OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:46:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: What situation would you approve of for unity among Christians?
1. Heterodox change to Orthodox, EO doesn't change - 108 (81.8%)
2. Heterodox accepted under no conditions - 4 (3%)
3. EO changes and conforms to others - 3 (2.3%)
4. EO and heterodox meet halfway (all change) - 5 (3.8%)
5. No union under any circumstances - 12 (9.1%)
Total Voters: 132

Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecumenism... Your opinion  (Read 16444 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« on: July 21, 2008, 01:41:37 PM »

I've seen many varying opinions on ecumenism on here, and I'm still not entirely sure what the definition of it is, or if everyone has varying definitions of it.

Do you support "ecumenism" and unity under which circumstances?

1. Heterodox churches interested in union w/ the Eastern Orthodox Church reject all heterodox beliefs and doctrines and accept Orthodox ones.
2. Heterodox churches are accepted under no pre-conditions and can continue in their current ways.
3. Unity is acheived through the alteration of Orthodoxy to conform to other churches.
4. Everyone meets halfway and everyone changes (Orthodox and heterodox).
5. No union at all under any circumstances

Personally, from what I've understood, to most Orthodox, the first condition is the one that is more Orthodox. That other churches have to change and become Orthodox and reject heterodox/offending beliefs.

I'm just interested to see what others think about this. Because I've seen so many various opinions about it, and how some people are very radically anti-union and others are dangerously (IMO) pro-union.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2008, 09:43:41 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2008, 05:52:18 PM »

Personally, from what I've understood, to most Orthodox, the first condition is the one that is more Orthodox.
Nah.  Not the more Orthodox view; rather, the ONLY Orthodox view. Wink
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,232


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2008, 12:45:23 AM »

Nah.  Not the more Orthodox view; rather, the ONLY Orthodox view. Wink

Yup. Completely agree.
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2008, 01:41:53 AM »

^^Ditto that, brethren.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2008, 01:55:05 AM »

"The fundamental goal and the primary task of the ecumenical movement is to re-interpret Christianity—or, in other words, to annihilate Orthodoxy completely." - Hieromonk Savva of the Holy Monastery of Decani, Serbia

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecumenism_goals.aspx

What Are the Goals of Ecumenism?
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2008, 02:02:09 AM »

Members of heterodox communions are not Orthodox even if they accept Orthodox teachings. They would need to be recieved into the church thru the proper praxis, whether it be thru baptism and or chrismation or whatever kind of oikonomia for the reception of converts is allowable. They then must be placed under a right believing bishop with apostolic sucession (not back under the untrained formerly heterodox cleric) . 
« Last Edit: July 22, 2008, 02:06:16 AM by buzuxi » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,011


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2008, 02:15:47 AM »

I don't remember who made the quote which I paraphrase as: Each non-Orthodox entity has to discover their own Orthodoxy from within and come back to the Church established by Christ through the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Logged
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2008, 03:40:48 AM »

True Ecumenism is part of Orthodox Christianity being the one Universal True Faith in Jesus Christ which brings all mankind into unity.

The modern day ecumenism movement is just another man made Christian religion with its aim to distort the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel and accept heretical and even blasphemous teachings which conform to the world.

Orthodox should not budge for no one.

Why aren’t the Catholics part of it?

Correct me if I'm wrong
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2008, 11:04:02 AM »

I thought this thread would discuss/debate the benefit or not of Christians of different groups talking to each other, which I support.

You can describe it as 'teaching the heterodox'.

No surprise here. 1. is the Orthodox position, end of story.

Roman Catholics do participate in ecumenism (officially since the 1960s) and on the same terms as the Orthodox: no compromise on the belief they are the one true church and no intercommunion/concelebration/clergy exchange.
Logged

88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2008, 12:57:31 PM »

Why is it that it seems some people on this forum seem to believe the EP and others do not accept number 1 as an Orthodox answer... Yet others believe the EP and other leaders strictly abide by answer 1?

Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2008, 01:19:57 PM »

Why is it that it seems some people on this forum seem to believe the EP and others do not accept number 1 as an Orthodox answer... Yet others believe the EP and other leaders strictly abide by answer 1?



Because its obvious to some that the EP has at times wavered on the issue.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2008, 02:14:24 PM »

Also, while reading "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware... I was wondering, how can Orthodox learn from western Christians when western Christianity doesn't even reflect the Apostolic teachings/tradition at all?

If Orthodoxy became more open to the west, would it put itself very dangerously close to becoming more open to legalism, liberalism and modernism?

What does he mean when he says Orthodox must be more willing to learn from the west?
Logged
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2008, 02:53:26 PM »

I am firmly against what I see today; this "movement" ....'called' "ecumenism".

I completely ignor it.

I am for true relations with all who are willing to hear and accept the teachings and salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, willing to live life as Christ commands His true faithful and follow the apostolic tradition which is the basis of the orthodox faith. That is not to say EO or OO.....but 'Orthodox'.

Orthodoxy must speak with one voice and communion worldwide before we can AGAIN be the true 'example' of the ONE UNIversal Church of God.

WE are making head-way.

Most of our problems are not Chalcedon and the "anathemas"; but stone hard loyalists who are eager to not have any resolve be realised within orthodoxy. These people are trying their hardest to hold the "door" to unity and peace closed. But based on current developments within orthodox the "door" is all but busted down to the ground. People are little by little are starting to walk in and and get equainted with each other again. This and other forums like this are helping thanks be to Gods grace and mercy.

It is a blessing.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2008, 02:56:21 PM »

Timothy Ware

What does he mean when he says Orthodox must be more willing to learn from the west?

Ideas anyone???

I would like to know myself.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,453


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2008, 06:26:18 PM »

My opinion is that Orthodoxy does little in regards to evangelism here in the US. The Catholic church does some evangelism, mostly in the form of public services. And protestant organizations like the Salvation Army, Campus Crusade for Christ and the like "win them to Christ" (their phrase not mine) but don't really know what to do with them once they get them. In that regard Orthodoxy could learn how to evangelize better. Converts from other Christian denominations are fine and dandy, but to have converts from atheism is really cool. There was a young lady at our parish that was an avowed atheist her entire life that was baptized, Chrismated and married in a month! Of course she started on the course to do that over a year earlier, but it was really cool!
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2008, 07:00:42 PM »

My opinion is that Orthodoxy does little in regards to evangelism here in the US. The Catholic church does some evangelism, mostly in the form of public services. And protestant organizations like the Salvation Army, Campus Crusade for Christ and the like "win them to Christ" (their phrase not mine) but don't really know what to do with them once they get them. In that regard Orthodoxy could learn how to evangelize better. Converts from other Christian denominations are fine and dandy, but to have converts from atheism is really cool. There was a young lady at our parish that was an avowed atheist her entire life that was baptized, Chrismated and married in a month! Of course she started on the course to do that over a year earlier, but it was really cool!

Atheists come to the Church all the time. Some of us just make a few pitstops along the way. Smiley
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2008, 08:02:28 PM »

Also, while reading "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware... I was wondering, how can Orthodox learn from western Christians when western Christianity doesn't even reflect the Apostolic teachings/tradition at all?

If Orthodoxy became more open to the west, would it put itself very dangerously close to becoming more open to legalism, liberalism and modernism?

What does he mean when he says Orthodox must be more willing to learn from the west?

What does Met. Kallistos say and in what context?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2008, 08:03:16 PM »

What does he mean when he says Orthodox must be more willing to learn from the west?

Lots of things.  Here are a few:

How to be better organised.  (Discernment must be used!)

How to discuss matters in polite and civil forums, without calling each other exotic zoological names or dismissing each other out of hand.

To use the western critical method as a valuable tool in scholarship, and not dismiss it out of hand as "scholastic" and be frightened of it.  Of course, in many ways nowadays this method  does go much too far, and one has to know where to cut it off.  But if sobriety and discernment are used in concert with a mature knowledge of Orthodox Tradition, this shouldn't be a problem. 

To appreciate great Western cultural movements and values and not dismiss them with fear and loathing, just because they happen to be Western.  Take what is good and embrace it, and leave out the bad, letting the Holy Spirit separate the wheat from the chaff.

Reflecting on things in a calm and objective manner when trying to discern the motives of others, and not resorting to a knee-jerk paranoia and anti-intellectual nationalistic xenophobia just because it seems to us that this attitude is so bound up with "who we are as Orthodox", when it actual fact it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

Serving others.  (It's really unfair to say that the Orthodox have no tradition of helping the poor and the disadvantaged.   In point of fact, they do, it's just that because of persecution, historical accident and neglect,  these traditions have fallen into disuse.  I think we need to bring these traditions to light and to look at what Western ecclesial bodies do too...and some Orthodox are quietly making real progress here.)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 08:10:41 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2008, 08:21:40 PM »

I'm not sure what particular statement 88Devin12 is referring to, but here are some things that Met Kallistos has said about the West in a couple of interviews. I'll let the words speak for themselves, only to add that I completely agree (I'm sure that will make all the difference to His Emminence Tongue).

“We Orthodox who live in the West are heirs to the entire cultural and intellectual tradition of the West, much of which indeed is profoundly Christian. We are heirs to Dante, to Shakespeare, to Milton, to Wordsworth,” Bishop Kallistos continued passionately. “Of course we have our own Orthodox interpretation of their work. But if we are to play our role as Orthodox in the Western world we must be willing to listen and to learn from the spiritual masters of the Western tradition— yes, even from the world of the Enlightenment. Because this for us, and I speak as a Western convert, this for us is our own cultural heritage. We must not simply reject it and say ‘I shall only read Orthodox authors.’ Sometimes Orthodox say to me ‘Oh, I’m not going to waste my time reading Dante; he wasn’t Orthodox,’ which is a pity: for, if they did read Dante, they might learn a lot. Well, perhaps some people should just read Orthodox books. But others of us must surely engage in a dialogue with Western culture. Otherwise we are betraying our roles as Orthodox placed here in the West as mediators and witnesses. God did not put me in ninth-century Byzantium. He placed me in twenty-first-century Oxford. There must be a reason for that. Moreover, what is asked of us Orthodox is to listen as well as speak. All too often we carry on an Orthodox monologue. But we need to hear the voice of the other. Somebody said to a friend of mine (my friend is Christian, the person speaking to her was not): ‘The trouble with you Christians is you want to give us the answer before you bother to find out what our questions are!’ ”

I joined Bishop Kallistos in a hearty laugh.

Then he continued, “Now, I think we could apply that to Orthodoxy in the modern Western world. Before we give them all the Orthodox answers, which in any case we ourselves know so incompletely, we need to listen to what their questions are. We need to consider where these questions are coming from, what is the meaning of the whole experience of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment? As a Westerner I should start from where they are.”

“And be able to share your own understanding, by understanding where they come from,” I added.

“That’s right. Again, speaking for myself,” I said, “I cannot give up the Enlightenment tradition. I am myself a product of it and I consider it a spark of the divine in history."

“The Spirit,”
Bishop Kallistos declared, “is working in all kinds of ways— even in a movement like secular feminism. It’s very easy for us Orthodox to be ironical about that, and certainly sometimes within the feminist movement there are some things that are just silly. But we would be very, very much in error to dismiss the movement as a whole. It is a serious movement, there is a real searching there, and the Spirit speaks in the most unexpected places. And so there is something in the feminist movement, even in its more anti-Christian forms, to which we ought to be listening and from which we can learn.”

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3735

In an interview recorded in Kyriakos Markides’ wonderful new book Gifts of the Desert, he encourages a careful but wholehearted engagement with the best that Western culture has to offer. “Christ is the lord of history,” reflects Bishop Kallistos. He continues: “We must look, then, for signs of the Truth, traces and footprints of the Truth, throughout our modern culture. . . . We Orthodox, particularly those of us who are Western converts, are often in danger of becoming church mice. We just live inside the church and nibble at the crumbs in the church, but we don’t look outside at the presence of Christ in the world as well. We Orthodox who live in the West are heirs to the entire cultural and intellectual tradition of the West, much of which indeed is profoundly Christian. We are heirs to Dante, to Shakespeare, to Milton, to Wordsworth. Of course we have our own Orthodox interpretation of their work. But if we are to play our role as Orthodox in the Western world we must be willing to listen and to learn from the spiritual masters of the Western tradition. . . . [Some] of us must surely engage in a dialogue with Western culture. Otherwise we are betraying our roles as Orthodox placed here in the West as mediators and witnesses.”

http://transfigurebatonrouge.blogspot.com/2007/07/harry-potter-and-orthodox-piety.html


« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 08:30:52 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2008, 08:25:28 PM »

Lots of things.  Here are a few:

How to be better organised.  (Discernment must be used!)

How to discuss matters in polite and civil forums, without calling each other exotic zoological names or dismissing each other out of hand.

To use the western critical method as a valuable tool in scholarship, and not dismiss it out of hand as "scholastic" and be frightened of it.  Of course, in many ways nowadays this method  does go much too far, and one has to know where to cut it off.  But if sobriety and discernment are used in concert with a mature knowledge of Orthodox Tradition, this shouldn't be a problem. 

To appreciate great Western cultural movements and values and not dismiss them with fear and loathing, just because they happen to be Western.  Take what is good and embrace it, and leave out the bad, letting the Holy Spirit separate the wheat from the chaff.

Reflecting on things in a calm and objective manner when trying to discern the motives of others, and not resorting to a knee-jerk paranoia and anti-intellectual nationalistic xenophobia just because it seems to us that this attitude is so bound up with "who we are as Orthodox", when it actual fact it has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

Serving others.  (It's really unfair to say that the Orthodox have no tradition of helping the poor and the disadvantaged.   In point of fact, they do, it's just that because of persecution, historical accident and neglect,  these traditions have fallen into disuse.  I think we need to bring these traditions to light and to look at what Western ecclesial bodies do too...and some Orthodox are quietly making real progress here.)


Excellent post!
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2008, 08:42:38 PM »

Sigh. Yes, indeed. Very well articulated post, Pravoslavbob!
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,430


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2008, 08:57:35 PM »


How to be better organised.  (Discernment must be used!)

That's a big one.  Ever notice how when Protestants organize something it starts on time?     Shocked Shocked Shocked
Logged

Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2008, 09:17:13 PM »

Excellent post!

For my part, I really like how you've collected some of Metropolitan Kallistos' thought on this matter and put it in one place here.   Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.   Wink
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2008, 09:22:00 PM »

That's a big one.  Ever notice how when Protestants organize something it starts on time?     Shocked Shocked Shocked

lol! I'm afraid I'm guilty of being quite "traditionally" Orthodox on this one.  Wink
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2008, 10:11:21 PM »

That's a big one.  Ever notice how when Protestants organize something it starts on time?     Shocked Shocked Shocked
Can't say that about my priest.  LOL! laugh
Logged
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2008, 10:45:14 PM »

That's a big one.  Ever notice how when Protestants organize something it starts on time?     Shocked Shocked Shocked

That is a testament to God and the Orthodox church that the Holy Spirit is working and actually gets anything done with the Greeks. Cheesy
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2008, 10:47:25 PM »

For my part, I really like how you've collected some of Metropolitan Kallistos' thought on this matter and put it in one place here.   Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.   Wink

laugh I just wasn't clever enough to summarise as you have done. Though, I am, quite unashamedly I have to admit, a great fan of Metropolitan Kallistos' writings.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2010, 04:21:53 PM »

Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Its certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's Procisely what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.
Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2010, 04:30:51 PM »

The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.

I have to say, that is the first time I've heard an Orthodox say that. I hear this out of the mouths of Protestants (most notably John Hagee).
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2010, 05:35:51 PM »

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2010, 05:39:10 PM »

Despite the attempts of ecumenists to re-define ecumenism as missionary work... ecumenism is not missionary work.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2010, 05:58:04 PM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant: 
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2010, 06:02:23 PM »

Despite the attempts of ecumenists to re-define ecumenism as missionary work... ecumenism is not missionary work.
Can it not become missonary work?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2010, 06:11:32 PM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant: 
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Equating ecumenical meetings with engaging with the world. Equating Orthodox Christian witness with theological dialogues and joint-statements. It's dishonest. If you want to spread the Orthodox Christian message, then show people what the Church teaches, don't dilute it or compromise it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2010, 07:17:20 PM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant: 
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Equating ecumenical meetings with engaging with the world. Equating Orthodox Christian witness with theological dialogues and joint-statements. It's dishonest. If you want to spread the Orthodox Christian message, then show people what the Church teaches, don't dilute it or compromise it.
Yes, live the faith, but realize that high rent gets great exposure.  (Ecumenical groups can allow us to witness the Truth to many.) When the Church is unable to witness in such a group,  She must exit/leave.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2010, 09:31:55 PM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant: 
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Equating ecumenical meetings with engaging with the world. Equating Orthodox Christian witness with theological dialogues and joint-statements. It's dishonest. If you want to spread the Orthodox Christian message, then show people what the Church teaches, don't dilute it or compromise it.

Agree!
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2010, 01:01:36 AM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant:  
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Equating ecumenical meetings with engaging with the world. Equating Orthodox Christian witness with theological dialogues and joint-statements. It's dishonest. If you want to spread the Orthodox Christian message, then show people what the Church teaches, don't dilute it or compromise it.

Find the message from Papist which he has posted today.  He writes how his contact with the Orthodox on this Forum and his dialogue with us have changed his perceptions.   That is a kind of ecumenical contact at work.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 01:02:36 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2010, 01:18:20 AM »

The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.

I have to say, that is the first time I've heard an Orthodox say that. I hear this out of the mouths of Protestants (most notably John Hagee).

Well its obvious that the NWO is going to be created through religion.
The Pope John II has already set the trap in motion.
It must be the 'Whore' because they are a heretical church, a very powerful heretical church.
They do 'Sitteth upon many waters' as Revelation says.
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2010, 01:21:42 AM »

Quote
Well its obvious that the NWO is going to be created through religion.

The NWO died 10 years ago dude. They started adding too many members, and it lost it's edge and coolness. It was no longer a group of "outsiders," but became an absurdly large, increasingly boring, faction/stable. And once WCW got bought, there was no way that Vince was going to give a fair shot to an idea that someone else came up with, that's just not how he rolls.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2010, 03:01:43 AM »

One Religion, One Economy, One Government.

