What part of "Western Captivity" ("Western Occupation") being locked from the inside did you not grasp?
Just their education, imported from the West: Latin, not Church Slavonic, was the language of the theological academies and the seminary system, even way out in Irkutsk-Met. St. Innocent, when just a simple priest, talks about speaking in Latin with the Spanish priests in California when he visited.
And again, the decision to employ Latin was very much a homegrown one (e.g. St Peter Mogila). It was a a way of compensating for the sorry state of educational institutions in the Christian east at that time, and helping rebuild them. The idea was that *gasp* Orthodox people could benefit from a fluent dialogue with intellectuals in Western Europe. Unless someone thinks there is something inherently heterodox about Latin, I don't see the problem here.
Met. St. Peter's proclivities were not "home grown" (except being Romanian, of course he was Latin Orthodox). He picked them up in the West
He picked them up and turned them to Orthodox purposes, leading to a revitalization of Orthodox learning. Of course it would have better to do it in Greek and Slavonic but the infrastructure and resources for such a task were not in place. He chose to take advantage of the immense resources available from Western Europe.
Not all that was in Latin was good, and unfortunately it was being digested whole. How many are cut off from Orthodoxy today, from lack of translations out of Eastern languages (of course, whose fault is that?)?
And the solution to this is not to sit down and wait for the West to learn Greek. Orthodox scholars being able to dialogue intelligently with the West was good for Orthodoxy and for the West. Western scholars who only had the faintest idea about the Eastern Church could now access Orthodox teaching in Latin.
The Western Captivity has nothing to do with outreach. It is an internal matter.
The question of language was about what was coming in, not what was going out.
Bismarck warned in his day that Russia cavorting in the West would only catch the European colds of atheism and socialism. Didn't that happen now, didn't it.
So Russia should have remained an isolated feudal backwater, and just waited for the Europeans to forcibly introduce their ideas from the outside. Got it.
LOL. Where do you think Russia got feudalism from?
If you want to raise a point about Tsar Peter's importing Lutheran style polity and Church-state relations, that's fair enough, but such are the dangers of autocratic government.
and yet the Autocrats of All the Russias managed to avoid it until Westoxified Peter.
Greece never had an autocrate, and yet it fell into the same trap. As Fortescue noted, it was even worse, subjecting the Church to a Balkan parliament.
But back to the basics: Orthodox being trained in Renaissance Latin (not Patristic, mind you, but renaissance "ad fontes!" Latin, with the loss of the Patristic mindset and the adoption of pagan emulation that entailed), in ignorance of Greek and Slavonic would *gasp* have unfortunate consequences for Orthodox learning.
Such as...? What's notable here is that no one can actually specify what heresies were introduced into the Orthodox Church by the "Western Captivity."
LOL. Didn't you just bring up the Holy Governing Synod ecclesiology?
The obsession on whether the Councils of Constantinople are Ecumenical or not, and the concomittant corruption of Holy Tradition into just a bigger pool of prooftexting.
The corruption of the form of absolution and the adoption of the Scholastic schema of repentance (venial sins, mortal sins, etc). This, not the Fathers, built up the "Toll Houses" (and I'm sure a dash of Dante didn't help).
I could go on, but maybe on another thread, if you are really interested.
So was Abp. St. Victor and his Roman see, and yet all the Orthodox Churches rebuked him when he conceived Ultramontanism and tried to impose it on the Church.
Ultramontanism is a dangerous error of ecclesiological thinking. What is the comparable danger in the Vulgate?
For one, the IC: the Vulgate's mistranslation of Gen. 3:15 has been the favorite proof-text, cited even in Ineffibilis Deus.
Multilating the Canon: when the Protestants removed the Anagignoskomena from the Bible, they were only finishing what St. Jerome started.
The Masoretic text isn't what is used in the Divine Services, hence a lot of allusions to the Biblical text are lost. Not to mention issues with the Virgin Birth and the Prophecy of Isaiah.
It is called the Western Captivity, not the Western Occupation (though we had a lot of that as well).The word "captivity" suggests that their thinking was somehow imprisoned or restricted
The Avignon Papacy was the period from 1309 to 1376, during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon, in modern-day France, rather than in Rome. This situation arose from the conflict between the Papacy and the French crown.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy
Following the strife between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France, and the death of his successor Benedict XI after only eight months in office, a deadlocked conclave finally elected Clement V, a Frenchman, as Pope in 1305. Clement declined to move to Rome, remaining in France, and in 1309 moved his court to the papal enclave at Avignon, where it remained for the next 67 years. This absence from Rome is sometimes referred to as the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy". A total of seven popes reigned at Avignon; all were French, and they increasingly fell under the influence of the French Crown. Finally, on September 13, 1376, Gregory XI abandoned Avignon and moved his court to Rome (arriving on January 17, 1377), officially ending the Avignon Papacy.
Despite this return, in 1378 the breakdown in relations between the cardinals and Gregory's successor, Urban VI, gave rise to the Western Schism. This started a second line of Avignon popes, now regarded as illegitimate. The last Avignon pope, Benedict XIII, lost most of his support in 1398, including that of France; following five years of siege by the French, he fled (March 11, 1403) to Perpignan. The schism ended in 1417 at the Council of Constance after only two popes had reigned in opposition to the Papacy in Rome.
so your pronouncement that "the word 'captivity'" means "somehow imprisoned or restricted" is incorrect.
The darker the night, the brighter the stars.These "stars" didn't feel like they were in the clutch of darkness.
Then you haven't read them.
On the contrary, they took whatever was useful from the "darkness" (the Western resources)
and you still dont' get it: the darkness wasn't "Western resources", it was the lack of Eastern ones causing them to have to "make do."
and turned them to Orthodox ends.
Not with 100% success: Met. St. Peter's confession had to be edited for Orthodox use.
The same saints who were publishing the Philokalia were also taking Western spiritual texts and adapting them for Orthodox needs.
"adapt" is the key word. The issue is how well, and why Orthodox needs were not being met by Orthodox spiritual texts.