Talk:Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sourozh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board. |
 |
- Talk:Russian_Orthodox_Diocese_of_Sourozh/Canon 28 Debate: July 2006
- Further material pertaining to this debate may be found in the history of the Eastern Orthodoxy WikiProject's talk page[1]
[edit] Fidelity and Obedience
I am perplexed by Virago's repeated refusal to allow the use of the word 'faithful' in the phrase 'faithful to the decisions of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church', repeatedly replacing 'faithful' by 'obedient', and describing the use of the word 'faithful' as violating NPOV.
Perhaps Virago could explain what is POV about describing adherence to the decisions of the hierarchy of the ROC in terms of fidelity to its decisions?
Otherwise, will he/she please desist from needlessly altering the original phrasing of the paragraph?
Maxim662 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Maxim662. The word "faithful" can indeed be correctly used in the sense of maintaining continuity or adherence. However, use of this word in the context of an article about Church matters is emotionally charged, with connotations of a lack of religous faith. Could you please outline your objection to the word "obedient"?
- Perhaps we could agree on a third, mutually acceptable form of wording. Virago 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, the original word was 'faithful', so the burden of proof lies with you to show 'faithful' to be unacceptable in this context, rather than for me to show why it should not be changed to 'obedient'. There must be a good reason why 'faithful' is not appropriate here; otherwise there is no need for modification.
Secondly, I do not see how the word is being used to connote a lack of religious faith - since its indirect object is a decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The fidelity it speaks of is fidelity to a synodal decision, and moreover one of temporary and administrative nature It does not not speak of, say, fidelity to Christ. Had I said that those who concelebrated with Bishop Basil were being unfaithful to Christ, then I would understand very well your objection, as then there would be connotations of lack of religious faith. But I didn't say that.
Anyway, these are my basic points. Beyond this, I will add that my use of the word 'faithful' derives from what I take to be the character of Orthodox ecclesiology. Orthodox Christians are not coerced to be Orthodox; their Orthodoxy is free and is the expression and manifestation of their Orthodox faith. Orthodox are not Orthodox by legal or juridical compulsion. But to be Orthodox is not a solitary matter - it involves being in communion with an Orthodox Bishop, whose Episcopacy exists not in isolation, but within the Episcopal hierarchy of a particular Orthodox Church. Now, other things being equal, it is one aspect of being in communion that one follow the guidance of one's own bishop and of the Episcopal hierarchy in which that Bishop has his episcopacy. And since one only follows this guidance as an expression and manifestation of one's Orthodox faith, one's following such guidance is an aspect of one's Orthodox faith. Therefore, to follow such guidance is - again, other things being equal - to be faithful. For this reason, I consider it inappropriate to reject generally speaking in terms of 'fidelity' to synodal decisions.
Now the problem is, of course, that other things are not equal just now. There are two episcopal hierarchies saying contradictory things, and the person whose bishop has been Basil has had to choose whether to follow Basil and Constantinople or to follow Moscow. I think that the simple fact is that here, at the present time, it is not possible for an Orthodox to be faithful to Bishop Basil/Constantinople AND to Moscow. This is the tragedy of the whole situation - it has created a rupture within the Orthodox faith such that Russian Orthodox Christians cannot manifest and express their faith in harmony with Christians of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Within this situation, each of the faithful has to make up their own decision, as faithful Orthodox Christians, to whom to be faithful in their Orthodox faith. This, I think, is the crux of the matter.
It's very important to me that this situation is described as what it is, and that it is not caricatured in a quasi-Protestant fashion, as if Orthodox Churches were political parties or legal corporations which the Church somehow transcended - as if we could all just be happily Orthodox despite this 'political difficulty'.
Now, what I don't like about the replacement of the world 'faithful' with 'obedient' is that it suggests that it is not appropriate to speak of Russian Orthodox Christians' following the guidance of their own Holy Synod as an act of fidelity - as an expression or manifestation of their own Orthodox faith - and that it can only be described as quasi-legal obedience. This suggests that their following the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate is something other than an expression of Orthodox faith, and that it is instead some sort of submissive conformity to a worldly power. (I have certainly heard Exarchate-enthusiasts suggest as much.) But such a view - which I take to be suggested by the denial that 'faithful' is an appropriate adjective here and must be replaced by 'obedient' - expresses an anti-ROC POV, and as such, is not appropriate here.
All in all then, it's quite funny - this one word is more important to me than all that stuff about which parish is where, etc.!
I write all this in good will, and hope you receive it as such.
Best, Maxim662 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