You mean kind of like One Church, One Holy Book and One Emperor to preside over the whole thing?

If Rome is the whore of Babylon, then what do we make of New Rome?  You're just digging your own grave with this exegetical approach.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,232


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2010, 05:36:33 AM »

Ecuminism is the religion of the Anti-Christ. One Religion, One Economy, One Government. Thats what they are aiming at, to destroy the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We must have no communion with heritics: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, or any of the other religion's created by satanic influence. The Vatican is the same as Ancient Rome, nothing has changed, its the whore of Babylon from the book of the Revelation Ch 13.
The Catholics killed over 50,000,000 during the inquisition's because they did not bow down to the evil Pope, the most horrific torture methods and devices were created then.
And now they are deceiveing everyone by lying tongues and evil deceptions, trying to create a one world religion so that all will bow down to the anti-christ, the pope could be the anti-christ. Its certainly the Whore of Babylon described in the Revelation, meaning the heretical church, the one that was drunken with the blood of the martyr's and the saint's.
That's Procisely what happened during the Papal Inquisitions, people were martyred because they did not worship the 'almighty' pope.

Our Orthodox Faith is being slowly destroyed by this 'Ecumenism', soon they will shut down the monasteries.
Look it up on YouTube There are some very enlightened Elder's that speak on all of this.

And the Pope wants to lie to everyone saying that, 'Oh we must be in union because of love'
But He's a LIAR, and we will not give in to his lies.

Read the Revelation it will tell you about the Whore of Babylon.

The Church Fathers have commentated on Revelation and they say that the Whore of Babylon is ROME.

They are trying to destroy the clean waters of Orthodoxy, they are trying to pollute the Doctrine's handed down by or Holy Father's of the Orthodox Church, which cannot be altered or changed, the 7 Ecumenical Councels have clearly defined all of this.

But very, very sadly, the Greek church is corrupted and on fire from having communion with Heretics, ROCOR too.
Please pray for our Orthodox leaders, everyone, don't let yourselves be deceived. WE CAN HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS.
That is why some have made there own church. The Genuine Orthodox Church is a church that RESISTS THE HERESY OF ECUMINISM. Thank God, this is the remnant church!
The Church of the Last Days!

May Christ have mercy on us all in these evil days.


GTBMS, I note that your avatar is the image known as "ark of salvation". May I reproduce the following analysis of this image (it is not suitable for veneration as an icon), posted on this forum some time ago in another thread. Please do take the time to read it:

Quote
No, that icon should not be venerated. It is simply a polemical propaganda piece, promoting a particular ecclesiopolitical ideology. Some food for thought:

Iconography is, above all else, concerned with the revelation of God in Trinity: of the incarnation of the Son and Word of God which has allowed the sanctification of fallen creation (matter), including humanity (made in the image of God)**; of the signs and wonders of the Divine revelation in both the Old and New Testament periods; and, in its portrayal of the saints, their transfiguration from mere men and women into those who have attained deification, a "oneness with God" and full participation of the heavenly life with God and in God, through the conduct of their earthly lives and their steadfast witness to the true faith. They have become true icons and reflections of the Divine. The word godly is most apt to describe them.

(** St John of Damascus sums this up beautifully: "Of old, the incorporeal and uncircumscribed God was not depicted at all. But now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I make an image of God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who through matter effected my salvation. I will not cease to venerate the matter through which my salvation has been effected.")

Secondly, in the same way that the saints have obliterated their passions to give themselves completely to God, icons must also reflect this dispassionate quality. Obvious displays of human emotions, even a “positive” one such as laughter, are considered to be manifestations of human passion, and therefore have no place in iconography. Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18: 36), therefore the portrayal of saints in their spiritually transformed state must be dispassionate. This also applies to church singing and reading; the singers and readers are there to glorify God and serve the church by their efforts, not to self-aggrandise. Even the display of sorrow in the face of a saint or the Mother of God should be kept subtle, with the emotion conveyed with the eyes, not through histrionics.

Thirdly, there must be complete agreement between scripture, liturgical content (which represents the distillation of the doctrinal, dogmatic and theological position of the Church), and the pictorial content of an icon for any icon to be deemed canonical.

Hence there is no place for ugliness, anger, enmity, and other negative emotions in iconography. The purpose of an icon is to draw us closer to God. Of course, there are specific examples of didactic icons, such as Last Judgement and Ladder of Divine Ascent which feature fearsome dragon-like creatures swallowing unrepentant evildoers. The Resurrection icon shows the personification of sin and death bound in chains in the abyss. It may be said, therefore, if there is room for such portrayals in these canonical icons, then why object to the presence of the figures in the Ark of Salvation image?

I offer this reply:

An icon is a material, tangible expression of the incarnate God. The iconographic portrayal of the saints as icons of Christ, then, should reflect the sanctity, dispassion and boundless compassionate mercy of Christ to those who repent of their sins. Do we not pray to the saints and the Mother of God to intercede on our behalf? Are we not exhorted to pray for our enemies, to love them, and not to hate them? Of all scripture passages on this theme, Matt. 5: 43-48 is perhaps the most useful and succinct:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

We are also assured that God is Love, and that His love and mercy are available to all who seek Him in true faith. There are petitions in various Orthodox litanies which ask for the repentance and return to the true faith of sinners, apostates, and, yes, enemies. One which immediately comes to mind is "Let us pray for those who love us, and those who hate us", a petition in the litany sung towards the end of the Great Compline services of Great Lent where the Canon of St Andrew of Crete is sung.

There is the question of the iconographic portrayal of prophets and saints who denounced kings and princes. Such scenes are found in the smaller panels of a "life" icon of a saint or prophet (an icon which has a large central panel of the saint or prophet, surrounded by a series of smaller panels showing scenes of his or her life). Keeping to the dispassionate nature of icons, these scenes of rebuke of kings and princes (such as in icons of Prophet Elijah, and any number of OT and NT saints and righteous ones) show the saint standing before the errant ruler with a hand raised in rebuke, but nothing more. It is also significant that such scenes, almost without exception, are never used as icons in their own right.

it is not surprising that certain schismatic groups have favoured this so-called Ark of Salvation image as it reflects their particular ideology. This image suggests that those who are not Orthodox are somehow beyond repentance and redemption. Can we really agree with this as Orthodox Christians? The persecuting Pharisee Saul openly boasted of his zeal and success in persecuting Christians, yet, by the grace of God, became one of the Princes of the Apostles, a pillar of Orthodoxy. There are also innumerable converts to the Orthodox faith who have come from every religious background imaginable, including atheism, paganism and communism; many who have become saints, in times of old, and in our present day. The grace of God knows no bounds.

Iconography, as I have said before, must never be used for political or ideological purposes. To portray the non-Orthodox as a whole as being irredeemable and in league with demonic and evil forces to destroy Orthodoxy is a shameful debasement of iconography. I am reminded of a reply to a convert to Orthodoxy as to how he came to the conclusion that the Orthodox faith was the true faith: "The Soviet Union was capable of destroying anything. Yet, despite its immense power and resources, it could not destroy the Orthodox Church. So that was good enough for me." The gates of hell cannot prevail, indeed ...



« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 05:37:33 AM by LBK » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2010, 11:50:31 AM »

This is a very old book written by Fr. John Meyendorff, but it is still relevant:  
Witness to the World (New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987)

Why participate in ecumenical activity?
“The answer to this question is simple: the mission of the Church requires it. As Orthodox we have no right to ignore the world around us; this world requires our presence and our voice wherever it can be heard, precisely because our message is unique and because the Church is the guardian of a universal Truth. We have no right to restrict our witness to situations where “we” feel comfortable.  Actually, such situations do not really exist. True spiritual “comfort” will come only in the Kingdom of God.”

Here are more extracts:
http://incommunion.org/?p=149


This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Equating ecumenical meetings with engaging with the world. Equating Orthodox Christian witness with theological dialogues and joint-statements. It's dishonest. If you want to spread the Orthodox Christian message, then show people what the Church teaches, don't dilute it or compromise it.

Find the message from Papist which he has posted today.  He writes how his contact with the Orthodox on this Forum and his dialogue with us have changed his perceptions.   That is a kind of ecumenical contact at work.

This is a forum made up of individuals who discuss their beliefs frankly with one another. You're comparing this forum with academic discussions between representatives where they try to find (or fabricate) "common ground" to make joint statements and negotiate a re-union. On this forum, countless times Orthodox Christians openly say to Roman Catholics, "if you want re-union, abandon your errors and join the Orthodox Church." You will not hear anything so clear at the official dialogues. 

It is dishonest to equate frank discussion of the faith with others with ecumenism.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2010, 12:07:34 PM »


It is dishonest to equate frank discussion of the faith with others with ecumenism.


So now I am accused of dishonesty by iconodule!   Oh my!

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   Smiley


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #43 on: January 23, 2010, 02:41:26 PM »

Irish Hermit- First of all, I apologize for my unfair statement "It is dishonest..." and I do retract it.

The examples you give are worth looking at, but I believe they are rendered ambiguous, or even nullified, by the numerous other well-known statements which have emerged from ecumenical talks, which recognized the RCC as part of the Church or as a "Sister Church," which recognize Catholic and Orthodox baptism as the same, etc. I don't have the time to pull out a bunch of quotes but I'm sure you and others are already familiar with them. The Balamand Agreement is one of the most egregious of these statements. Looking at these statements, which have not been publicly criticized or retracted in other ecumenical events, it's pretty clear that the Orthodox representatives have indeed "strayed from their own reality."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: January 23, 2010, 03:22:40 PM »

Irish Hermit- First of all, I apologize for my unfair statement "It is dishonest..." and I do retract it.

The examples you give are worth looking at, but I believe they are rendered ambiguous, or even nullified, by the numerous other well-known statements which have emerged from ecumenical talks, which recognized the RCC as part of the Church or as a "Sister Church," which recognize Catholic and Orthodox baptism as the same, etc. I don't have the time to pull out a bunch of quotes but I'm sure you and others are already familiar with them.The Balamand Agreement is one of the most egregious of these statements. Looking at these statements, which have not been publicly criticized or retracted in other ecumenical events, it's pretty clear that the Orthodox representatives have indeed "strayed from their own reality."

Icondule,

re: "The Balamand Agreement is one of the most egregious of these statements."

Will you tell which which Orthodox Churches ratified Balamand?

Are you aware that, for example, the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at the Balamand meeting was simply one monk, Father Nestor (Zhilyaev) ?    Do you seriously think he had authority to sign the Balamand Agreement and bind the Patriarch and 180 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Synod?   laugh

Also do you know that it was a minority of Orthodox Churches at Balamand?  Eight Churches if I remember correctly.  The majority of the Orthodox Churches were simply not there. 



Today (23 January) is the commemoration of St. Colman of Lismore
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: January 23, 2010, 03:32:45 PM »


Irish Hermit- First of all, I apologize for my unfair statement "It is dishonest..." and I do retract it.

Thank you for that, Icondule.  You are a decent person.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2010, 05:52:33 PM »

I would like to see One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... someday.

I am largely fine with Orthodoxy as it is but I think there is 'room' for views.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Feanor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 205



« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2010, 02:29:08 AM »

Can't the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox just agree to disagree on certain matters of doctrine, but nonetheless recognise the validity of each other's sacramants as works of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? I took communion in a Catholic church for most of my life, and I can assure anyone that the Real Presence is really there. It is there in the Orthodox Church as well. When I was in a Coptic church I could genuinely sense the grace of the Lord. We don't have to become a single ecclesiastical body or sort out all the administrative details and doctrinal issues (yet) - we can just start by acknowledging that each other's sacraments are valid.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 on: February 04, 2010, 06:27:05 AM »

Can't the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox just agree to disagree on certain matters of doctrine, but nonetheless recognise the validity of each other's sacramants as works of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? I took communion in a Catholic church for most of my life, and I can assure anyone that the Real Presence is really there. It is there in the Orthodox Church as well. When I was in a Coptic church I could genuinely sense the grace of the Lord. We don't have to become a single ecclesiastical body or sort out all the administrative details and doctrinal issues (yet) - we can just start by acknowledging that each other's sacraments are valid.
If only it were that simple...  Our refusal to affirm the validity or presence of sacramental grace in the sacraments of those Christian bodies outside the Orthodox Church is not based on personal experience, which is actually quite subjective and susceptible to error, if not outright demonic deception, but on our traditional Orthodox teaching that the sacraments are the work of the Church to be experienced within the community of the Church.  According to this model, there can be no grace in those sacraments performed outside of the Church.  Now, there is a more moderate faction within the Orthodox Church that believes that we know where the Church is but cannot know where the Church is not who will not deny the presence of grace in heterodox sacraments, yet we still cannot affirm that they are grace-filled, either.  All we Orthodox can say with certainty is that grace is present in the sacramental mysteries of the Orthodox Church; of the presence or absence of grace in heterodox sacraments we cannot speak with any certainty.

Of course, we've already discussed elsewhere on this forum the subject of whether sacramental grace is present in the non-Orthodox churches, but since I'm about to wrap up my day and go to bed, I'll leave it to you to search for these threads. Wink
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,966


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #49 on: February 04, 2010, 09:45:18 AM »

Can't the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox just agree to disagree on certain matters of doctrine, but nonetheless recognise the validity of each other's sacramants as works of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? I took communion in a Catholic church for most of my life, and I can assure anyone that the Real Presence is really there. It is there in the Orthodox Church as well. When I was in a Coptic church I could genuinely sense the grace of the Lord. We don't have to become a single ecclesiastical body or sort out all the administrative details and doctrinal issues (yet) - we can just start by acknowledging that each other's sacraments are valid.

Well, we do need to work out the administrative and doctrinal issues before recognizing as they are one another's sacraments.  Think of it this way: I can't say that Christ is really present in RC Eucharist if I'm not sure that they believe the same things about Christ that I do; and I certainly can't encourage someone of my parish to receive this communion if I can't - I cannot, because by doing so I unite myself to their bishop and mine, but these bishops are not united because the RC and EO don't believe the same things about ecclesiology.  In the end, acknowledging communion without resolving issues is like putting a dog and a cat in a room together without first training them: they may be nominally in the same place, but we haven't ended the fight, and instead have increased the chances that they will hurt one another.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,143


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: February 04, 2010, 11:15:27 AM »

Can't the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox just agree to disagree on certain matters of doctrine, but nonetheless recognise the validity of each other's sacramants as works of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? I took communion in a Catholic church for most of my life, and I can assure anyone that the Real Presence is really there. It is there in the Orthodox Church as well. When I was in a Coptic church I could genuinely sense the grace of the Lord. We don't have to become a single ecclesiastical body or sort out all the administrative details and doctrinal issues (yet) - we can just start by acknowledging that each other's sacraments are valid.
If only it were that simple. I know that Christ is present in the Eucharist of all Apostolic Churches, including the EO Church, OO Church, RC Church, but I would never dream of insulting the EO or OO Churches by communing in their parishes. That being said, when I attened an EO Church I adore our Lord present in the Eucharist. I think true Ecumenism is not ignoring our differences, but acknowledging them, respecting one another, and realizing that we are all doing our best to seek the Lord Jesus Christ.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 11:15:51 AM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Ikonguru
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Baptised Anglican -moving toward Orthodoxy
Posts: 73


Lord have Mercy upon me, a Sinner


« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2010, 06:07:10 PM »

And Jesus ordered them, “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod!”
-Mark 8:15

Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”
-Mark 9:50
Logged

It is from a place of exile, where my captors torment me, that I write these lines. Through the grace of our Lord, I may one day be free.
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2010, 02:27:58 PM »

Don't think I would be attempting to become orthodox if it were anything else except option 1.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2010, 02:45:01 PM »

Can't the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox just agree to disagree on certain matters of doctrine, but nonetheless recognise the validity of each other's sacramants as works of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? I took communion in a Catholic church for most of my life, and I can assure anyone that the Real Presence is really there. It is there in the Orthodox Church as well. When I was in a Coptic church I could genuinely sense the grace of the Lord. We don't have to become a single ecclesiastical body or sort out all the administrative details and doctrinal issues (yet) - we can just start by acknowledging that each other's sacraments are valid.
To what purpose?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2010, 03:12:03 PM »

The Orthodox Christian faith, the true faith, is not the possession of Orthodox Christians which they can change as they please for their purposes. It is the gift of God to mankind for salvation. It is God's revelation of Himself. He is the One who owns the message. There have been many attempts at change and compromise in the past and they have all failed. God is jealous, as He says, of His Church and faith. Heresies come and go. But the Orthodox Church and her faith remain as they have been since the time of Christ and His Apostles, and will remain unchanged until the Second Coming, regardless of human efforts to change them. If individuals or whole groups of people who are not Orthodox come to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the truth, than, by all means, they will be received into the Church. But faith is necessary for conversion because of free will. No one will wake up surprised one day to find that he is a member of the Church due to hierarchical maneuverings. On the other hand, he may wake up one day to find that his (former) bishop, due to maneuverings, has wrecked havoc through a false union and created schism and confusion.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2010, 05:48:18 PM »

To be honest, even though I'm still Catholic at this point, I voted option 1. I see the Pope trying somewhat passively to humble himself and nuance the Papal Infallibility and Papal Supremacy doctrines to make those two ideas more palatable and more in-line with Orthodox teaching. I'm noticing a lot more give on the RC side, and I think it's going to be the increasing give on our side that will lead to reunion. Another part that will need to happen is letting go of bad blood and old feuds that happened throughout the schism.
Logged
vasily
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 184



« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2011, 02:53:54 PM »

 Glory to Jesus Christ,

 Union with all the Orthodox Churches should come first, so that peace and love will exist amongst the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Let's clean up our own back yard. Seriously take on missionary work, and properly confront the jurisdictional chaos that exists in North America, Western Europe, and else where. Then let's contemplate union with the other confessions, and only if they sincerely desire to embrace Orthodox Dogmas and Traditions. Are we to accept the "common ground" philosophy with the heterodox. or stress the richness in Orthodox Theology? On the other hand we compromise the traditions, water things down, attempt to "fit' in, and persist in dialogue with the heterodox. If we claim that we, the Orthodox, represent the true faith, then what message are we sending to our youth and to those who desire to become converts?

