The story of Jesus was made up by the Roman Empire

[Berzerker]

Calling Jesus's death "suicide by cop" is one of the strangest things I've read outside of Ben's posts. As gribbler points out, Jesus didn't stand in the middle of a Roman army and start killing them - He preached the Good News and the Romans decided that's enough of that and strung him up.

they executed him because he claimed to be king, I see little difference with provoking a cop into killing you. Especially since the entire premise is he had to die

[Sava]

Suicide by cop is generally an action taken by a person to provoke a cop into killing you in order to prevent you from taking a violent, potentially lethal, action.

Jesus didn't exactly charge the Roman army with a spear.

So while funny, the phrase doesn't really apply.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, do you know how much authority the Patriarch of Constantinople has over the Patriarch of Russia? The answer is zero.

The answer is, most definitely, not zero.

The EP, in keeping with ancient canon law, has no power to order around any other bishop on his own authority.

I disagree, significantly, with this assessment of Orthodoxy as a cluster of autonomous bishops.

He may issue orders to bishops under his authority--I'm not sure if the Turks have left him any, but he could--provided he got a Synod of all of those bishops to agree to his orders.

If the Patriarch of Russia is not subject to Constantinople, then the overarching authority for him is Rome.

Outside his own see, he would need to call an ecumenical council to impose his will on another Orthodox bishop

Hence, Vatican I which promulgated the doctrine of the Immaculate conception.

How well do you think the modern Papacy fits in with this approach?

You've got a misunderstanding of the Catholic church, and how it operates and your own church and how it operates.

I think the model of the Catholic church fits well with Orthodoxy, under the model of patriarchies, archbishoprics, bishoprics and so on and so forth. I think it could be done to restore all the Patriarchies that were in existence, and to place the authority of the Eastern bishops under these patriarchs.

Nothing the Catholic church does is a unilateral decision of the Pope. You talk about ecumenical councils, that is exactly what the RCC does, and did with Vatican I.

Because it's the original mode of organization, and we're not changing it.

With the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome, yes, it was. And there is precedence for the creation and elevation of others, I can see the elevation of a Patriarchy of Russia.

Jesus is without sin because He's God; He could incarnate Himself as a full-grown man at the bottom of the ocean, with no mother at all, if He pleased.

Are you stating that you believe that Jesus only has a divine nature?

In general, the whole Roman attitude of centralized power and rigid scholasticism is a departure from the ancient way.

Bishops have never been autonomous.

[kentonio]

Calling Jesus's death "suicide by cop" is one of the strangest things I've read outside of Ben's posts. As gribbler points out, Jesus didn't stand in the middle of a Roman army and start killing them - He preached the Good News and the Romans decided that's enough of that and strung him up.

Of course if you believe that Jesus is god, then you presumably also believe that he knew exactly what was going to happen as a result, and that the Roman soldiers would then be ordered to nail him to a cross, no?

[Elok]

BK, I've been Orthodox my whole life. I know more about how my church is run than you do. Our churches are autocephalous, to the point where distinct national churches canonize saints, and by a form of courtesy the others recognize them. So, for example, the Russians independently canonized the Romanovs around 1990 (mostly to thumb their noses at the departing Communist government), but the rest of us recognized their sainthood as a form of courtesy. With the exception of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, who really deserved it, the rest of us don't make a big deal of them, but we still recognize their canonization. That's how a lot of these things work. It has its ups and downs.

The churches in America are somewhat anomalous; due to a lot of weird circumstances, there are multiple churches over here, with overlapping jurisdictions--against canon law. We're trying to fix that and reorganize into a single church. A few years ago, my own Antiochian archdiocese was given provisional autonomy by the Synod in Antioch. Should we finally get our act together and unify, the resulting American Orthodox Church will be totally independent.

And yes, the RCC does work very differently. Your Pope is equivalent in rank to one of our Patriarchs, but the Vatican has a bajillion little offices to administrate other countries' churches. You may require councils to modify doctrine, but the day-to-day administration is centralized in a non-traditional way. So, for example, when some priest in far-flung regions of the world starts spreading heresy, he gets a nasty canon-law cease-and-desist order from the Vatican. Not from his local bishop, from Rome itself. Not how it's supposed to work.

Re: Christ's nature, of course He has two. But that's irrelevant. He doesn't require some elaborate theological mockup, alien to scripture and tradition, to do anything. If, for whatever reason, He wanted to be born of a mass-murdering prostitute, He could do it regardless of her state of grace or what-have-you. Cause, y'know, He's God.

