amount of disagreement with the EP there too. Just look at the meetings that have been happening with Cyprus and Belgrade recently.

precisely, so it's a bigger issue than old calendarism, but it still strikes me being just as misguided. I just don't see the rest of the churches strongly reinforcing the EP's position. Orthodoxy's decentralization and dynamic notion of hierarchy is a strength not a weakness, and I haven't heard many patriarchs suggesting otherwise. I don't support Russia becoming the new 'head' of the church or whatever either, but luckily moscow hasn't been insisting on that during this dispute, only the EP has over-stepped his bounds. There may be theological reasons for the EP being the 'head' of the church, but I haven't heard many theological reasons for him having that specific level of unilateral authority and power over other patriarchs.

i don't believe the entire other half of apostolic christendom counts as "Fringe"; perhaps, if the entire Latin West had "stayed Orthodox" that would have been an acceptable reading

The point is that the "ethnic churches in communion with each other" theory is modern and not Orthodox, either the Church is one or there's no Church at all and the Catholics were right. I know that many people lately, even priests, subscribe to that theory but this is just a new lurking heresy that hasn't been addressed yet. For example in this board you'll find "Orthodox" people that not only believe that ethnophyletism is compatible with Orthodoxy, but that's it's actually essential to it or otherwise you're a somehow a liberal. I hope a new council will happen soon before more damage is done to our church.
As for Ukraine, the actions taken by the Phanar to end the schism might be despotic, but otherwise they were 100% canonical. The situation in America for example with the dozens of different Orthodox churches is more uncanonical (and actually heretic according to the canons) but nobody is talking about it yet.

A bishop from the EP cannot lift an anathema imposed by a bishop of the MP. It's not canonical and it's abbhorent. Even when Rome had the primacy, the Pope's power of judgment consisted in demanding a retrial -by the local canonical bishops-. He himself couldn't receive back into communion someone who was anathematized by another bishop or synod, and his attempts to do so were all rejected.
Even if Ukraine is really the EP's territory, it doesn't change that unilateral use of authority, without even cooperation with the bishops of Moscow at all, is not a canonical move or one that should be recognized IMO.

Ok i don't know about the specific issue with the anathema, talking about Filaret here, we'll have to look in the church's history and how similar matters were dealt in the past. But calling all for a council to solve the schism in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the EP.

Perhaps I've been misinformed, but wasn't the problem related to the granting of autocephaly and not of anathemas? 100% EP should have the ability to handle jurisdictional issues and nothing else. Anathemas are a different matter.

Some hierarchs had concerns about Filaret and if he can be accepted back by the Ecumenical Patriarch. But reading the canons again it seems that it's perfectly fine and canonical.
Canons 9 and 17 of the 4rth Ecumenical Council. Keep in mind that those canons are before the schism but they still give the highter authority to solve inter-church issues to Constantinople and NOT to Rome.

There are several issues:
- Jurisdiction, and how to interpret and use the canons surrounding Ukraine. Constantinople had spiritual mothehood over the Church of Ukraine, then geopolitical circumstances led to this role being passed on to Moscow. These circumstances are gone today. So who has jurisdiction over Ukraine today: Constantinople or Moscow?
- As a direct circumstance, how to deal with autocephaly in Ukraine? If Moscow has jurisdiction, then it's easy: those churches that demand autocephaly need to repent from their schism and rebellion first, then attention might be paid to them, but meanwhile the canonical Church of Ukraine is under the MP and isn't asking for autocephaly. If Constantinople has jurisdiction, then the pastor of Ukraine, the Ecumenical Patriarch, should put proper order in the region. He has chosen to recogize the schismatics as canonical, grant them the autocephaly they ask, and see the Church of Ukraine that is under the MP as being simply a branch of the MP impeding on Ukrainian territory. But there remains the issue . . .
- . . . of the EP recognizing the schismatics as canonical by lifting the anathema the MP had imposed upon them. This was done after previously recognizing this anathema, and without the consent of the MP, or the explicit repentance of the schismatics. And a bishop canonically cannot receive back someone who was anathematized by another bishop, the end. Not even the Pope was able to before the great schism.
- If the EP really can overrule, by himself, the canonical decisions of the bishops of Moscow, this has major implications. This is where the accusations of "neo-papism" come from. Although admittedly the EP seems to be claiming this power for the churches that were granted autocephaly by Constantinople to begin with, and not for the other ancient patriarchates.
- In threatening the MP, the EP also said that he could remove Moscow's autocephaly if he wanted to. This brings up a major question: are the autocephalies since the 7th ecumenical council "real" autocephalies? Autocephaly by itself cannot be taken back by definition, but at the same time we have yet to have an 8th ecumenical council to give ecumenical authority and recognition to all these new autocephalies.
- Finally, in his threats to the MP, the EP has also said that communion with Constantinople is necessary for the proper functionment of the Church, and to separate from it for political matters is extremely grave. He also said that the Church cannot exist without the EP, the Ecumenical Patriarch has a universal pastoral role, and theologians of the Phanar have been theorizing that the Ecumenical Patriarch is "first among equals" as a bishop but "first without equals" as primate of the whole Church. This brings the issue of what is primacy, is it artificial or necessary, what powers does it imply… Basically what this thread is about. And this is also where the accusations of "neo-papism" come from, although less intensely so.

it was fringe in the sense that the viewpoint only represented 1/5 patriarchates at the time. Sizes of the regions or populations under certain dioceses shouldn't be relevant to matters of ecclisiology.