 The Traditions of the Church and the examples of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participant to attain an agreement. Any compromise is foreign to the Church. That being said, why does the Orthodox persist in this dialogue with the Catholics, which has been going on for years, with absolutely no results? Papism is a heresy and the source of many heresies that trouble the world today. Can one seriously think that the Vatican will change? When will the Vatican positively rectify the Eastern Rite dilemma?
 
Logged
vasily
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox church in america
Posts: 184



« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2011, 09:22:39 AM »

Glory to Jesus Christ,

 A topic related to this is from a website:orthodoxengland.org.uk. Titled "The Repentance of the Vatican Needed". There are other articles of interest on this site.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2011, 10:42:31 PM »

I believe that there is no unity period.

Eastern Orthodoxy IS the church. 

There is no need for unity.  Unity is a "union" or to make one.

There is no other church than Eastern Orthodoxy and no need to unionize.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
OtherguyLB
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic, but lover of Theology and Church History.
Jurisdiction: Under Myself
Posts: 87


« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2011, 07:21:40 PM »

Imho, ecumenism was never tolerated in church, which is - union with people who have different dogmas, rather than traditions...

In II(or III, don't remember), St. Cyprian argued with pope about baptism of heretics, who baptized in the name of Christ only, but their baptism was considered Orthodox... Later, liturgy with leavened or unleavened bread - is also part of different traditions(formed against heretics)...

But, regarding dogmas, church was never ecumenical... Although I strongly reject the position that friendship with heretics is wrong...

And sad reality is that, church was never democratic either - they just expelled, and used violence upon heretics all the time...
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 07:22:29 PM by OtherguyLB » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2011, 08:53:29 PM »

Hi vasily,

That being said, why does the Orthodox persist in this dialogue with the Catholics, which has been going on for years, with absolutely no results?

 Huh In view of this statement earlier in the same paragraph:

The Traditions of the Church and the examples of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy.

it would seem that the logical question would be, not "why does the Orthodox persist in this dialogue with the Catholics?", but "why does the Orthodox engage in dialogue with Catholics, period?"

Am I missing something?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2011, 12:54:56 AM »

So much for ecumenism and unity! How on the earth is this ecumenism to unite different religions when it has been already creating deadly division within Orthodoxy itself? Just a rhetoric question...

Ecumenism is heresy of all heresies, super heresy, pan-heresy and it is pity that even Orthodox faithful can't realize this trap of Satan.

Here's nice video from a good servant of God.

Here's what one of the holy men of God, blessed elder Father Paisios the Athonite, has to say about ecumenism (accent is specifically union with Rome and Pope).
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 12:55:41 AM by ativan » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2011, 10:31:57 AM »

Ecumenism is heresy of all heresies, super heresy, pan-heresy

So we heretical Roman Catholics aren't as bad as the Orthodox who participate in ecumenism? I'm flattered.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,176



WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2011, 11:16:27 AM »

Personally, from what I've understood, to most Orthodox, the first condition is the one that is more Orthodox.
Nah.  Not the more Orthodox view; rather, the ONLY Orthodox view. Wink

Both change seems to me acceptable, if the Orthodox changes were simply a change in Western practices that they tolerate. For example, the Orthodox have changed to toleration of veils and the Western Calendar. It's true that the Orthodox themselves changed in this way, and that these weren't changes i doctrine. I just think that no change at all is too absolute a statement, since there could be a change in what Orthodox tolerate.

One example of a change in my view is a change in allowing unleavened bread, which the Westerners and some Orientals have. I am aware of the Orthodox position and I accept the leavened bread, and I haven't investigated it enough to have a serious opinion that the OO position is acceptable. It's just conceivable for me that the EO could change its position on the issue of unleavened bread.

It's confusing to say that Orthodoxy should change something important, because if you believe that it should, then you believe that the Orthodox position is wrong on an important question. For cultural issues like veils, it makes more sense. But with doctrine, it's hard- logically speaking- to say that, because then you wouldn't be Orthodox because it would mean that you thought the Orthodox position was wrong, in which case you wouldn't be Orthodox.

You would either say that Orthodoxy encompasses your idea, that you have a rare view, and that Orthodoxy is wide enough to include it, or that Orthodoxy is wrong on an important doctrine, in which case you wouldn't be Orthodox. So it's kind of a trick question for Orthodox.

For example, if you think Orthodoxy is doing something wrong, then you are actually saying that Orthodoxy is currently doing something wrong, but that true Orthodoxy would do something different. That's because Orthodoxy defines itself as true Christianity. It's a mental paradigm where you can't say Orthodoxy itself should do something different.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2011, 11:25:44 AM »

Ecumenism is heresy of all heresies, super heresy, pan-heresy

So we heretical Roman Catholics aren't as bad as the Orthodox who participate in ecumenism? I'm flattered.

Of course!  An analogy: in the eyes of the anti-ecumenicist the Roman Church is like Russia in the 1950s, the Mainline Protestants are China, and Evangelicals are like Cuba and North Korea.  The Orthodox Church is the freedom loving democracies (or constitutional monarchies) of the world and anti-ecumenicists are Sen.  McCarthy.  Sure, the Soviet Union is the enemy, but even more insidious are those communists hiding right under our very noses!  So, tell us, Patriarch Bartholomew, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?  

As for my own opinion on the subject, I think I've stated this before, but here we go again: It all depends on what you mean by "ecumenicism".  If you mean that "all Christian churches are the same" or in the Anglican Branch theory then yeah, it's wrong and something our leaders shouldn't be participating in.  If you mean any sort of discussion whatsoever with outside churches about what it takes for union, then call me an ecumenicist.  My own conversion to Orthodoxy finally got off the ground (after years of research) with Met. JONAH's speech at the inauguration of the Anglican Church of North America.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2011, 01:41:59 PM »

Ecumenism is heresy of all heresies, super heresy, pan-heresy

So we heretical Roman Catholics aren't as bad as the Orthodox who participate in ecumenism? I'm flattered.

I can buy that.  The Orthodox should know better therefor are more guilty.  I have actually heard this put in exactly these words from the "pulpit".
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2011, 03:48:02 PM »

Ecumenism is heresy of all heresies, super heresy, pan-heresy

So we heretical Roman Catholics aren't as bad as the Orthodox who participate in ecumenism? I'm flattered.
I have a different opinion on this. At least even those Orthodox believers who are for ecumenism voice it and do not hide it cunningly - they stay in World Council of Churches. Super pro-ecumenism Catholics (not counting minor number of those who oppose this movement) are not the member of the WCC. Why's that? Smells fishy to me.

As for me, I go by our Saints' faith.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #67 on: March 25, 2011, 05:07:17 PM »

I have a different opinion on this. At least even those Orthodox believers who are for ecumenism voice it and do not hide it cunningly - they stay in World Council of Churches. Super pro-ecumenism Catholics (not counting minor number of those who oppose this movement) are not the member of the WCC. Why's that? Smells fishy to me.

I don't think you're making any sense. If we (Catholics I mean) were in the WCC but were pretending that we weren't, then I could see how you could object to that. But I don't see anything fishy about simply not being in the WCC, but then I suppose just about everything we do smells fishy to somebody.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #68 on: March 25, 2011, 05:11:32 PM »

I have a different opinion on this. At least even those Orthodox believers who are for ecumenism voice it and do not hide it cunningly - they stay in World Council of Churches. Super pro-ecumenism Catholics (not counting minor number of those who oppose this movement) are not the member of the WCC. Why's that? Smells fishy to me.

I don't think you're making any sense. If we (Catholics I mean) were in the WCC but were pretending that we weren't, then I could see how you could object to that. But I don't see anything fishy about simply not being in the WCC, but then I suppose just about everything we do smells fishy to somebody.

You guys do eat a disproportionate amount of fish... could that be the reason?  Huh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #69 on: March 25, 2011, 05:20:50 PM »

My own conversion to Orthodoxy finally got off the ground (after years of research) with Met. JONAH's speech at the inauguration of the Anglican Church of North America.

I take it from your name, FormerReformer, that you converted to Orthodoxy, not from Roman Catholicism but rather from Protestantism. Right? I sometimes wonder what I would have done, had I been in the situation of growing up Protestant and then choosing between converting to Orthodoxy or converting to Catholicism.

Granted, that's not really relevant to this thread.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #70 on: March 25, 2011, 05:23:11 PM »

You guys do eat a disproportionate amount of fish... could that be the reason?  Huh

How did you know I'm from New England?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 25, 2011, 09:55:42 PM »

My own conversion to Orthodoxy finally got off the ground (after years of research) with Met. JONAH's speech at the inauguration of the Anglican Church of North America.

I take it from your name, FormerReformer, that you converted to Orthodoxy, not from Roman Catholicism but rather from Protestantism. Right? I sometimes wonder what I would have done, had I been in the situation of growing up Protestant and then choosing between converting to Orthodoxy or converting to Catholicism.

Granted, that's not really relevant to this thread.

Not a problem, I love irrelevance.  Yes, I converted from Protestantism, albeit a more Anglo-Catholic variety (though I did have a Southern Baptist upbringing).  From that position it would have been just as easy to convert to Roman Catholicism, as indeed many an Anglo-Catholic these days is doing.  Had the Reformation happened in a vacuum, with no East-West schism preceding it, that might have been what I would have done.

For many years my main quest as a Christian was figuring out what went wrong with the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches and trying to piece together what a Church would look like that was devoid of the errors of both.  It was a great source of joy to discover that such a Church already existed.

To this day I would love for Rome to return to the Orthodox Church under the right circumstances.  I think it would be the necessary first step to the healing of all the schisms from the "Reformation".
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #72 on: March 26, 2011, 05:03:01 AM »

I would like to see One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... someday.

I am largely fine with Orthodoxy as it is but I think there is 'room' for views.

A hose of many mansions?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 26, 2011, 11:36:30 AM »

I would like to see One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... someday.

I am largely fine with Orthodoxy as it is but I think there is 'room' for views.

A hose of many mansions?

I think you mean a 'house of many mansions.'

Logged
jordanz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #74 on: March 28, 2011, 07:11:02 PM »

Is there a 4.5 option?

Catholicism should call it quits with ecumenism for now.  The ("Ordinary") Roman liturgy is out of control scary bad, we have bishops that have committed criminal acts to cover up child rape, the communication between the various Roman offices and the Pope are notoriously bad, and we have priests that openly preach dissent and heresy.  Rome needs a major cleanup job that'll make Three Mile Island look like a chemistry set experiment gone wrong.

On the other hand, if the Patriarch of Moscow desires to cooperate with Pope Benedict on major issues facing Christianity today, great!  Cooperation can take place outside of ecumenism.  Let's leave it that way for now.
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #75 on: March 28, 2011, 09:29:22 PM »

My opinion is that Orthodoxy does little in regards to evangelism here in the US. The Catholic church does some evangelism, mostly in the form of public services. And protestant organizations like the Salvation Army, Campus Crusade for Christ and the like "win them to Christ" (their phrase not mine) but don't really know what to do with them once they get them. In that regard Orthodoxy could learn how to evangelize better. Converts from other Christian denominations are fine and dandy, but to have converts from atheism is really cool. There was a young lady at our parish that was an avowed atheist her entire life that was baptized, Chrismated and married in a month! Of course she started on the course to do that over a year earlier, but it was really cool!

Yes but it is hard to beat groups that cater to everyone. Orthodoxy says this is what we are, you'll need to change, but join us. Protestants say be whatever you decide is right, put Christ's name on it, and join us. Catholics, that's a hard sell haha jk. But they do it well too somehow.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
copticyouth93
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 61



« Reply #76 on: March 28, 2011, 10:51:52 PM »

I am firmly against what I see today; this "movement" ....'called' "ecumenism".

I completely ignor it.

I am for true relations with all who are willing to hear and accept the teachings and salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, willing to live life as Christ commands His true faithful and follow the apostolic tradition which is the basis of the orthodox faith. That is not to say EO or OO.....but 'Orthodox'.

Orthodoxy must speak with one voice and communion worldwide before we can AGAIN be the true 'example' of the ONE UNIversal Church of God.

WE are making head-way.

Most of our problems are not Chalcedon and the "anathemas"; but stone hard loyalists who are eager to not have any resolve be realised within orthodoxy. These people are trying their hardest to hold the "door" to unity and peace closed. But based on current developments within orthodox the "door" is all but busted down to the ground. People are little by little are starting to walk in and and get equainted with each other again. This and other forums like this are helping thanks be to Gods grace and mercy.

It is a blessing.

Sorry man, but this is against us too. We are also among those considered Satanist and Heretic, worthy of death. Sad.

Pray for me,
Copticyouth93
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2011, 12:00:58 PM »

Catholicism should call it quits with ecumenism for now. 

I disagree. In fact, I would say that ecumenism is one of the best things we (Catholics I mean) have going right now.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Conservative Rebel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church
Posts: 35


« Reply #78 on: March 30, 2011, 08:16:49 AM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities. And we should 'import' nothing from heterodox religious teachings. If we do not preserve the holy Orthodox faith intact, we are not worthy of it.

Having said that, I think we should try to have friendly relations with our heterodox neighbours. It is also perfectly OK to take part in joint Christian initiatives in charity work, fighting against abortions, gay propaganda and things of the sort, as long as no compromise on faith is required.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #79 on: March 30, 2011, 09:36:39 AM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities.

What about praying together?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Conservative Rebel
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Russian Orthodox Church
Posts: 35


« Reply #80 on: March 31, 2011, 02:14:08 AM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities.

What about praying together?

As far as I understand, joint prayer with heterodox believers is considered impossible by the Orthodox Church. Personally, I find it hard to believe that it would be a sin to pray, say, before a meal, together with your heterodox guests (I did that a few times). But I would not participate in a heterodox church service. Not just because I am afraid that this might be soul-harming, but also because I find Protestant and even Roman Catholic church services uninspiring.

On the whole, I have no firm personal convictions on the matter, but rather submit to the discipline and traditions of the Holy Orthodox Church. In my lifetime, I have found that this is the best approach - whenever I had doubts that the Church is right on this or that issue, I always found out later that the Church had been right all along!
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #81 on: March 31, 2011, 04:10:59 AM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities.

What about praying together?

As far as I understand, joint prayer with heterodox believers is considered impossible by the Orthodox Church. Personally, I find it hard to believe that it would be a sin to pray, say, before a meal, together with your heterodox guests (I did that a few times). But I would not participate in a heterodox church service. Not just because I am afraid that this might be soul-harming, but also because I find Protestant and even Roman Catholic church services uninspiring.

On the whole, I have no firm personal convictions on the matter, but rather submit to the discipline and traditions of the Holy Orthodox Church. In my lifetime, I have found that this is the best approach - whenever I had doubts that the Church is right on this or that issue, I always found out later that the Church had been right all along!
The 85 Canons of Apostles

Quote
10. If anyone pray in company with one who has been excommunicated, he shall be excommunicated himself.

Quote
45. Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed (sc.from office).

Quote
65. If any Clergyman, or Layman, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.

Logged
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2011, 02:35:36 PM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities.

What about praying together?

As far as I understand, joint prayer with heterodox believers is considered impossible by the Orthodox Church. Personally, I find it hard to believe that it would be a sin to pray, say, before a meal, together with your heterodox guests (I did that a few times). But I would not participate in a heterodox church service. Not just because I am afraid that this might be soul-harming, but also because I find Protestant and even Roman Catholic church services uninspiring.

I think that the Orthodox are wrong to apply canons developed with regard to Arians, Gnostics, etc., to Western Christians. Particularly when so many Orthodox today are willing to see Oriental Orthodox as orthodox. But we Westerners--anathema simus!

This is my major problem with Orthodoxy. I can't accept the exclusive claims--they make nonsense of my entire experience as a Christian so far. The RCC, post-Vatican-II at least, takes a much more defensible stance, I believe.

The East-West split was not exactly like the earlier heresies--more of a gradual cultural estrangement than a deliberate rejection of Orthodoxy. And as a result, the various Western churches are largely confused and ignorant about the historic dogmas of the Faith. If you would see us as muddled brothers and sisters instead of heretics, you could be of great service to us.

M-word removed - Michał Kalina.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 05:33:03 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2011, 03:03:30 PM »

If you would see us as muddled brothers and sisters instead of heretics, you could be of great service to us.

Very true, we would be of great service to you.  However, to see you as anything other than heretics would be a denial of the Truth that we hold.  We are here to serve God, not you.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 01, 2011, 03:27:19 PM »

I subscribe to the view that there can be no intercommunion with heterodox communities.

What about praying together?

As far as I understand, joint prayer with heterodox believers is considered impossible by the Orthodox Church. Personally, I find it hard to believe that it would be a sin to pray, say, before a meal, together with your heterodox guests (I did that a few times). But I would not participate in a heterodox church service. Not just because I am afraid that this might be soul-harming, but also because I find Protestant and even Roman Catholic church services uninspiring.

I think that the Orthodox are wrong to apply canons developed with regard to Arians, Gnostics, etc., to Western Christians. Particularly when so many Orthodox today are willing to see Oriental Orthodox as orthodox. But we Westerners--anathema simus!

This is my major problem with Orthodoxy. I can't accept the exclusive claims--they make nonsense of my entire experience as a Christian so far. The RCC, post-Vatican-II at least, takes a much more defensible stance, I believe.

The East-West split was not exactly like the earlier heresies--more of a gradual cultural estrangement than a deliberate rejection of Orthodoxy. And as a result, the various Western churches are largely confused and ignorant about the historic dogmas of the Faith. If you would see us as muddled brothers and sisters instead of heretics, you could be of great service to us.

M-word removed - Michał Kalina.

For the most part, Orthodox claims to exclusivity relate to being the Church; that is the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church spoken of in the Creed.  We are exclusive in that we can truly claim to have kept the fullness of the faith, with no additions or subtractions.  As to the position of Christians outside of the Orthodox Church the large consensus of the Saints since the time of the Great Schism and Protestant Reformation has been one of agnosticism: We know where the Church is; we do not know where it is not.

Are there some Orthodox Christians who believe that anyone not in the Orthodox Church is a graceless and hellbound heretic?  Perhaps, but you will find such in nearly any other denomination (including hardline Roman Catholics).  Some of us prefer the term "heterodox" which pretty much amounts to "muddled brothers and sisters".  One theory posits that heresy must be a choice, that one must choose to reject Orthodoxy, a choice that not many Western Christians have been in a position to make.