[Elok]

Oh, and how is it that the filioque, which redefines the nature of the Trinity and has been around on your side for more than a thousand years, is "not worth fighting over," while the IC, which merely makes a claim about Mary and IIRC is younger than the United States, is absolutely vital?

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't really understand your objection to the Roman Catholic way of organizing things, Elok, since national boundaries are pretty arbitrary to begin with. Why have an American orthodox church? Why stop there? We could do it by state. Give me a Montana Orthodox Church.

[Sava]

There are a lot of things you don't understand, HC.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and how is it that the filioque, which redefines the nature of the Trinity and has been around on your side for more than a thousand years, is "not worth fighting over," while the IC, which merely makes a claim about Mary and IIRC is younger than the United States, is absolutely vital?

Filioque is something that was picked up over the years as a tradition. Immaculate Conception was confirmed in an ecumenical council in Vatican I. All the Filioque concerns is that one phrase, "proceedeth from the father and the son", as opposed to "proceedeth from the father".

I find it odd that you consider our teachings on transubstantiation 'legalism', yet the Filioque is not.

[Elok]

HC: the short, easy answer is to note what the RCC has done with its transnational structure: vast accumulation of power, meddling in international politics, subverting national governments, and building up a thick crust of corruption along the way. And that's certainly a good reason not to do things that way; we've had corruption scandals, but not nearly so bad, and most of them involve the church turning into a tool of one particular national government, the way Putin currently uses the Russian church as his personal cheerleader/attack dog. He's not the first, let alone the worst. You can argue over which approach is worse, but we generally came off with a better track record than medieval Catholicism, if only because our hierarchy has a good deal more experience with actual persecution. But that's not the real reason.

The real reason, honestly, is simply that that's how it's always been done. Authority has always been local and regional, with one church for one country. And corresponding local divisions to handle subunits (such as Montana--not that I know of a significant Orthodox presence out there). And it makes sense, at least to me. Every country and culture is bound to have its own approach to things. Better to have a home-grown hierarchy, to the extent that such a thing is possible, instead of a gang of foreigners making decisions for you from the other side of the world. How deep an understanding do you suppose the Patriarchate in Syria, or Greece, or Russia, or Serbia, or whoever, has of the particular concerns facing American Orthodoxy?

What BK doesn't appreciate here is the extent of bad blood between our two churches. Yes, as Christians we ought to forgive each other, but the history of Orthodox-Catholic interaction has basically been the history of them trying to impose their will on us, first by diplomacy and then by force. We haven't forgotten the Fourth Crusade, though as BK notes, that was totally our fault; if we didn't want our nuns raped and our churches looted, we should have taught our princes never to make impossible promises to desperate and unscrupulous foreigners, even after said princes had been deposed and had nothing to lose. For the past thousand-plus years, the RCC has consistently treated us not as brothers to make peace with, but servants to dictate terms to. Which is why both the last generation of Byzantines and the Russians under Nevsky decided they would rather take their chances under the rule of nomadic, non-Christian barbarians than accept union with Rome. It's not just a disagreement over the formalities of structure--we don't want an emperor with a miter.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, I've been Orthodox my whole life. I know more about how my church is run than you do.

I'm sure you do. But your bishops are not autonomous from one another. And yes, there is a specific relationship between the Patriarch of Russia and the Patriarch of Constantinople - specifically that Russia claims they are the heir to all of Constantinople's authority and that their own authority derives from their closeness with Constantinople. This is substantial and significant interdependence. Not "zero" as you claimed.

Our churches are autocephalous, to the point where distinct national churches canonize saints, and by a form of courtesy the others recognize them.

If this is true, you're no longer in unity with each other, as just a collection of national churches.

So, for example, the Russians independently canonized the Romanovs around 1990 (mostly to thumb their noses at the departing Communist government), but the rest of us recognized their sainthood as a form of courtesy. With the exception of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, who really deserved it, the rest of us don't make a big deal of them, but we still recognize their canonization. That's how a lot of these things work. It has its ups and downs.

The problem I see, is that if autonomy is the rule, that you will lose your own organizational integrity as each national church goes on it's own way. This is the major reason why I did not go over to the Orthodox when I converted. The Catholic church may have issues, but they are not organized along national lines that have absolutely no history to them. If I wanted a national church that practiced the mass, I would have remained Anglican. I saw no superiority to the Orthodox organizational understand vs the Anglican understanding. Your post here reinforces this assessment.

The churches in America are somewhat anomalous; due to a lot of weird circumstances, there are multiple churches over here, with overlapping jurisdictions--against canon law. We're trying to fix that and reorganize into a single church. A few years ago, my own Antiochian archdiocese was given provisional autonomy by the Synod in Antioch. Should we finally get our act together and unify, the resulting American Orthodox Church will be totally independent.