This truly is astounding.. I've seen it said before, but I'm always surprised.

The only reason that it hasn't had an Ecumenical Council is it is WAITING FOR YOU. The Orthodox Church just sits there dangling the original points that Rome agreed to and has an open invitation for them to simply come back. The Church can't fix the schism until you come back. If it carried on as normal and just made more and more Councils (like Rome does) then Rome would never have a chance of reconciling. It'd have to agree to even more points than when it originally left.

It's ALL FOR YOUR SAKE.

And what do you do? You see it as a weakness in itself to not convene a Council without you (thus not being as ecumenical as the original ones) and encourage people to sin like you, by ignoring you and not acting out of love.

I've seen this said before, but I'm always surprised that Catholics can be so thickheaded. I want to give them more credit, but you make it hard to do so.

The main reason why it hasn't had an Ecumenical Council is it is waiting for Rome in the first place. The Orthodox Church just sits there holding up the original points that Rome agreed to and has an open invitation for them to simply come back. The Church can't fix the schism until you come back. If it carried on as normal and just made more and more Councils (like Rome does) then Rome would never have a chance of reconciling. It'd have to agree to even more points than when it originally left. Some may not want to admit it, but you're still family, and this would be unfair.

So let this sink in: It's for Rome's sake. No one else's.

And what do you do? You see it as a weakness in itself to not convene a Council without you (thus not being as ecumenical as the original ones). It's just simple courtesy. Meanwhile, the Orthodox are fine just "freezing" in ecclesiastical time anyways. It's no big deal if some local areas have their own traditions, but it will likely never present dogmatic points until Rome is back in the fold. It doesn't need to anyhow. The Seven Councils have served Orthodox well. Unlike Rome, which immediately experienced antipopes, riots, and reformation within centuries.

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

That's begging the question; what is then relevant in matters of ecclesiastical questions?
If it's a matter of scripture or apostolic interpretation, it's simply a matter of pointing to Matthew 16:18.

yeah how did that mongol and communist thing go for you LOL

oh, and turks

hardly:
golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm

youtu.be/R-s8v81ZkeU

youtu.be/DyuvkoiYlYk

youtu.be/Bqm8pt21cYg

youtu.be/SvEX15vd82w

should ask your lady of Fatima that:
youtu.be/Y5PUKrOeROU

theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/the-true-message-of-fatima/

That's like mocking the early church for being persecuted by Imperial Rome. Come on now.

The Orthodox are merely victims in all of the above. They didn't create their own tragedies. And Mongols are certainly not the product of Ecumenical Councils. And if you think suffering on it's own is due to some fault, then you're barking up Benny Hinn/Prosperity Gospel territory now, where people like him argue that cancer patients create their own problems somehow. "You don't have enough faith!"

We are all called to endure some suffering. Unfortunately some more than others. This isn't the same as direct doctrinal calamities that came upon the Western church - these weren't outsiders doing this. They were insiders. They were not Mongols or Saracens. Like it or not, they were kin.

Unfortunatelly all the autocephalies in Europe were given through schism and rebellion starting with Moscow first and foremost. Constantinople treated all new churches as her children and gave them autocephaly to let them go their own way, without great results. The same has happened in Ukraine where the Ecumenical Patriarch called them all, especially the Russian church in Ukraine, to have a council and stop this retarded dispute. Unfortunatelly, the Russian church in Ukraine proved that she doesn't care about any of that and that she's literally what the name implies, the Russian church in Ukraine. One of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch is finding sollutions to inter-church problems and he has the right to lift any anathema that was given unjustly by a newest, autocephalus church, canons 9 and 17 of the fourth Ecumenical Council.
The Moscow church was given autocephaly, in one way or another, by Constantinople, then had it taken back by Peter the great, then given autocephaly again by Stalin. Moscow doesn't actually have a Tomos of autocephaly anymore but a KGB document. Yet they have the audacity to call Ukraine uncanonical when they followed all the rules and asked for their autocephaly from the EP.

I'm not gonna read or watch all that, try to defend your arguments yourself. I can respond to you just fine, youtube videos and russian web-admins, not so much.

I'm calling out a silly claim for what it is.

is this how you approach the bible as well?

No, I actually read the Bible and quote from it when necessary. You're more like that one baptist guy who would just put up pieces of Scripture (ex: Ephesians 1:2-8 with no quotes) without actually explaining how the quote has anything to do with what he's talking about.

If you're going to accuse me of straw-manning you must substantiate that as well, not hide behind accusations you cannot possibly prove.