This does not mean that there are not heresies to be found in other communions, Calvinism would be an example, Papal Supremacy and the filioque another, and iconoclasm still another.  And it is a sad fact that many Protestant denominations are indeed sliding into outright heresy in this present time, and losing any form of doctrine that would define them as "Christian".

Terminology aside there are a few things that must be taken into account: We cannot commune you because we do not know you.  Our priests guard the Chalice because we believe that this is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ, and to commune unworthily would do great damage to your soul.  You must profess the Orthodox faith and receive the Sacrament of Confession (how often one does this in relation to communion varies across jurisdiction and parish lines) from an Orthodox priest.  We cannot pray with you because it would lend legitimacy to your belief that you are indeed Orthodox.

Oh, and there is no nonsense in any experience that draws you closer to Christ.  When I became Orthodox I did not have to reject that my Baptist upbringing and Episcopalian attendance taught me love for Christ, I had to reject any teachings from that experience that conflicted with the teachings of the Church.

Welcome to the Forum!

(PS a piece of advice: "monophysite" is a frowned upon word on this Forum.  "Oriental Orthodox" and miaphysite are acceptable.)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 05:34:08 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #85 on: April 01, 2011, 05:39:21 PM »

If you would see us as muddled brothers and sisters instead of heretics, you could be of great service to us.

Very true, we would be of great service to you.  However, to see you as anything other than heretics would be a denial of the Truth that we hold.  We are here to serve God, not you.
Very true my brother. I was going to say exactly same thing: We are here to serve God, not men.

Glory to God
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #86 on: April 01, 2011, 06:14:01 PM »


Oh, and there is no nonsense in any experience that draws you closer to Christ.  When I became Orthodox I did not have to reject that my Baptist upbringing and Episcopalian attendance taught me love for Christ, I had to reject any teachings from that experience that conflicted with the teachings of the Church.


How true!
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2011, 10:56:35 AM »



I think that the Orthodox are wrong to apply canons developed with regard to Arians, Gnostics, etc., to Western Christians. Particularly when so many Orthodox today are willing to see Oriental Orthodox as orthodox. But we Westerners--anathema simus!

This is my major problem with Orthodoxy. I can't accept the exclusive claims--they make nonsense of my entire experience as a Christian so far. The RCC, post-Vatican-II at least, takes a much more defensible stance, I believe.

The East-West split was not exactly like the earlier heresies--more of a gradual cultural estrangement than a deliberate rejection of Orthodoxy. And as a result, the various Western churches are largely confused and ignorant about the historic dogmas of the Faith. If you would see us as muddled brothers and sisters instead of heretics, you could be of great service to us.

M-word removed - Michał Kalina.

For the most part, Orthodox claims to exclusivity relate to being the Church; that is the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church spoken of in the Creed.  We are exclusive in that we can truly claim to have kept the fullness of the faith, with no additions or subtractions.[/QUOTE]

And I'm strongly inclined to accept that claim. However, I think there are some problems with defining the Church solely in terms of doctrine--this is a point where I find the Roman Communion preferable with their emphasis on communion with Rome. (The problem is that I can't accept as dogma those same teachings of theirs that you reject. So I remain Anglican for the time being.) In other words, I see the Orthodox as correct, but I am working within the framework of a Protestant ecclesiology (such as that of Richard Hooker) in which one can fail to belong to the "sounder part" of the Church and still be part of the Church in a visible, definitive manner. I see the Orthodox as the "sounder part" of the Church rather than as _the Church_.

And yes, the obvious objection to this is that the ecclesiology I have problems with is itself one of the Orthodox dogmas that I claim to accept. Hence my historical argument about the way the West came to differ from the East, which I argue is quite different from the outright rejection of Orthodoxy found in the ancient heresies.

Quote
 As to the position of Christians outside of the Orthodox Church the large consensus of the Saints since the time of the Great Schism and Protestant Reformation has been one of agnosticism: We know where the Church is; we do not know where it is not.

I know that. However, that's still within the framework of a "Cyprianic" ecclesiology in which the unity of the Church defines baptism rather than the other way round. If I'm not mistaken, even the "agnostic" Orthodox would take the view that the acceptance of non-Orthodox baptism is purely by "economia." In the RCC, at least since Vatican II, Protestants (and obviously still more Orthodox) are accepted as part of the Church in a definable, visible manner, although imperfectly so (just barely imperfectly in the case of the Orthodox, much more seriously so in our case). And this position, as Fr. Stanley Jaki has argued, is a development of the position articulated by Pope Stephen in the third century and further elaborated by Augustine in the anti-Donatist controversy. When I speak of Orthodox "exclusivism," I'm speaking of the lack of such an understanding of the imperfect but objectively real ways in which other Christians are united to the Church which (you claim) is most fully embodied in Orthodoxy.

Quote
 Some of us prefer the term "heterodox" which pretty much amounts to "muddled brothers and sisters".  One theory posits that heresy must be a choice, that one must choose to reject Orthodoxy, a choice that not many Western Christians have been in a position to make.

Yes, but the assumption in earlier posts on this forum has still been that  the canons about heretics apply to us. I would say that not only did modern Western Christians not reject Orthodoxy, but no Western Christian body as a whole ever rejected Orthodoxy. The Western Catholic Church never rejected the dogmas accepted before the Schism. Rather, Western Catholics, working within their particular cultural framework, came to see certain dogmas and practices as expressions of the ancient Orthodox dogmas, and when the Orthodox became aware of them they (the Orthodox) rejected those dogmas and practices as heterodox. There are two possibilities:

1. As the RCs claim, these dogmas and practices were correct and needed elaborations of the ancient dogmas of the Church, or at least legitimate applications of them in a Western cultural context; or

2. As you claim, these dogmas and practices were misinterpretations of the ancient dogmas owing to the cultural isolation of the West. (I am strongly inclined to think that in many cases this position is the correct one, and I am certain that where the first position is correct, it is so only in its second and weaker form--in other words, some Western distinctives are wrong and some are legitimate cultural variants, but none are necessary parts of the Faith.)

But either way, the Western distinctives were not originally rejections of the ancient Faith. The Filioque is an excellent case in point. It was added in the context of Western Trinitarian heresy, and Western Christians were genuinely surprised to find that it wasn't used in the East.
Quote
And it is a sad fact that many Protestant denominations are indeed sliding into outright heresy in this present time, and losing any form of doctrine that would define them as "Christian".

I think this statement is a bit hyperbolic--my own denomination is one of the worst offenders, and yet taken as a whole we are clearly and unambiguously Christian, affirming the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. But it's certainly true that Protestants have a lot of problems with the whole idea of orthodoxy and doctrinal authority. That is part of what I meant in my earlier post when I said that you can be of "use" to us. A lot of our debates about doctrine are muddled because what we take to be the "orthodox" doctrines (penal substitution, total depravity, etc.) are themselves distorted Western ideas in the first place. (And as an aside, I take the point that the Church is here to worship God, but surely you would not dispute that love of neighbor is an important part of what it means to be a Christian, and that Jesus calls us to imitate Him precisely in the fact that he came not to be served but to serve.)

I do not object to your practice of closed communion. I respect even the RC practice, but I find yours much more defensible because as you say it's based on a more personal understanding of the relationship between the communicant and the local church/priest, whereas in the RCC you can just show up at a Mass with vast hordes of anonymous people and receive the Eucharist.

Quote
 We cannot pray with you because it would lend legitimacy to your belief that you are indeed Orthodox.

No, it would lend legitimacy to our belief that we are indeed _Christians_. And that's the point I'm making.

Quote
Oh, and there is no nonsense in any experience that draws you closer to Christ.  When I became Orthodox I did not have to reject that my Baptist upbringing and Episcopalian attendance taught me love for Christ, I had to reject any teachings from that experience that conflicted with the teachings of the Church.

Indeed. And yet you see no conflict between that and your earlier statement about not praying with the non-Orthodox. That's the point I'm pressing. There's a gap in Orthodoxy between the generously "agnostic" statements made by many Orthodox and the extreme nervousness felt by most Orthodox about anything that might look like an official recognition that Christianity exists under other forms.

Quote
Welcome to the Forum!

(PS a piece of advice: "monophysite" is a frowned upon word on this Forum.  "Oriental Orthodox" and miaphysite are acceptable.)

Thanks for your welcome and the notification. I apologize for my slip--it is less pardonable than you suppose, since I have been lurking here for a while. (I thought I had posted here a bit some years ago, but the username I generally use was not recognized, and I have a new email address since then, so I just went ahead and registered--I may have never done more than lurk.) I ought to have known better than to use the "M" word, but I'm rather glad I did. I meant no disrespect to the Oriental Orthodox, but the reaction to my use of that word makes my point better than i could have done on my own.

Your (indeed mine as well) ancestors in the Faith had no problem using the forbidden word and condemning the OOs as heretics. Indeed, some of the canons about praying with heretics may well have had the early OOs in mind. And yet it seems widely accepted on this forum that the OOs are in fact basically Orthodox--that the ancient condemnations, while correct in their doctrinal affirmations, may have been mistaken in their assumptions about what their targets actually believed. It seems relatively uncontroversial (though I know some here object to it) to say that cultural differences played a large role in the schism, even though the earliest defenders of the miaphysite position wrote in Greek.

Yet suggest anything like this with regard to Western Christians, and there are indignant posts about the "pan-heresy of Ecumenism" and the literal applicability of the ancient canons against heresy.

Is it entirely unreasonable to suggest that cultural prejudice may be playing a role here--that the OOs get a pass because they are "Eastern," while the people associated with the Fourth Crusade and modern Western European cultural domination and the troubled religious pasts of many converts to Orthodoxy are considered unworthy of the same consideration?

I'm not objecting to the generosity shown to the OOs--I applaud it. I'd just like to see this ecumenical approach more broadly applied by the Orthodox.

In Christ,

Edwin
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2011, 12:59:46 PM »


And I'm strongly inclined to accept that claim. However, I think there are some problems with defining the Church solely in terms of doctrine--this is a point where I find the Roman Communion preferable with their emphasis on communion with Rome. (The problem is that I can't accept as dogma those same teachings of theirs that you reject. So I remain Anglican for the time being.) In other words, I see the Orthodox as correct, but I am working within the framework of a Protestant ecclesiology (such as that of Richard Hooker) in which one can fail to belong to the "sounder part" of the Church and still be part of the Church in a visible, definitive manner. I see the Orthodox as the "sounder part" of the Church rather than as _the Church_.

And yes, the obvious objection to this is that the ecclesiology I have problems with is itself one of the Orthodox dogmas that I claim to accept. Hence my historical argument about the way the West came to differ from the East, which I argue is quite different from the outright rejection of Orthodoxy found in the ancient heresies.

I understand your objections entirely.  I was myself in near exactly the same position about two years ago, being a broad-high church Episcopalian with a strong foundation in Hooker.  The exclusivity claims were at the time my strongest objection to becoming Orthodox.  It's hard to explain how exactly I overcame these objections, as there were a number of personal and spiritual factors in getting from point (A) to point (B) that quite overshadowed the rational objections.  I suspect being in a strong liberal Episcopalian diocese with absolutely no dissenting parishes contributed a little.


Quote
.... that's still within the framework of a "Cyprianic" ecclesiology in which the unity of the Church defines baptism rather than the other way round. If I'm not mistaken, even the "agnostic" Orthodox would take the view that the acceptance of non-Orthodox baptism is purely by "economia." In the RCC, at least since Vatican II, Protestants (and obviously still more Orthodox) are accepted as part of the Church in a definable, visible manner, although imperfectly so (just barely imperfectly in the case of the Orthodox, much more seriously so in our case). And this position, as Fr. Stanley Jaki has argued, is a development of the position articulated by Pope Stephen in the third century and further elaborated by Augustine in the anti-Donatist controversy. When I speak of Orthodox "exclusivism," I'm speaking of the lack of such an understanding of the imperfect but objectively real ways in which other Christians are united to the Church which (you claim) is most fully embodied in Orthodoxy.

The problem here is that the Roman ecclesiology you speak of is indeed post Vatican II.  I would have to suspect pretty much any teaching coming from this council (more so than I already suspect Roman councils) given the fruits that VII has shown so far.  I can only reiterate that agnosticism is actually a sensible position regarding other Christians, we can only know that Grace operates within our Church and in our Sacraments.  How God's grace extends to other Christians (and perhaps even non-Christians) we cannot know.  To speak authoritatively one way or the other would be to go beyond the bounds of what has been revealed to us.


Quote
Yes, but the assumption in earlier posts on this forum has still been that  the canons about heretics apply to us. I would say that not only did modern Western Christians not reject Orthodoxy, but no Western Christian body as a whole ever rejected Orthodoxy. The Western Catholic Church never rejected the dogmas accepted before the Schism. Rather, Western Catholics, working within their particular cultural framework, came to see certain dogmas and practices as expressions of the ancient Orthodox dogmas, and when the Orthodox became aware of them they (the Orthodox) rejected those dogmas and practices as heterodox. There are two possibilities:

1. As the RCs claim, these dogmas and practices were correct and needed elaborations of the ancient dogmas of the Church, or at least legitimate applications of them in a Western cultural context; or

2. As you claim, these dogmas and practices were misinterpretations of the ancient dogmas owing to the cultural isolation of the West. (I am strongly inclined to think that in many cases this position is the correct one, and I am certain that where the first position is correct, it is so only in its second and weaker form--in other words, some Western distinctives are wrong and some are legitimate cultural variants, but none are necessary parts of the Faith.)

But either way, the Western distinctives were not originally rejections of the ancient Faith. The Filioque is an excellent case in point. It was added in the context of Western Trinitarian heresy, and Western Christians were genuinely surprised to find that it wasn't used in the East.

The filioque is not quite so excellent a point.  The East and West lived alongside each other for several centuries with the understanding that the filioque was merely a "local practice", and that the official creed was still that of Nicene-Constantinople.  The Pope even went so far as to put the Creed on display outside his own church in Greek and Latin without the filioque.  When things finally came to a head in 1054 it was the Papal Legates that excommunicated the East for not having it.  The issue between East and West has always been more about Papal Supremacy than the Filioque, the latter being but a symptom of the infection of the former.

Quote

I think this statement is a bit hyperbolic--my own denomination is one of the worst offenders, and yet taken as a whole we are clearly and unambiguously Christian, affirming the Trinity, Incarnation, etc. But it's certainly true that Protestants have a lot of problems with the whole idea of orthodoxy and doctrinal authority. That is part of what I meant in my earlier post when I said that you can be of "use" to us. A lot of our debates about doctrine are muddled because what we take to be the "orthodox" doctrines (penal substitution, total depravity, etc.) are themselves distorted Western ideas in the first place. (And as an aside, I take the point that the Church is here to worship God, but surely you would not dispute that love of neighbor is an important part of what it means to be a Christian, and that Jesus calls us to imitate Him precisely in the fact that he came not to be served but to serve.)

Well, I don't want to bring specific denominations into this, the Episcopalians might be one of the more noticeable but certainly not the worst.  Certain American segments of the Presbyterians, Lutherans (ELCA, I'm looking at you!), Methodists, and even Baptists are just as bad in the type of heretical teachings the Episcopalians have fallen to.  Going in the complete opposite direction you have pretty much every other denomination falling to Montanism and Donatism.  

As to your denomination specifically, the Episcopalians have reached a point where finding anything remotely "Christian" is becoming more and more difficult every day.  I can point to one or two dioceses which remain (and yet there are even parishes in those dioceses that have fallen) where inter-faith gatherings, gender-neutral "Our Father"s, and rewriting of the Creed to absolutely no recognizable form aren't common place occurrences.   If you wish to remain Anglican, flee, flee I say, to the ACNA (because at this point not being recognized by Canterbury is a good thing.  The African Primates are good company)!  

We cannot pray with you because it would lend legitimacy to your belief that you are indeed Orthodox.

No, it would lend legitimacy to our belief that we are indeed _Christians_. And that's the point I'm making.

Would that were true.  Unfortunately, every time the Orthodox Church allows some leniency in this regard you have band of non-Orthodox more than willing to take it the wrong way.  Not to pick on the Episcopalians, but St Raphael (Haweeny) looked into the possibility of Orthodox Christians who had no nearby parish to attend Episcopalian services and next thing you know there were Episcopalian priests announcing to one and all that the Orthodox and Anglicans were in full communion and telling Orthodox Christians there was no need to travel that extra mile to their Orthodox parish because the Episcopal Church was just as good, Bishop Raphael said so.

This doesn't even take into account those Christians who don't regard sacraments as anything special but see a prayer service as having all the Grace the Church needs.  Orthodoxy needs to witness to Orthodox belief part of which is the Sacramentality and the Unity of the Church.  An Evangelical might be a Christian, but he's a starving and emaciated Christian.

Quote
Indeed. And yet you see no conflict between that and your earlier statement about not praying with the non-Orthodox. That's the point I'm pressing. There's a gap in Orthodoxy between the generously "agnostic" statements made by many Orthodox and the extreme nervousness felt by most Orthodox about anything that might look like an official recognition that Christianity exists under other forms.

When Sts Priscilla and Aquila came across St Apollos preaching the Christian faith in Ephesus they did not rebuke him for it.  They took him aside and instructed him in the fullness of the faith, and he accepted the teachings.  When St Paul came across a few of Apollos' earlier converts he baptized them into the Church (though they had already had the Baptism of St John the Forerunner) and instructed them about the Holy Spirit.  In neither case did the saints come across someone and say "Oh, well, all is fine.  Continue as you did before."  This is the position of the Orthodox Church.


Quote
Thanks for your welcome and the notification. I apologize for my slip--it is less pardonable than you suppose, since I have been lurking here for a while. (I thought I had posted here a bit some years ago, but the username I generally use was not recognized, and I have a new email address since then, so I just went ahead and registered--I may have never done more than lurk.) I ought to have known better than to use the "M" word, but I'm rather glad I did. I meant no disrespect to the Oriental Orthodox, but the reaction to my use of that word makes my point better than i could have done on my own.