I think you'd be better off sorting out your own patriarchs. There's no reason why you can't stay Antiochene, but you'd have to reorganize so that all of America was under Antioch. This is something Catholics could rather easily do as we have the structure in place to do something like that. I don't think the history in America warrants an 'American patriarchy', but would warrant a Russian one. But then, I'm not the Pope.

And yes, the RCC does work very differently. Your Pope is equivalent in rank to one of our Patriarchs, but the Vatican has a bajillion little offices to administrate other countries' churches. You may require councils to modify doctrine, but the day-to-day administration is centralized in a non-traditional way. So, for example, when some priest in far-flung regions of the world starts spreading heresy, he gets a nasty canon-law cease-and-desist order from the Vatican. Not from his local bishop, from Rome itself. Not how it's supposed to work.

Well, we're all under the Patriarch of Rome, So yes, it's how it's supposed to work. Think about that and you'll understand how Catholicism sees itself. You've got four ancient sees and we have one.

Re: Christ's nature, of course He has two. But that's irrelevant. He doesn't require some elaborate theological mockup, alien to scripture and tradition, to do anything. If, for whatever reason, He wanted to be born of a mass-murdering prostitute, He could do it regardless of her state of grace or what-have-you. Cause, y'know, He's God.

Sure, but he chose to be born of Mary, and inherited her human nature.

[Elok]

BK, you just don't get it. Our two churches developed along very different lines. Everything you take for granted was an innovation introduced so Rome could fill the power vacuum and impose order on a Western world full of squabbling petty chiefdoms. It had no legitimate "competition," being only one see of the ancient church cut off from the rest, so from our perspective the papacy is a grossly overgrown structure that expanded past its natural boundaries. From prima inter pares to a universal despotism.

[Ben Kenobi]

HC: the short, easy answer is to note what the RCC has done with its transnational structure

Nationalism doesn't predate the 19th century. Organizing your church along the principles of a 19th century movement makes no sense. The Church of the third century was not organized on national lines, but on the pentarchy. The church of the first century was organized on three patriarchies, Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

Union is going to be on the lines of how the ancient church was organized. There is precedence for establishing new patriarchies, but not for organizing them along national lines. The church is not a nationalist organization and should remain in unity beyond these parochial divisions. Pun very much intended.

He's not the first, let alone the worst. You can argue over which approach is worse, but we generally came off with a better track record than medieval Catholicism, if only because our hierarchy has a good deal more experience with actual persecution.

Catholics have been thoroughly persecuted in most English speaking countries, as well as in the Russia.

The real reason, honestly, is simply that that's how it's always been done. Authority has always been local and regional

This is not true.

with one church for one country.

This is also not true.

Every country and culture is bound to have its own approach to things.

Organizing on national lines doesn't predate the 19th.

How deep an understanding do you suppose the Patriarchate in Syria, or Greece, or Russia, or Serbia, or whoever, has of the particular concerns facing American Orthodoxy?

What does it say about your unity that they don't understand one another?

What BK doesn't appreciate here is the extent of bad blood between our two churches.

Latins sacked Constantinople at the instigation of the deposed Emperor.

We haven't forgotten the Fourth Crusade, though as BK notes, that was totally our fault

It was the deposed Emperor who invited the Crusaders to come and restore him. They put him back on and he couldn't pay them for their services, so they sacked and looted Constantinople. I know how I would feel if the same thing had happened to Rome. We owe a debt to Justinian, and there is no justification for what happened in the Fourth. But it was not the pope who instigated it but the deposed Emperor.

Which is why both the last generation of Byzantines and the Russians under Nevsky

Which justifies what happened to Koenigsberg? That's where my family is from, and now the entire city all the 800 or so years of history has been laid to waste.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, you just don't get it. Our two churches developed along very different lines.

Well sure, but your national division isn't ancient. This is a fact. The period prior to the Schism doesn't support this assessment.

Everything you take for granted was an innovation introduced so Rome could fill the power vacuum

Who else was there at the time? Antioch got overrun and so did Alexandria. That left us and Constantinople. Then Constantinople fell and left us. That the Patriarch of Rome expanded in the new world is because of the history. Should we apologize for converting the new world?

expanded past its natural boundaries.

Historically, everything west of the adriatric is Rome.

[Elok]

Quick Wiki search of Konigsberg reveals that it was depopulated after WWII by the Communists, and repopulated with Russians.

...Stalin was not known for his piety.