Your (indeed mine as well) ancestors in the Faith had no problem using the forbidden word and condemning the OOs as heretics. Indeed, some of the canons about praying with heretics may well have had the early OOs in mind. And yet it seems widely accepted on this forum that the OOs are in fact basically Orthodox--that the ancient condemnations, while correct in their doctrinal affirmations, may have been mistaken in their assumptions about what their targets actually believed. It seems relatively uncontroversial (though I know some here object to it) to say that cultural differences played a large role in the schism, even though the earliest defenders of the miaphysite position wrote in Greek.

Yet suggest anything like this with regard to Western Christians, and there are indignant posts about the "pan-heresy of Ecumenism" and the literal applicability of the ancient canons against heresy.

Is it entirely unreasonable to suggest that cultural prejudice may be playing a role here--that the OOs get a pass because they are "Eastern," while the people associated with the Fourth Crusade and modern Western European cultural domination and the troubled religious pasts of many converts to Orthodoxy are considered unworthy of the same consideration?

I'm not objecting to the generosity shown to the OOs--I applaud it. I'd just like to see this ecumenical approach more broadly applied by the Orthodox.

In Christ,

Edwin


Please, don't confuse forum policy as any sort of official teaching by the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches.  The fact is this board was founded by both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians and the policy reflects this fact.  Our two communions might perhaps be closer to each other now than ever, due to meetings which have taken place which have established that there might have been some misunderstandings due to translations of terms from one language to another, but we are not in communion yet.  Go trawling the EO-OO discussion board and you might come across some language regarding the meetings or even the opposing Church stronger than anything regarding Western and Eastern Christian ecumenism and coming from both sides!

As for taking a similar approach to Western Christians, the administrators and mods here do a fairly good job at keeping offensive terminology out of the discussions.  There is a word which begins with "U" that must NEVER be used in regard to Byzantine Catholics, there is a word which begins with "P" that must NEVER be used in regard to Roman Catholics (a single Roman Catholic member's username is the rare exception), and were any of our Protestant members to complain about certain terms used in regard to them I'm sure such words would be banned as well (not that I know any words which might fit the above criteria).  We can call each other heretics all day but never, ever use the "m", "u", or "p" words.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 01:00:28 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2011, 10:04:19 AM »



I understand your objections entirely.  I was myself in near exactly the same position about two years ago, being a broad-high church Episcopalian with a strong foundation in Hooker.  The exclusivity claims were at the time my strongest objection to becoming Orthodox.  It's hard to explain how exactly I overcame these objections, as there were a number of personal and spiritual factors in getting from point (A) to point (B) that quite overshadowed the rational objections.  I suspect being in a strong liberal Episcopalian diocese with absolutely no dissenting parishes contributed a little.

Yes. The last time I seriously looked into Orthodoxy was in about 2004 when living in New Jersey. I also, of course, thought seriously about the RCC during those years, as I had done for a long time previously. Since moving to Northern Indiana I find remaining Episcopalian much easier, although I remain concerned about the big picture.


Quote

The problem here is that the Roman ecclesiology you speak of is indeed post Vatican II.

In its developed form, yes. But as I said, it is rooted in the ancient affirmation of the validity of schismatic baptisms. That is not a modern position, and it is one I would like to see the Orthodox affirm unequivocally. If there is one doctrinal issue between East and West on which I think the West really is correct, it would be this one.

Quote
  I would have to suspect pretty much any teaching coming from this council (more so than I already suspect Roman councils) given the fruits that VII has shown so far.

Why are you so sure that Vatican II itself is to blame? Aren't you jumping too quickly to this conclusion? If, as the Orthodox say and as I believe, the West has been dominated for a long time by a rather distorted understanding of what orthodox Christianity is, and if the RCC in particular has tended to overemphasize juridical authority and hierarchical control, then it follows that a loosening of the reins would have the immediate result that people would fall into a lot of deplorable errors. It seems rather hasty to blame Vatican II itself unless you can point to specific teachings of that Council that you believe to be a movement in the wrong direction vis-a-vis previous RC teaching.

This hostile attitude to Vatican II is probably one of the main things that divides me from converts to Orthodoxy, especially ex-Anglicans. I am thoroughly convinced of the basic validity of "ressourcement" Catholicism as found in theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Louis Bouyer, Jean Danielou, etc. (I would put the Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement in essentially the same theological camp--I find Clement's account of the Papacy entirely convincing.) The problem is that in many ways the reality described by these theologians corresponds much better to Orthodoxy than to Latin Catholicism. Post-Vatican-II Catholicism in its most official manifestations--the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance--shows the strong influence of Eastern Christianity.

I understand that much of the objection to post-Vatican-II Catholicism focuses on liturgy. But there again, the problem goes back arguably to the sixth century when the traditional Roman Rite took shape. According to Aidan Nichols (in _Rome and the Eastern Churches_), the Latin Rite was from the beginning written in a classicizing Latin largely inaccessible to the common people--it reflected the takeover of the Western Church by the Roman aristocracy. The Byzantine Rite, from the other hand, developed organically out of a liturgy that was deeply participatory. Thus, while the traditional Latin Mass may superficially seem very similar to the Byzantine liturgy, in my experience the two are radically different. (Admittedly, not having lived before Vatican II, I'm basing my judgment of the TLM on two Low Masses I've attended, one SSPX and one indult. I'm sure a High Mass would be somewhat different--but again, the very existence of the "Low Mass" is a Western distinctive.)


 
Quote
I can only reiterate that agnosticism is actually a sensible position regarding other Christians, we can only know that Grace operates within our Church and in our Sacraments.

If Rome was right against Cyprian about the unrepeatability of schismatic baptism, then given what orthodox Christians have always believed about baptism we may have grounds to know a good deal more than that.

I've never quite understood why this wasn't an issue in the early Church, given that Rome clearly differed with Cyprian on this point in the 3rd century, and it's the sort of thing you'd think someone would have made a fight about on one side or the other if the East similarly differed from Rome that early on something this important. I have to wonder whether the "Cyprianic" position of the Eastern Church is genuinely ancient--but I'd have to do further research on the subject.


Quote

But either way, the Western distinctives were not originally rejections of the ancient Faith. The Filioque is an excellent case in point. It was added in the context of Western Trinitarian heresy, and Western Christians were genuinely surprised to find that it wasn't used in the East.

The filioque is not quite so excellent a point.  The East and West lived alongside each other for several centuries with the understanding that the filioque was merely a "local practice", and that the official creed was still that of Nicene-Constantinople.  The Pope even went so far as to put the Creed on display outside his own church in Greek and Latin without the filioque.  When things finally came to a head in 1054 it was the Papal Legates that excommunicated the East for not having it.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. And that's my point. The West genuinely thought that this was the ancient position of the Church. The problem was cultural estrangement.

Quote
  The issue between East and West has always been more about Papal Supremacy than the Filioque, the latter being but a symptom of the infection of the former.

That makes absolutely no sense. The Filioque originated in Spain and was resisted by the Papacy.

"Papal Supremacy" is a complicated issue. I agree with the Orthodox that the way the Papacy has been exercised in the past millennium is disordered, and that many of the standard RC apologetic claims against the Orthodox betray a juridical approach to ecclesiology that is at odds with the Tradition. However, at the same time it has to be noted that there is no dogma called "Papal Supremacy"--that's a polemical catch-all term used by the Orthodox (and many Anglicans). The closest one could come to it is the concept of "plenitudo potestatis," which is unfortunately reaffirmed in the CCC, and/or the claim of "ordinary, direct jurisdiction" made at Vatican I.

The problem I have is that the choice in practice is between a disordered Papacy and no papacy at all. And I'm just as certain that the Petrine ministry of Rome is an integral part of the right ordering of the Church as I am that the way Rome has exercised this ministry has become deeply disordered. Insofar as I have an excuse for remaining Anglican, that is it!

Quote

Well, I don't want to bring specific denominations into this, the Episcopalians might be one of the more noticeable but certainly not the worst.

I said "one of the worst."

John Shelby Spong is about as bad as you get. . . .

Quote
  Going in the complete opposite direction you have pretty much every other denomination falling to Montanism and Donatism.

I don't think the choices are that stark at all. Most evangelicals recognize the problems with Donatism, though in practice they often wind up practicing a kind of Donatism because of their weak ecclesiology and the realities of American Protestantism. I frankly find your injunction to "flee to the ACNA" to be a form of Donatism. . . .

 
Quote
As to your denomination specifically, the Episcopalians have reached a point where finding anything remotely "Christian" is becoming more and more difficult every day.

I have never found it difficult, even when I lived in New Jersey.

Either your experience is radically different from mine, or you are working with a much more draconian definition of "remotely Christian" than I am.

Even one of the more radical churches near me in the Diocese of Newark (I lived practically on the diiocesan border, and attended church in the Diocese of New Jersey, which is more middle-of-the-road by Episcopalian standards), which did not use the Nicene Creed, replaced it with a statement saying "Jesus is Lord and we are God's people." That's vague and implicitly unorthodox (inasmuch as this substituted for the Creed), but certainly more than "remotely" Christian!

Quote
  I can point to one or two dioceses which remain (and yet there are even parishes in those dioceses that have fallen) where inter-faith gatherings, gender-neutral "Our Father"s, and rewriting of the Creed to absolutely no recognizable form aren't common place occurrences.

I am not sure what you mean by "absolutely no recognizable form." I haven't experienced this myself. A gender-neutral Our Father is certainly at least remotely Christian! And "interfaith gatherings" can mean a lot of things. It seems to me that a lot of conservative ex-Anglicans use the phrase "not remotely Christian" to mean what I'd call "clearly Christian but of dubious orthodoxy at best."

Quote
  If you wish to remain Anglican, flee, flee I say, to the ACNA (because at this point not being recognized by Canterbury is a good thing.

I find that to be very odd advice, though unfortunately I've heard it before. The reason I remain Anglican is that I do not wish to go into schism from the body of Christians with whom I am presently associated. Why on earth would I or anyone else leave that body to join yet another sect of Protestant schismatics, which is essentially what the ACNA are at this point (well, minus the three or four dioceses that came over from the Episcopal Church as geographical entities--if I lived in those parts of the country, I'd happily be ACNA)?

I don't care about being Anglican per se. I care about the unity of the Church defined as the whole company of the baptized. And that is my basic point of difference with Orthodoxy. This conversation over the past few days has clarified that point for me.



Quote

Would that were true.  Unfortunately, every time the Orthodox Church allows some leniency in this regard you have band of non-Orthodox more than willing to take it the wrong way.  Not to pick on the Episcopalians, but St Raphael (Haweeny) looked into the possibility of Orthodox Christians who had no nearby parish to attend Episcopalian services and next thing you know there were Episcopalian priests announcing to one and all that the Orthodox and Anglicans were in full communion and telling Orthodox Christians there was no need to travel that extra mile to their Orthodox parish because the Episcopal Church was just as good, Bishop Raphael said so.

That's a valid point. "I'm-as-good-as-you" is the worm in the apple of Anglo-Catholicism. . . . if Anglo-Catholicism had been willing from the beginning to take a humble and penitential attitude to churches of more undoubted orthodoxy and apostolicity, the story might have been very different. Unfortunately, Anglo-Catholics have from the beginning played a shell game of trying to persuade RCs and Orthodox (mostly Orthodox because RCs knew better) that they (the Anglo-Catholics) spoke for Anglicans as a whole. And non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who don't actually accept the teachings of the "undivided Church," have been happy to piggyback on those claims of Catholicity. Never mind the fact that many folks (including very conservative ones) claim to be Anglo-Catholic while in fact rejecting basic parts of the "undivided Church" package. (The wife of one "Continuing Anglican" archbishop told me confidently that her particular jurisdiction rejected the practice of asking for the prayers of the Theotokos--and this group has the word "Catholic" in its name!) I've been guilty of this too--I've used Anglicanism as a place to work out my remaining issues with pre-Reformation Christianity, while claiming basically to adhere to it.



Quote

When Sts Priscilla and Aquila came across St Apollos preaching the Christian faith in Ephesus they did not rebuke him for it.  They took him aside and instructed him in the fullness of the faith, and he accepted the teachings.  When St Paul came across a few of Apollos' earlier converts he baptized them into the Church (though they had already had the Baptism of St John the Forerunner) and instructed them about the Holy Spirit.  In neither case did the saints come across someone and say "Oh, well, all is fine.  Continue as you did before."  This is the position of the Orthodox Church.

I have no problem with what you say here. I think Metropolitan Jonah's address to the ACNA convention was marvelous--it was an excellent example of what I meant when I said earlier that the Orthodox can be "of great use to us."


Quote
Please, don't confuse forum policy as any sort of official teaching by the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches.  The fact is this board was founded by both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians and the policy reflects this fact. 

I can see that. I imagine that if Orthodox and Eastern Catholics were to found a board together, the tone might be rather different toward the Roman Communion.

So are you denying altogether that the majority of Orthodox take a much more lenient view toward the OOs than toward Western Christians?

Edwin
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 10:06:51 AM by Contarini » Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2011, 12:49:58 PM »


In its developed form, yes. But as I said, it is rooted in the ancient affirmation of the validity of schismatic baptisms. That is not a modern position, and it is one I would like to see the Orthodox affirm unequivocally. If there is one doctrinal issue between East and West on which I think the West really is correct, it would be this one.

Any of the ancient canons regarding the baptisms of schismatics and heretics (but note only heretics with valid Trinitarian formula of baptism, that is in "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" not in some other form such as "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" or some other similar messing about) still required Chrismation.  This indicates not a belief in the "validity" of these baptisms as such, baptism did not make one a full member of the Church, Chrismation did.


Quote

Why are you so sure that Vatican II itself is to blame? Aren't you jumping too quickly to this conclusion? If, as the Orthodox say and as I believe, the West has been dominated for a long time by a rather distorted understanding of what orthodox Christianity is, and if the RCC in particular has tended to overemphasize juridical authority and hierarchical control, then it follows that a loosening of the reins would have the immediate result that people would fall into a lot of deplorable errors. It seems rather hasty to blame Vatican II itself unless you can point to specific teachings of that Council that you believe to be a movement in the wrong direction vis-a-vis previous RC teaching.

This hostile attitude to Vatican II is probably one of the main things that divides me from converts to Orthodoxy, especially ex-Anglicans. I am thoroughly convinced of the basic validity of "ressourcement" Catholicism as found in theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Louis Bouyer, Jean Danielou, etc. (I would put the Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement in essentially the same theological camp--I find Clement's account of the Papacy entirely convincing.) The problem is that in many ways the reality described by these theologians corresponds much better to Orthodoxy than to Latin Catholicism. Post-Vatican-II Catholicism in its most official manifestations--the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for instance--shows the strong influence of Eastern Christianity.

I understand that much of the objection to post-Vatican-II Catholicism focuses on liturgy. But there again, the problem goes back arguably to the sixth century when the traditional Roman Rite took shape. According to Aidan Nichols (in _Rome and the Eastern Churches_), the Latin Rite was from the beginning written in a classicizing Latin largely inaccessible to the common people--it reflected the takeover of the Western Church by the Roman aristocracy. The Byzantine Rite, from the other hand, developed organically out of a liturgy that was deeply participatory. Thus, while the traditional Latin Mass may superficially seem very similar to the Byzantine liturgy, in my experience the two are radically different. (Admittedly, not having lived before Vatican II, I'm basing my judgment of the TLM on two Low Masses I've attended, one SSPX and one indult. I'm sure a High Mass would be somewhat different--but again, the very existence of the "Low Mass" is a Western distinctive.)

I have no certainty regarding VII's blame myself, FWIW I consider VI to be a major source of confusion that paved the way for VII.  I do believe that RCs might be better off if the only aim of VII's liturgical "reforms" was the translation of the Mass into the language common to the people of the various nations, as opposed to allowing some form of free-for-all anarchy that many of our Catholic posters complain about.  The problem with saying that VII shows the strong influence of Eastern Christianity is that it also shows the strong influence of more reappraising forms of theology.  It tries to marry a more "traditional" form of Christianity with a Post-Radical Reformation form and the two do not mix well.

Quote
If Rome was right against Cyprian about the unrepeatability of schismatic baptism, then given what orthodox Christians have always believed about baptism we may have grounds to know a good deal more than that.

I've never quite understood why this wasn't an issue in the early Church, given that Rome clearly differed with Cyprian on this point in the 3rd century, and it's the sort of thing you'd think someone would have made a fight about on one side or the other if the East similarly differed from Rome that early on something this important. I have to wonder whether the "Cyprianic" position of the Eastern Church is genuinely ancient--but I'd have to do further research on the subject.

The East was never as monolithic as all that, and still isn't.  Patriarchs and bishops are given a lot of leeway as to how they handle such situations.  This becomes more of a problem here in a America, where parishes of different juridictions right down the street from each other have different requirements, one baptizing all converts, the other baptizing only Protestant converts, and the third just baptizing non-Christians and those who were not baptized according to the Trinitarian formula.  But in Orthodoxy on the grand scale this makes more sense, leaving each mode of reception to the conscience and traditions that have been with the Church from as long as there were schismatics and heretics.

Quote

Indeed. And that's my point. The West genuinely thought that this was the ancient position of the Church. The problem was cultural estrangement.


But we hadn't reached my point yet, which was:
 The issue between East and West has always been more about Papal Supremacy than the Filioque, the latter being but a symptom of the infection of the former.

Regardless of what the West thought was the ancient position of the Church as regards the Filioque the Filioque wasn't really the problem, it was the fact that the West (which had introduced the innovation, whether it knew it or not) thought it had the authority to dictate to the East on any matter or point at all.

Quote

That makes absolutely no sense. The Filioque originated in Spain and was resisted by the Papacy.

At first.  But by the time of the Schism in 1054 the absence of the Filioque in the Eastern Creed was one of the main points of reasoning behind the excommunications placed on the East.  In fact, the Pope should have known better as regards the ancient traditions, the Creed in Latin, without Filioque, was inscribed on his personal chapel less than two hundred years before.


Quote
"Papal Supremacy" is a complicated issue. I agree with the Orthodox that the way the Papacy has been exercised in the past millennium is disordered, and that many of the standard RC apologetic claims against the Orthodox betray a juridical approach to ecclesiology that is at odds with the Tradition. However, at the same time it has to be noted that there is no dogma called "Papal Supremacy"--that's a polemical catch-all term used by the Orthodox (and many Anglicans). The closest one could come to it is the concept of "plenitudo potestatis," which is unfortunately reaffirmed in the CCC, and/or the claim of "ordinary, direct jurisdiction" made at Vatican I.

The problem I have is that the choice in practice is between a disordered Papacy and no papacy at all. And I'm just as certain that the Petrine ministry of Rome is an integral part of the right ordering of the Church as I am that the way Rome has exercised this ministry has become deeply disordered. Insofar as I have an excuse for remaining Anglican, that is it!

Petrine ministry and how it developed is just one of the many fun discussions we have here on the Orthodox-Catholic section of the forums.  For now, I will just state that the East has two legitimate claimants for Petrine desent: Antioch and Alexandria.  Rome's position of honor stated in the canons of the first Nicene Council derived from her position as capital of the Empire and as the place where most martyrdoms throughout the pre-Constantine Empire got their start and bloodiest finish.

Well, I don't want to bring specific denominations into this, the Episcopalians might be one of the more noticeable but certainly not the worst.
Quote
I said "one of the worst."

John Shelby Spong is about as bad as you get. . . .
Please, I don't want to argue with you over how other denominations are just as bad as your own, especially from this side of it.  That's just... weird.  Spong is bad, but his brand of theology isn't exclusive to Episcopalians, it's a concerted effort spread across denominations.
Going in the complete opposite direction you have pretty much every other denomination falling to Montanism and Donatism.
Quote
I don't think the choices are that stark at all. Most evangelicals recognize the problems with Donatism, though in practice they often wind up practicing a kind of Donatism because of their weak ecclesiology and the realities of American Protestantism. I frankly find your injunction to "flee to the ACNA" to be a form of Donatism. . . .

There might be a degree of reductio ad absurdum to my statement regarding Evangelicals, but just a slight degree.  As to the statement regarding the ACNA, I'll address it when you re-adress it later in your post.


As to your denomination specifically, the Episcopalians have reached a point where finding anything remotely "Christian" is becoming more and more difficult every day.

Quote

I have never found it difficult, even when I lived in New Jersey.

Either your experience is radically different from mine, or you are working with a much more draconian definition of "remotely Christian" than I am.

Even one of the more radical churches near me in the Diocese of Newark (I lived practically on the diiocesan border, and attended church in the Diocese of New Jersey, which is more middle-of-the-road by Episcopalian standards), which did not use the Nicene Creed, replaced it with a statement saying "Jesus is Lord and we are God's people." That's vague and implicitly unorthodox (inasmuch as this substituted for the Creed), but certainly more than "remotely" Christian!

"Jesus is Lord and we are God's people." is just a little too vague.  The same statement could be made by Hare Krishna, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses.  Without knowing the parish you speak of I could not say more, as I don't know what sort of references to the Resurrection, Trinity, etc, they make.  Try going to church in Chicago, some time.  The most "conservative" parish I visited (plainchant, everything from the BCP, etc)  there had sermons filled with with theological agnosticism: "It doesn't matter if the Resurrection was a historical event", "if (this or that) exists", etc.  

Quote
I am not sure what you mean by "absolutely no recognizable form." I haven't experienced this myself. A gender-neutral Our Father is certainly at least remotely Christian!

A gender-neutral "Our Father" isn't even an "Our Father" let alone Christian.

Quote
And "interfaith gatherings" can mean a lot of things.

In this particular case it means services with less-than fundamentalist Muslims, Wiccans, New Age gurus, etc.  When I was an Anglican I would have been less disturbed if it only meant inter-denominational, as a former Baptist that was actually comforting at the time.

Quote
It seems to me that a lot of conservative ex-Anglicans use the phrase "not remotely Christian" to mean what I'd call "clearly Christian but of dubious orthodoxy at best."
The funny thing is, when I was an Anglican I was far less than "conservative", and willing to stick around through a lot of the issues that drove the conservatives out.  The final straw for me was law-suits and a PB willing to run rough-shod over the constitutions and canons to defrock priests and bishops who disagreed with her.


 If you wish to remain Anglican, flee, flee I say, to the ACNA (because at this point not being recognized by Canterbury is a good thing.

Quote
I find that to be very odd advice, though unfortunately I've heard it before. The reason I remain Anglican is that I do not wish to go into schism from the body of Christians with whom I am presently associated. Why on earth would I or anyone else leave that body to join yet another sect of Protestant schismatics, which is essentially what the ACNA are at this point (well, minus the three or four dioceses that came over from the Episcopal Church as geographical entities--if I lived in those parts of the country, I'd happily be ACNA)?

I don't care about being Anglican per se. I care about the unity of the Church defined as the whole company of the baptized. And that is my basic point of difference with Orthodoxy. This conversation over the past few days has clarified that point for me.

When St John fled the bath-house upon the entry of Cerinthus was he worried about "unity at all costs (even orthodoxy)?"  The Anglican I was could have argued for the ACNA based on the grounds that there were indeed entire dioceses that came over, and that there were indeed valid priests and bishops in the AMIA and Nigerian Missions (geographical incursions bothered me not in the slightest, such is also a tradition of the Church when heresy has been determined, sorry, Apb Rowan), and that these together are enough to absolve the sin of schism from the REC and other traditionalist groups that joined in the founding (indeed, I saw the unification of all these groups as something remarkable).  My current beliefs are, of course, much different, but it is that vestigial Anglican who voices such concern.  If you are not yet ready to embrace Orthodoxy, at least embrace orthodoxy.


Quote

That's a valid point. "I'm-as-good-as-you" is the worm in the apple of Anglo-Catholicism. . . . if Anglo-Catholicism had been willing from the beginning to take a humble and penitential attitude to churches of more undoubted orthodoxy and apostolicity, the story might have been very different. Unfortunately, Anglo-Catholics have from the beginning played a shell game of trying to persuade RCs and Orthodox (mostly Orthodox because RCs knew better) that they (the Anglo-Catholics) spoke for Anglicans as a whole. And non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who don't actually accept the teachings of the "undivided Church," have been happy to piggyback on those claims of Catholicity. Never mind the fact that many folks (including very conservative ones) claim to be Anglo-Catholic while in fact rejecting basic parts of the "undivided Church" package. (The wife of one "Continuing Anglican" archbishop told me confidently that her particular jurisdiction rejected the practice of asking for the prayers of the Theotokos--and this group has the word "Catholic" in its name!) I've been guilty of this too--I've used Anglicanism as a place to work out my remaining issues with pre-Reformation Christianity, while claiming basically to adhere to it.

The via media is indeed a beautiful dream, unfortunately the balance is near impossible to keep.  One of my particular favorite quotes from the more low-church end of things is "We accept the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the latter three" as if the entirety of the teachings of the Seventh Council weren't Christological.





When Sts Priscilla and Aquila came across St Apollos preaching the Christian faith in Ephesus they did not rebuke him for it.  They took him aside and instructed him in the fullness of the faith, and he accepted the teachings.  When St Paul came across a few of Apollos' earlier converts he baptized them into the Church (though they had already had the Baptism of St John the Forerunner) and instructed them about the Holy Spirit.  In neither case did the saints come across someone and say "Oh, well, all is fine.  Continue as you did before."  This is the position of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
I have no problem with what you say here. I think Metropolitan Jonah's address to the ACNA convention was marvelous--it was an excellent example of what I meant when I said earlier that the Orthodox can be "of great use to us."

Indeed, it was this address that is the reason I didn't "flee to the ACNA" and marked the beginning of my path into Orthodoxy.


Please, don't confuse forum policy as any sort of official teaching by the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches.  The fact is this board was founded by both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians and the policy reflects this fact.  

Quote
I can see that. I imagine that if Orthodox and Eastern Catholics were to found a board together, the tone might be rather different toward the Roman Communion.
I doubt it.  As the longer version of my above quote stated, things can get pretty heated in the OO-EO section.  

Quote
So are you denying altogether that the majority of Orthodox take a much more lenient view toward the OOs than toward Western Christians?

Edwin

I can neither confirm nor deny these remarks at this time  Wink  Seriously, it's hard to discern what the "majority" Orthodox view is in this regard.  The hard-line anti-ecumenicist isn't going to be lenient toward anyone, the full-on ecumenicist is going to be just as lenient, and those in the middle will either lean in one direction or the other.

Certainly there has been more head-way in the talks between OO and EO than with EO and Western Christians, but the Fourth Council will be a sticking point for quite some time.  A lot of this has to do with a very similar approach to ecclesiology, it's hard to get anywhere with the Roman Church when you can't agree as to has the power to say what and when. And as for the Protestant Churches, forget it.  The mainlines who are left are most likely going to individually join either RC or EO, we might be able to hope for a entire parish or a diocese at most, but those in power are more interested in playing happy-clappy with Pagans and Buddhists.  The Evangelical denominations are about as likely to join the Mormons as to unite with a bunch of idol-worshiping necromancers, though a pastor reading the Fathers can sometimes provide some surprising results.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 12:52:09 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2011, 05:33:47 PM »

Regardless of what the West thought was the ancient position of the Church as regards the Filioque the Filioque wasn't really the problem, it was the fact that the West (which had introduced the innovation, whether it knew it or not) thought it had the authority to dictate to the East on any matter or point at all.

Indeed. One thing that really mystifies me about Protestants (well, a great many of them at least) is that they accept the insertion of the filioque into the creed, yet reject the very authority that justifies that insertion.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
copticyouth93
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 61



« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2011, 05:36:01 PM »

I am firmly against what I see today; this "movement" ....'called' "ecumenism".

I completely ignor it.

I am for true relations with all who are willing to hear and accept the teachings and salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, willing to live life as Christ commands His true faithful and follow the apostolic tradition which is the basis of the orthodox faith. That is not to say EO or OO.....but 'Orthodox'.

Orthodoxy must speak with one voice and communion worldwide before we can AGAIN be the true 'example' of the ONE UNIversal Church of God.

WE are making head-way.

Most of our problems are not Chalcedon and the "anathemas"; but stone hard loyalists who are eager to not have any resolve be realised within orthodoxy. These people are trying their hardest to hold the "door" to unity and peace closed. But based on current developments within orthodox the "door" is all but busted down to the ground. People are little by little are starting to walk in and and get equainted with each other again. This and other forums like this are helping thanks be to Gods grace and mercy.

It is a blessing.

Sorry man, but this is against us too.

Pray for me,
Copticyouth93
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2011, 09:11:34 PM »

That's a valid point. "I'm-as-good-as-you" is the worm in the apple of Anglo-Catholicism. . . . if Anglo-Catholicism had been willing from the beginning to take a humble and penitential attitude to churches of more undoubted orthodoxy and apostolicity, the story might have been very different. Unfortunately, Anglo-Catholics have from the beginning played a shell game of trying to persuade RCs and Orthodox (mostly Orthodox because RCs knew better) that they (the Anglo-Catholics) spoke for Anglicans as a whole. And non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who don't actually accept the teachings of the "undivided Church," have been happy to piggyback on those claims of Catholicity. Never mind the fact that many folks (including very conservative ones) claim to be Anglo-Catholic while in fact rejecting basic parts of the "undivided Church" package. (The wife of one "Continuing Anglican" archbishop told me confidently that her particular jurisdiction rejected the practice of asking for the prayers of the Theotokos--and this group has the word "Catholic" in its name!) I've been guilty of this too--I've used Anglicanism as a place to work out my remaining issues with pre-Reformation Christianity, while claiming basically to adhere to it.

Interesting ... there's a similar issue between Catholics and Orthodox. Namely, some Catholics will say (sometimes very forcefully) "We're the same as you", which bothers the Orthodox. See, for example, this post.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 09:13:54 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: April 06, 2011, 01:03:16 AM »

I am firmly against what I see today; this "movement" ....'called' "ecumenism".

I completely ignor it.

I am for true relations with all who are willing to hear and accept the teachings and salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, willing to live life as Christ commands His true faithful and follow the apostolic tradition which is the basis of the orthodox faith. That is not to say EO or OO.....but 'Orthodox'.

Orthodoxy must speak with one voice and communion worldwide before we can AGAIN be the true 'example' of the ONE UNIversal Church of God.

WE are making head-way.

Most of our problems are not Chalcedon and the "anathemas"; but stone hard loyalists who are eager to not have any resolve be realised within orthodoxy. These people are trying their hardest to hold the "door" to unity and peace closed. But based on current developments within orthodox the "door" is all but busted down to the ground. People are little by little are starting to walk in and and get equainted with each other again. This and other forums like this are helping thanks be to Gods grace and mercy.

It is a blessing.

Sorry man, but this is against us too.

Pray for me,
Copticyouth93
Is there some reason you chose to quote your own post without adding anything new?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 01:03:33 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Contarini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian, belonging to the Anglican Communion, adhering to the teachings of the Seven Councils
Jurisdiction: The Episcopal Church
Posts: 14


« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2011, 10:43:21 PM »

That's a valid point. "I'm-as-good-as-you" is the worm in the apple of Anglo-Catholicism. . . . if Anglo-Catholicism had been willing from the beginning to take a humble and penitential attitude to churches of more undoubted orthodoxy and apostolicity, the story might have been very different. Unfortunately, Anglo-Catholics have from the beginning played a shell game of trying to persuade RCs and Orthodox (mostly Orthodox because RCs knew better) that they (the Anglo-Catholics) spoke for Anglicans as a whole. And non-Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, who don't actually accept the teachings of the "undivided Church," have been happy to piggyback on those claims of Catholicity. Never mind the fact that many folks (including very conservative ones) claim to be Anglo-Catholic while in fact rejecting basic parts of the "undivided Church" package. (The wife of one "Continuing Anglican" archbishop told me confidently that her particular jurisdiction rejected the practice of asking for the prayers of the Theotokos--and this group has the word "Catholic" in its name!) I've been guilty of this too--I've used Anglicanism as a place to work out my remaining issues with pre-Reformation Christianity, while claiming basically to adhere to it.

Interesting ... there's a similar issue between Catholics and Orthodox. Namely, some Catholics will say (sometimes very forcefully) "We're the same as you", which bothers the Orthodox. See, for example, this post.

Agreed. This bugs me too, even though I do in fact think that East and West aren't as far apart as many Orthodox think. We all need to be willing to listen to those whom we find "exclusive." Which is why I'm here!
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,114


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #96 on: April 07, 2011, 10:48:03 PM »

http://badvestments.blogspot.com/

With this blog, one sees the problems with ecumenism.

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #97 on: May 14, 2011, 11:45:57 PM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 15, 2011, 02:03:12 PM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #99 on: May 16, 2011, 11:54:54 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

If EO wants to keep itself "Orthodox", then protestants and the Pope would actually have to completely change.  The Pope would have to eradicate everything since 1054 in the RC church, and reconcile all the events of the schism and be as an equal.   No way this will happen.

The question exists who's going to change?  The EO patriarchs holding mass with the Pope, or the Cardinals attending the Divine Liturgy?

Unionization is fine, so long as it's unionization to "the right way".   RC is in it because they want EO to be more like RC.  So what happens, "They'll try to find middle ground".  Mark my words, it's already happening.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 16, 2011, 12:00:49 PM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

If EO wants to keep itself "Orthodox", then protestants and the Pope would actually have to completely change.  The Pope would have to eradicate everything since 1054 in the RC church, and reconcile all the events of the schism and be as an equal.   No way this will happen.

The question exists who's going to change?  The EO patriarchs holding mass with the Pope, or the Cardinals attending the Divine Liturgy?

Unionization is fine, so long as it's unionization to "the right way".   RC is in it because they want EO to be more like RC.  So what happens, "They'll try to find middle ground".  Mark my words, it's already happening.

What do you mean by 'eradicate everything' post 1054? That paints a with a broad stroke. Should we Orthodox likewise 'eradicate' every development in our Church post schism as well such as liturgical development? Perhaps you mean teachings that are contrary to that of the patristic patrimony of we Orthodox?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 16, 2011, 12:05:06 PM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #102 on: May 17, 2011, 11:16:38 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.

Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4

Hey it's their rules (Canon of the Holy Apostles) they (Bishops) agreed to (on Ordination) that they are violating.
If EO Christians accept this, hey, I guess where am I to say anything?
Just answering the OP.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2011, 11:29:21 AM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 17, 2011, 11:37:56 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.

Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4

Hey it's their rules (Canon of the Holy Apostles) they (Bishops) agreed to (on Ordination) that they are violating.
If EO Christians accept this, hey, I guess where am I to say anything?
Just answering the OP.



Do yourself a favor and learn what οικονόμια and ακριβεια are and how they apply to the canons of the Church and then perhaps you can proffer a more educated opinion.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #104 on: May 17, 2011, 11:56:27 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.

Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4

Hey it's their rules (Canon of the Holy Apostles) they (Bishops) agreed to (on Ordination) that they are violating.
If EO Christians accept this, hey, I guess where am I to say anything?
Just answering the OP.



Do yourself a favor and learn what οικονόμια and ακριβεια are and how they apply to the canons of the Church and then perhaps you can proffer a more educated opinion.
I wish you liked me better.  I've done nothing to you.
God Bless.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #105 on: May 18, 2011, 02:18:37 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.

Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4

Hey it's their rules (Canon of the Holy Apostles) they (Bishops) agreed to (on Ordination) that they are violating.
If EO Christians accept this, hey, I guess where am I to say anything?
Just answering the OP.



Do yourself a favor and learn what οικονόμια and ακριβεια are and how they apply to the canons of the Church and then perhaps you can proffer a more educated opinion.
I wish you liked me better.  I've done nothing to you.
God Bless.
Well, for one thing, you reject the teaching of the Church and make up your own rules when ours don't work for you, yet you're quite happy to assert the rules of the Church with great fervor when they do. If you're going to preach the value of following those of our rules that you like and judge those who break them, then dadgummit! Follow ALL our rules, and stop making your own.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: May 18, 2011, 04:24:14 AM »


Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4


Well, your remark does not introduce this video clip in an attractive way, but this clip and the second part of it are excellent.  In particular I was pleased to see the Ecumenical Patriarch's strong oppostion to the Unia.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 04:25:22 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #107 on: May 18, 2011, 04:57:28 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Why are efforts to seek some way to restore the 'status quo ante' of first millennium Orthodoxy a basis to seek that a priest or bishop be deposed? You have to define what it is you are objecting to. There is a vast difference between efforts of groups such as the international academic dialogs and a 'kumbaya -  we are all one approach.' I am unaware of meaningful Orthodox participation in the 'kumbaya' model of ecumenical dialog even though many dissidents seem to see it everywhere they turn.

The canon calls for any worship with the Non-Orthodox to be deposed & defrocked.  Many EO have ridiculed me over this even after I showed them photos of their priests & bishops doing this very thing.  Holding mass with the Pope for instance.

The canons are also for those in the Church, not dilettantes who want to pick and choose their religion like it's a smorgasbord.

Just food for thought.

Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4

Hey it's their rules (Canon of the Holy Apostles) they (Bishops) agreed to (on Ordination) that they are violating.
If EO Christians accept this, hey, I guess where am I to say anything?
Just answering the OP.

I have to say the Liturgy of St Chrysostom sounds pretty awesome in Italian.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2011, 05:35:51 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

YeshuaisIAM,

Have you listened to these radio shows?

http://reasonradionetwork.com/programs/the-orthodox-nationalist

Not everyone is oblivious to the New World Order.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2011, 06:29:29 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

Do you mean Pope Shenouda? Because if you don't, by your definition, Pope Benedict XVI is not in your church and can't be removed by your rules. If you have the authority to remove him, you would have to say that his is a real church, and oh goodness, have we opened up a can of worms then. You can't have it both ways.

If we get to thinking that the world is coming to an end every time someone has a conference, maybe this is no better than all those 'the Rapture is May 21' people.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2011, 06:38:32 AM »

My opinion.

Ecumenism is the precursor to the One World Church of the New World Order.

It is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles for clergy to be engaged in this.
The Pope for instance, is HEAVILY engaged in it.  By the Canon of the Holy Apostles, he is and should be defrocked.

YeshuaisIAM,

Have you listened to these radio shows?

http://reasonradionetwork.com/programs/the-orthodox-nationalist

Not everyone is oblivious to the New World Order.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†


This is a priest Raphael Matthew Johnson of a dissident Church founded by an ex-Soviet priest Klaus Hessler (now Metropolitan Evloghios Hessler of the Synod of Milan)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2011, 07:49:01 AM »


Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4


Well, your remark does not introduce this video clip in an attractive way,

Very true. I wasn't going to bother watching it, until I saw your comments about it.

I had never heard that part at the end, about Orthodox not "taking in" Catholic priests who want to convert. Is that a much-discussed topic?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,114


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #112 on: May 18, 2011, 05:13:23 PM »


Sorry, I'll close my eyes and just act like it's not happening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKMun8flF4


Well, your remark does not introduce this video clip in an attractive way,

Very true. I wasn't going to bother watching it, until I saw your comments about it.

I had never heard that part at the end, about Orthodox not "taking in" Catholic priests who want to convert. Is that a much-discussed topic?

That is sad.

I think the main issue here is: have these former celibate Catholic priests left the Catholic priesthood to marry?
If so, then that seems to be an impediment to receiving Holy Orders in Orthodoxy.

I do know some Catholic priests who were received into the OCA during a Hierarchal Divine Liturgy by being vested. They were not chrismated, but simply professed the Nicene Creed during that Liturgy. However, these men were single and celibate, not married.

One priest, who converted with the EOC Antiochian group in the 1980s was previously a Jesuit who had left the Catholic priesthood and had married. He was accepted unconditionally with the other EOC priests and was re-ordained by the Antiochians, which he said rarely happens. Not too long ago, he changed jurisdictions and new serves as a priest in the OCA.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2011, 05:18:59 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #113 on: May 21, 2011, 12:17:13 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2011, 12:20:11 PM by Alcuin » Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 21, 2011, 05:28:33 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.

Well said and it applies from my Orthodox point of view as well and, I believe reflects the ground rules and understandings governing the North American Roman Catholic/Orthodox Dialog. It is only the voices on the outside, or the loud ones on the internet that either simplify things or portray them as conspiratorial when it comes to ecumenical dialog.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #115 on: May 21, 2011, 05:35:41 PM »


Ecumenism - the opinion of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad from 1964 to 1985- amicable relations with other faiths which does not betray the truth of Orthodoxy.

A delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to Vatican II was sent by Metropolitan Philaret.

Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965:

"Of course, we are not against amicable relations with the
representatives of other faiths, since this does not betray the truth
of Orthodoxy. For this reason our Church at one time accepted the
friendly invitation to send an observer to the Second Vatican Council,
just as it had sent an observer to the Protestant conference of the
World Council of Churches. . . ."


The letter, in the original Russian, can be found here:

http://www.romanitas.ru/content/filaret-vozn/epistles/athenag1.htm

Metropolitan Philaret said he was not against "amicable relations with the representatives of other faiths, since this not betray the truth of Orthodoxy" and explained that this was the reason the ROCOR sent observers to Vatican II just as it had sent observers to the Protestant Conferences of the WCC.


Actually, there were more than one official observer representing the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at the Second Vatican Council. There was a full delegation, led by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, and including Archimandrite Amvrossy (Pogodin), Archpriest Alexander Troubnikoff and Archpriest Igor Trojanoff.

All of them participated in the ceremonial Procession into St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome, together with the official delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Archbishop Nikodim (Rotov), and representatives of seventeen Orthodox and Oriental churches, to pay their respects to the Pope and the Council.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #116 on: May 21, 2011, 06:38:10 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity?

Oh fudge.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #117 on: May 21, 2011, 06:40:14 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.

Well said and it applies from my Orthodox point of view as well

And the Anglican p.o.v. (Of course, I guess it would have been better if an Anglican poster had said that. Excuse me for jumping the gun.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 21, 2011, 07:12:29 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.

Well said and it applies from my Orthodox point of view as well

And the Anglican p.o.v. (Of course, I guess it would have been better if an Anglican poster had said that. Excuse me for jumping the gun.)

I wouldn't be so sure.  I used to be Anglican- it was all about fudge!
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,114


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #119 on: May 21, 2011, 07:14:42 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.

Well said and it applies from my Orthodox point of view as well

And the Anglican p.o.v. (Of course, I guess it would have been better if an Anglican poster had said that. Excuse me for jumping the gun.)

I wouldn't be so sure.  I used to be Anglican- it was all about fudge!

fudge? Now you are making me crave chocolate? Did I just say chocolate. Oh. My.

However, I agree that we should not compromise our beliefs.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2011, 07:17:02 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #120 on: May 21, 2011, 07:31:59 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity?

Oh fudge.

Whoops, I mean don't fudge.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #121 on: May 21, 2011, 09:02:02 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when we Catholics try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.

Well said and it applies from my Orthodox point of view as well

And the Anglican p.o.v. (Of course, I guess it would have been better if an Anglican poster had said that. Excuse me for jumping the gun.)

I wouldn't be so sure.  I used to be Anglican- it was all about fudge!

I agree.

What I meant, in my earlier post, is that Alcuin's statement about Catholics could also be made about Anglicans:


Quote
Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity? No. If we aren't honest with ourselves and others about what it is we believe, any unity we achieve will quickly break down. The Orthodox are right to be resentful when Catholics Anglicans try to just say "Oh don't you see? Really we're just the same". It's not true. Catholics Anglicans who say that are not only being dishonest with themselves, they're being dishonest to the Orthodox they say that too, and they're also being condescending to them by implying that the real doctrinal issues with which the Orthodox take issue are purely a product of them not understanding their own theology.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: May 21, 2011, 09:08:19 PM »

Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity?

Oh fudge.

 Cool
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #123 on: May 21, 2011, 09:46:22 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Witness to what we believe. Be honest with ourselves and others. Be charitable towards those who disagree with us. Keep dialogue open. Pray to Christ that we may all be one. To these things, yes.

Fudge what we believe in an attempt to create an artificial unity?

Oh fudge.
I just passed through Hershey PA and got all the fudge I need for some time.

 Cool
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #124 on: May 21, 2011, 10:35:28 PM »


Ecumenism - the opinion of the holy Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad from 1964 to 1985- amicable relations with other faiths which does not betray the truth of Orthodoxy.

A delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to Vatican II was sent by Metropolitan Philaret.

Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965:

"Of course, we are not against amicable relations with the
representatives of other faiths, since this does not betray the truth
of Orthodoxy. For this reason our Church at one time accepted the
friendly invitation to send an observer to the Second Vatican Council,
just as it had sent an observer to the Protestant conference of the
World Council of Churches. . . ."


The letter, in the original Russian, can be found here:

http://www.romanitas.ru/content/filaret-vozn/epistles/athenag1.htm

Metropolitan Philaret said he was not against "amicable relations with the representatives of other faiths, since this not betray the truth of Orthodoxy" and explained that this was the reason the ROCOR sent observers to Vatican II just as it had sent observers to the Protestant Conferences of the WCC.


Actually, there were more than one official observer representing the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at the Second Vatican Council. There was a full delegation, led by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, and including Archimandrite Amvrossy (Pogodin), Archpriest Alexander Troubnikoff and Archpriest Igor Trojanoff.

All of them participated in the ceremonial Procession into St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome, together with the official delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Archbishop Nikodim (Rotov), and representatives of seventeen Orthodox and Oriental churches, to pay their respects to the Pope and the Council.

I'm just curious.   This is meant kindly, and not aggressively.  Sometimes I come out that way and don't mean to.

Does it bother you when the EO go into the same "tents" that pagans just worshiped in and have the Eucharist? 
Does it bother you for pagans to blaspheme our God at events directly in front of Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs tolerate it for "relations"?
Does it bother you when EO patriarchs worship with the Pope of Rome?
Does it bother you that the Pope of Rome whom are Patriarchs worship with, tolerates tribal rituals in his churches?
Does it bother you when our Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, sit in rooms watching Pagan worship?

All of this in the video on youtube "Ecumensism and the New World Order".

I firmly believe that if most Eastern Orthodox Christians really had an idea of what goes on at WCC assemblies, they'd be forcing their Bishops to back off completely.  It's absolutely horrible.  I've witnessed the events first hand.

It's like a religious stew.  Everything is there, and I mean everything.  I remember Wiccans, Zoroastrians, Tribal Indians (native American) worship, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jewish, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (a lot of these), Fire worshipers, Oriental Orthodox,  Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witness, Protestants, Unitarians, Tribal Australian worship... Seriously there was more than that, I just can't remember it all...  I hung out by the Eastern Orthodox guys.. Let me tell you one of the priests, it took his breath away and left him in a horrible spot because his Bishop told him to be there and to the pit of his guts he was disturbed. 

I disagree with the Metropolitan Philaret (in ways) because it was far more than amicable.  It was attempts at unionizing - brotherhood - we are all "God's" children - universal love - universal God ("we all really pray to the same God after all..").   There was even universal worship which is against the Canon of the Holy Apostles.   

Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary. 
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2011, 12:05:36 AM »


Does it bother you when the EO go into the same "tents" that pagans just worshiped in and have the Eucharist? 
Does it bother you for pagans to blaspheme our God at events directly in front of Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs tolerate it for "relations"?
Does it bother you when EO patriarchs worship with the Pope of Rome?
Does it bother you that the Pope of Rome whom are Patriarchs worship with, tolerates tribal rituals in his churches?
Does it bother you when our Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, sit in rooms watching Pagan worship?


Yes, these things bother me.  Most of them would fall outside the parameters of interaction with other faiths such as the Holy Metropolitan Philaret approves.

But there are some excessive acts of anti-ecumenism.  Only a major anti-ecumenist would approve of the recent event in the San Francisco cathedral when some nuns of a dissident Church who had come thousands of miles to venerate the holy relics of Saint John Maximovitvh were removed from the cathedral.  See a report here  http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/05/toc-nuns-venerating-relics-forced-out.html#more  Presumably it is true?    That was an act of excessive anti-ecumenism and I doubt if the blessed Metropolitan Philaret would have authorised it were he alive.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2011, 12:21:49 AM »


Does it bother you when the EO go into the same "tents" that pagans just worshiped in and have the Eucharist? 
Does it bother you for pagans to blaspheme our God at events directly in front of Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs tolerate it for "relations"?
Does it bother you when EO patriarchs worship with the Pope of Rome?
Does it bother you that the Pope of Rome whom are Patriarchs worship with, tolerates tribal rituals in his churches?
Does it bother you when our Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, sit in rooms watching Pagan worship?


Yes, these things bother me.  Most of them would fall outside the parameters of interaction with other faiths such as the Holy Metropolitan Philaret approves.

But there are some excessive acts of anti-ecumenism.  Only a major anti-ecumenist would approve of the recent event in the San Francisco cathedral when some nuns of a dissident Church who had come thousands of miles to venerate the holy relics of Saint John Maximovitvh were removed from the cathedral.  See a report here  http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/05/toc-nuns-venerating-relics-forced-out.html#more  Presumably it is true?
Are you sure what you're reading is the whole story?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2011, 12:22:55 AM »


Does it bother you when the EO go into the same "tents" that pagans just worshiped in and have the Eucharist? 
Does it bother you for pagans to blaspheme our God at events directly in front of Patriarchs, and the Patriarchs tolerate it for "relations"?
Does it bother you when EO patriarchs worship with the Pope of Rome?
Does it bother you that the Pope of Rome whom are Patriarchs worship with, tolerates tribal rituals in his churches?
Does it bother you when our Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priests, sit in rooms watching Pagan worship?


Yes, these things bother me.  Most of them would fall outside the parameters of interaction with other faiths such as the Holy Metropolitan Philaret approves.

But there are some excessive acts of anti-ecumenism.  Only a major anti-ecumenist would approve of the recent event in the San Francisco cathedral when some nuns of a dissident Church who had come thousands of miles to venerate the holy relics of Saint John Maximovitvh were removed from the cathedral.  See a report here  http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2011/05/toc-nuns-venerating-relics-forced-out.html#more  Presumably it is true?
Are you sure what you're reading is the whole story?

Absolutely not.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #128 on: May 22, 2011, 05:42:32 PM »

 

Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary. 

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,353


« Reply #129 on: May 22, 2011, 05:43:08 PM »

What's the big deal about ecumenism? I'm still not sure I've seen anything that answers this  Huh

Zoroastrians

You should have talked to them, they're really cool in an "exotic" sort of way.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #130 on: May 22, 2011, 06:11:47 PM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary. 

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Does that fact that you put "dialogue" in quotes indicate that you don't think it's really dialogue? If so, how would you change it to make it real dialogue?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #131 on: May 22, 2011, 06:37:49 PM »



Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary.  

Goodness gracious, there's more than one part to this documentary?  If I had to listen to that commentator go on for another 3 minutes I would have to jam a fork in my ear.

I find all these NWO (the conspiracy, not the wrestling team) videos from Orthodox groups in the mid-90s hilarious.  I was subjected to so many of these from the Evangelical end of things in my teens it's not funny (my aunt and her husband worked for various Christian production companies).  I stopped taking them seriously after 3 different videos on the Y2K bug and how it would plunge the world into darkness and my relatives chastising me for not stocking up on a bunker full of canned food and lamp oil.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 06:38:15 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: May 22, 2011, 06:41:49 PM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary. 

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.


Might explain this:

Quote
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2011/05/48-1-in-greece-do-not-believe-in-the-resurrection/

According to a poll done by Κάπα Research published in the Sunday Vema, essential Orthodox teachings like the resurrection of Christ are being abandoned.  When asked “Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead?” there appears to be a drop of 10 points since the 2008 poll. 51.3% stated ‘yes’ and ‘probably yes’ then, while 41.8% answered to the same thing this year, with 26.5% indicating “yes and 15.3% “probably yes”. Contrast this with 48.1% who said ‘no’ and ‘probably not’, while 10.1% replied “do not know” or “no answer”.
Logged

yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #133 on: May 22, 2011, 06:49:15 PM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary.  

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Does that fact that you put "dialogue" in quotes indicate that you don't think it's really dialogue? If so, how would you change it to make it real dialogue?

Look at it like this, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the one true church established by Jesus Christ.  Period.  There are no other true churches.  

If there was anything to "dialogue" with it should be Eastern Orthodox explaining to others how they are wrong.  But that's not what they go to WCC meets for.  

The other faiths would represent complete heretics and heresy to the Eastern Orthodox church.  If the Eastern Orthodox church was interested in bringing people to the true church at WCC meets, they would basically be there telling everybody else how they are mistaken.

The events of the WCC are to bring acceptance and unionization.  This is what is discussed.

Many people make the WCC events seem like a "folk life festival" where every church sets up a booth or something and just represents themselves.  The dialogue is about "how to come together".  So when they "come together" that is where all the questions I pose come from.

Though the video I posted is dated, it does not matter, these events go on today, in fact they have been going on under the scene for many years before the video.

Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church.  

Picture this - There was a man dressed in a "tribal G-String" with ashes or something rubbed all over his body that came by and picked up an antimens.  He barely spoke English and was built like an body builder.  The priest who was pursing a monastic life was terrified when he took it back.  (I was a teen at the time) The priest practically fainted and had to sit down.  Another priest that was there comforted him saying something that he didn't touch the actual antimens, but the cloth on the outside.  I believe the priests were going to have a divine liturgy later and had it all out.
Forgive me for forgetting but they also had one of those little "church looking" portable Eucharist "thingies". LOL  I forget the name of those sorry.

I mean guys, ecumenism sounds good in a nutshell on how it is presented.  But most EO Christians do not know what it is about and would literally gasp if they saw what went on at WCC events / days of worship.

Eastern Orthodoxy should represent itself, by itself, and for God.

Check this out:
http://pravmir.com/wp-content/uploads/pravmir-images/ecumenism.jpg

That directly violates the Canon of the Holy Apostles.
65. If any Clergyman, or Layman, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated.

But many ecumenism priests and Bishops do this very thing.  It's not just a little violation, its up to being DEPOSED and EXCOMMUNICATED!

It's bad news.  Many pro-ecumenism are so excited to have "meets" with other religions that they forget they are causing their own churches who are in communion to break off.  Consider Esphigmenou monastery on Mt. Athos for example.   It's broken away because of excumensim but those in favor of ecumenism are more interested in mending ties with others.

Anyway it's food for thought.

Oh yes and one other thing, the "extreme anti ecumenists" not letting the non-Orthodox venerate relics and such.  That truly is not an anti ecumenist but probably more of somebody being a fanatic.  Ecumenism is NOT somebody of another faith (even tribals in G-strings) trying to come to the true church.  They come there on their own free will seeking Christ.  In my opinion, they are welcome to venerate in complete respect anything that any EO Christian would.  

I've witnessed many times (including at St. Vladimir's seminary in the early 80's) when a "stranger or uknown" to the church attempted to partake of the Eucharist, it was denied, but veneration of the chalice of the Eucharist was permitted.

I'm sure if the Eucharist was not combined and the body was separate from the blood in different dishes, that I would have no problem with a complete Non-Orthodox pagan seeking the true church to venerate the body.  

Ecumenism is "the church" GOING OUT to others in comradery (not in ministry & error correction) and NOT others coming to the church.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 07:04:03 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2011, 07:05:45 PM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary. 

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.


Wow. That is all I can say to you for that one.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2011, 08:08:59 PM »


Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church. 


You don't know the holy man who could be seen as the spearhead of the movement against false ecumenism?!!  The man who wrote the two "Sorrowful Epistles" taking the Orthodox Churches to task for ecumenism?!!  That kind of undermines what you have to say.

The First Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx

The Second Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow2.aspx
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,133


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #136 on: May 22, 2011, 08:31:15 PM »


Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church. 


You don't know the holy man who could be seen as the spearhead of the movement against false ecumenism?!!  The man who wrote the two "Sorrowful Epistles" taking the Orthodox Churches to task for ecumenism?!!  That kind of undermines what you have to say.

The First Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx

The Second Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow2.aspx

Sorry, I mean I've never "met" him.  I don't know him at all.  I know of him.  LOL.   
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: May 22, 2011, 08:31:47 PM »


Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church. 


You don't know the holy man who could be seen as the spearhead of the movement against false ecumenism?!!  The man who wrote the two "Sorrowful Epistles" taking the Orthodox Churches to task for ecumenism?!!  That kind of undermines what you have to say.

The First Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx

The Second Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow2.aspx

The Bite: Above

And the Antidote:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul.aspx
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #138 on: May 22, 2011, 08:46:56 PM »


Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church.  


You don't know the holy man who could be seen as the spearhead of the movement against false ecumenism?!!  The man who wrote the two "Sorrowful Epistles" taking the Orthodox Churches to task for ecumenism?!!  That kind of undermines what you have to say.

The First Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx

The Second Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow2.aspx

The Bite: Above

And the Antidote:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul.aspx

I think "the antidote" is the fact that the mistakes and excesses of ecumenism in the 60s and 70s which Metropolitan Philaret was addressing (remember when  the Greek Archbp Iakovos omitted all mention of the Mother of God from a  televised Liturgy so as not to offend the "separated brethren," remember the ghastly endorsement of Liberation Theology by the WCC, etc.) - anyway since the 60s and 70s the Orthodox Churches have moved towards an approach to ecumenism which Metropolitan Philaret would probably approve.  In the long run it is his "attitude" which has come to prevail.  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 08:48:03 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 22, 2011, 08:54:34 PM »


Metropolitan Philaret (No I don't know him) if he truly believes the WCC meets are amicable, forgive me for saying - either he has not attended one, or he is leading on many people.  I've personally attended one and was horrified at the violations -- umm -- "raping" of the Orthodox Church.  


You don't know the holy man who could be seen as the spearhead of the movement against false ecumenism?!!  The man who wrote the two "Sorrowful Epistles" taking the Orthodox Churches to task for ecumenism?!!  That kind of undermines what you have to say.

The First Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow.aspx

The Second Sorrowful Epistle
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/sorrow2.aspx

The Bite: Above

And the Antidote:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_azkoul.aspx

I think "the antidote" is the fact that the mistakes and excesses of ecumenism in the 60s and 70s which Metropolitan Philaret was addressing (remember when  the Greek Archbp Iakovos omitted all mention of the Mother of God from a  televised Liturgy so as not to offend the "separated brethren," remember the ghastly endorsement of Liberation Theology by the WCC, etc.) - anyway since the 60s and 70s the Orthodox Churches have moved towards an approach to ecumenism which Metropolitan Philaret would probably approve.  In the long run it is his "attitude" which has come to prevail.  

I agree that the membership in the WCC has not been felicitous.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #140 on: May 22, 2011, 09:43:01 PM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary.  

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Does that fact that you put "dialogue" in quotes indicate that you don't think it's really dialogue? If so, how would you change it to make it real dialogue?

Look at it like this, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the one true church established by Jesus Christ.  Period.  There are no other true churches.  

If there was anything to "dialogue" with it should be Eastern Orthodox explaining to others how they are wrong.  But that's not what they go to WCC meets for.  

If you want to others to listen to your point of view, it is usually helpful to also listen to their point of view.

Or do you think that the Orthodox participants are so weak in their beliefs that it is dangerous for them to hear any other point of view?  Grin
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #141 on: May 22, 2011, 11:23:38 PM »

Ecumenism... the opinion of Saint Mark of Ephesus

I do not think that in this thread anyone has attempted to define ecumenism.  A definition is needed since ecumenism comes in multiple varieties and ranges from the good to the bad.

We would do well to look to Saint Mark of Ephesus as our holy model of good ecumenism in our dialogue with non-Orthodox Churches.

Was he against isolationism -  Yes!     Saint Mark made the difficult journey of thousands of miles to attend a great  "ecumenical" council of Roman Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox which had been convened in Italy by the Pope of Rome.  He did not isolate himself and refuse to go into the lion's den and discuss disputed theology.  He was actually chosen by the Pope to deliver the keynote lecture when the Council opened in Florence.  These days he would be anathematized for his attendance at Florence by many of the GOC and TOC Churches.

Was he against confessional mix and confusion:  Yes!     Saint Mark of Ephesus refused to accept that the Church could exist as a confessional mix of all the Churches present at the Council he attended in Florence Italy.  The Church could not be a mix of Catholics under the Pope, the Byzantine Orthodox in communion with Constantinople, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the other Churches at Florence.


Let us look to Saint Mark as an example and model of how we ourselves should act in a modern "ecumenical" situation - on the one hand, willing to talk so that the desire of Christ to have those who love Him in old sheepfold is alive and able to be realised, and on the other hand not willing to compromise our faith and create theological or confessional mix.

When one looks at the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church we see that the principles of engagement evidenced by Saint Mark are adhered to by the Russian Church.  The Russian Church has not wavered on one iota of the Orthodox Faith.  And when one looks at the Athonite article I have linked in the message below, it is clear that Saint Mark's position is still operative on the Holy Mountain.

See also:
"St. Mark of Ephesus: A True Ecumenist"
by Fr. Alexey Young

http://www.roca.org/OA/26/26f.htm
« Last Edit: May 22, 2011, 11:27:07 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: May 22, 2011, 11:28:24 PM »

Ecumenism... the opinion of the Monastery of Gregoriou

Here is an excellent article from the Holy Mountain, from the sacred monastery of Gregoriou,  dealing with Ecumenism.  It refutes the argumentation sometimes presented on this Forum that because of the calendar issue and ecumenism -two issues which usually overlap in people's minds - one is justified in leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The article upholds the position of those who do not separate from the canonical Churches.  It is worth serious consideration by those on both sides of the question.

"Schismatic Old-Calendarism is an anti-Patristic stance"
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sxismata/antipater1.htm#_Toc135058238

Introduction:
An article by fr. Nicholas Demaras was published in the periodical "Aghioi Kollyvades" (The Kollyvades Saints")[1], in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory was criticized for its stance against Ecumenism and Zealotry.

The reason for my action was the entirely inappropriate ecclesiological stance that the schismatic Zealots and other, so-called "Genuine Orthodox Christian" Old Calendarists had adopted...

I had first-hand experience near the otherwise sympathetic and virtuous zealot fathers, and I have every respect for their piety, their love for monastic living and their fighting spirit. However, I discerned that they are upholding an anti-canonical schism, and they are also misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastic history...

Chapter Headings:

A. PATRISTIC TEACHING
·         1. On condemned heretics
·         2. On those who unite themselves to condemned heretics
·         3. On those who preach heresy
·         4. On those who violate the sacred Canons
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTRY
·         1. The Zealots’ misconstrued evaluation of Ecumenism
·         2. Similar phenomena of the past
·         3. Encouraging moves
·         4. Contemporary Zealotry
C. THE CASE OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #143 on: May 23, 2011, 10:40:52 PM »


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,586


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #144 on: May 24, 2011, 12:14:02 AM »


Here is the 1st part of the documentary.  It's a must see, further parts are on the right of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEC6e8N0Wfk


Anyway if you consider these things with an open heart and still think Ecumenism is not harmful, I guess I can't say much.  But please at least watch 2 parts of the documentary.  

This is a rather dated video, but it had a profound effect on me when I first saw it shortly after it was made.  I helped the Brothers at Etna make copies on VHS from the original BETA recording.  Probably most of the VHS copies floating around out there were made here in Omaha.  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Does that fact that you put "dialogue" in quotes indicate that you don't think it's really dialogue? If so, how would you change it to make it real dialogue?

Look at it like this, Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the one true church established by Jesus Christ.  Period.  There are no other true churches.
Like the Anabaptists you place on such a high and lofty pedestal are outside the true Church? Like the other opinions that you espouse that are clearly from outside the true Church?

If there was anything to "dialogue" with it should be Eastern Orthodox explaining to others how they are wrong.
Like us explaining to you how wrong you are on the other issues you've brought to this forum?

But that's not what they go to WCC meets for.
And, evidently, it's not why you're here, either.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,114


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #145 on: May 24, 2011, 12:37:17 AM »


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

Punch, you made your point.

But now I feel so nauseated ....
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #146 on: May 24, 2011, 09:26:34 PM »

Ecumenism... the opinion of the Monastery of Gregoriou

Here is an excellent article from the Holy Mountain, from the sacred monastery of Gregoriou,  dealing with Ecumenism.  It refutes the argumentation sometimes presented on this Forum that because of the calendar issue and ecumenism -two issues which usually overlap in people's minds - one is justified in leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The article upholds the position of those who do not separate from the canonical Churches.  It is worth serious consideration by those on both sides of the question.

"Schismatic Old-Calendarism is an anti-Patristic stance"
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sxismata/antipater1.htm#_Toc135058238

Introduction:
An article by fr. Nicholas Demaras was published in the periodical "Aghioi Kollyvades" (The Kollyvades Saints")[1], in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory was criticized for its stance against Ecumenism and Zealotry.

The reason for my action was the entirely inappropriate ecclesiological stance that the schismatic Zealots and other, so-called "Genuine Orthodox Christian" Old Calendarists had adopted...

I had first-hand experience near the otherwise sympathetic and virtuous zealot fathers, and I have every respect for their piety, their love for monastic living and their fighting spirit. However, I discerned that they are upholding an anti-canonical schism, and they are also misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastic history...

Chapter Headings:

A. PATRISTIC TEACHING
·         1. On condemned heretics
·         2. On those who unite themselves to condemned heretics
·         3. On those who preach heresy
·         4. On those who violate the sacred Canons
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTRY
·         1. The Zealots’ misconstrued evaluation of Ecumenism
·         2. Similar phenomena of the past
·         3. Encouraging moves
·         4. Contemporary Zealotry
C. THE CASE OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS


Here's my question: if someone is generally considered to be a heretic, but really isn't, would you accept union with them? Or would you avoid union with them (knowing that they aren't really heretical) in order to please others?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #147 on: May 24, 2011, 09:39:28 PM »

Here's my question: if someone is generally considered to be a heretic, but really isn't, would you accept union with them? Or would you avoid union with them (knowing that they aren't really heretical) in order to please others?
Who is a heretic today? Would a R. Catholic be a heretic if he was in favor of slavery or torture to extract confessions? What if he were in favor of prostitutes using artificial birth control?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #148 on: May 24, 2011, 09:42:39 PM »

Ecumenism... the opinion of the Monastery of Gregoriou

Here is an excellent article from the Holy Mountain, from the sacred monastery of Gregoriou,  dealing with Ecumenism.  It refutes the argumentation sometimes presented on this Forum that because of the calendar issue and ecumenism -two issues which usually overlap in people's minds - one is justified in leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The article upholds the position of those who do not separate from the canonical Churches.  It is worth serious consideration by those on both sides of the question.

"Schismatic Old-Calendarism is an anti-Patristic stance"
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sxismata/antipater1.htm#_Toc135058238

Introduction:
An article by fr. Nicholas Demaras was published in the periodical "Aghioi Kollyvades" (The Kollyvades Saints")[1], in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory was criticized for its stance against Ecumenism and Zealotry.

The reason for my action was the entirely inappropriate ecclesiological stance that the schismatic Zealots and other, so-called "Genuine Orthodox Christian" Old Calendarists had adopted...

I had first-hand experience near the otherwise sympathetic and virtuous zealot fathers, and I have every respect for their piety, their love for monastic living and their fighting spirit. However, I discerned that they are upholding an anti-canonical schism, and they are also misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastic history...

Chapter Headings:

A. PATRISTIC TEACHING
·         1. On condemned heretics
·         2. On those who unite themselves to condemned heretics
·         3. On those who preach heresy
·         4. On those who violate the sacred Canons
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTRY
·         1. The Zealots’ misconstrued evaluation of Ecumenism
·         2. Similar phenomena of the past
·         3. Encouraging moves
·         4. Contemporary Zealotry
C. THE CASE OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS


Here's my question: if someone is generally considered to be a heretic, but really isn't, would you accept union with them? Or would you avoid union with them (knowing that they aren't really heretical) in order to please others?

Why cannot it be clarified that whoever is thought to be heretical is not in fact heretical?  Wouldn't that solve the problem?
Logged
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #149 on: May 24, 2011, 11:47:02 PM »


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

haha. i actually lol'd.

theologically speaking, is it heresy to imply that the pure water of Christ and the Holy Spirit can be corrupted by the mere words of man? so i guess the pharisees were right about Christ when he ate with sinners and tax collectors after all...

/orthodox philosoraptor
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #150 on: May 25, 2011, 12:10:35 AM »

Haha!  Not quite.  This is my Toll House theory for Ecumenism, a metaphor for a deeper truth that even a simple peon can understand.  Obviously, the Orthodox are not pure water.  We all contain some stain of sin.  And, just as obviously, the heterodox are not liquid feces since all men carry the image of God.  However, I believe the signal is sent that I don't think Ecumenism is a good idea.  It also conveys my belief (my honest belief), that in this fallen world, good seldom purifies evil.  It is more likely that evil will corrupt the good.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,114


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #151 on: May 25, 2011, 12:13:08 AM »

Haha!  Not quite.  This is my Toll House theory for Ecumenism, a metaphor for a deeper truth that even a simple peon can understand.  Obviously, the Orthodox are not pure water.  We all contain some stain of sin.  And, just as obviously, the heterodox are not liquid feces since all men carry the image of God.  However, I believe the signal is sent that I don't think Ecumenism is a good idea.  It also conveys my belief (my honest belief), that in this fallen world, good seldom purifies evil.  It is more likely that evil will corrupt the good.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

Don't you believe that good will ultimately prevail?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #152 on: May 25, 2011, 12:15:16 AM »

You would be correct, if that is what was meant. However, I have not seen Jesus at any World Council of Churches meetings.  Were He there, I would not object.  What I do see are falible men casting their pearls before swine (Jesus' words, not mine).  The Holy Spirit cannot be corrupted.  But, I have seen far too many men claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit corrupted.  Some even Orthodox Bishops.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

haha. i actually lol'd.

theologically speaking, is it heresy to imply that the pure water of Christ and the Holy Spirit can be corrupted by the mere words of man? so i guess the pharisees were right about Christ when he ate with sinners and tax collectors after all...

/orthodox philosoraptor
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #153 on: May 25, 2011, 12:18:22 AM »

Yes, Maria, I do.  In the end, when Christ comes again in his Glory.  Before then must come the Apostasy.  Christ Himself asks if there will be Faith when He returns.  We know the answer is "yes" because the Gates of Hell will not prevail over the Church.  However, Christ's very question betrays how few believers will be left.

Haha!  Not quite.  This is my Toll House theory for Ecumenism, a metaphor for a deeper truth that even a simple peon can understand.  Obviously, the Orthodox are not pure water.  We all contain some stain of sin.  And, just as obviously, the heterodox are not liquid feces since all men carry the image of God.  However, I believe the signal is sent that I don't think Ecumenism is a good idea.  It also conveys my belief (my honest belief), that in this fallen world, good seldom purifies evil.  It is more likely that evil will corrupt the good.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

Don't you believe that good will ultimately prevail?
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #154 on: May 25, 2011, 12:27:15 AM »

Weak response on pretty much every level. You deny Christ's presence at the WCC (o rly?), appeal to your own assessment of whether bishops are filled with the spirit, attempt to wriggle out of what you posted by saying "that's not what I meant" and make a conclusory statement about men casting their pearls before swine.

Bear in mind that you are "in dialogue" with those you consider schismatics on this thread. I seriously fail to understand how you and others fail to see the contradiction and irony of threads like this.  (of course, you will deny this and attempt to nuance this dialogue as opposed to "official" dialogues...but that is a distinction without a difference...you can't simultaenously make this THE issue that essentially defines your faith yet dabble in nuance at your pleasure.)




You would be correct, if that is what was meant. However, I have not seen Jesus at any World Council of Churches meetings.  Were He there, I would not object.  What I do see are falible men casting their pearls before swine (Jesus' words, not mine).  The Holy Spirit cannot be corrupted.  But, I have seen far too many men claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit corrupted.  Some even Orthodox Bishops.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.



Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

haha. i actually lol'd.

theologically speaking, is it heresy to imply that the pure water of Christ and the Holy Spirit can be corrupted by the mere words of man? so i guess the pharisees were right about Christ when he ate with sinners and tax collectors after all...

/orthodox philosoraptor
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,109



« Reply #155 on: May 25, 2011, 12:42:50 AM »

Actually, I can do pretty much whatever I want without your permission.  Sorry if that bothers you.  In any case, your second statement sums up my opinion pretty well, making a response to the rest of them not necessary.  As to "dialogue", I have attended no services with any of the "heretics" on this board, nor entered into prayer with them, nor been filmed with them, or even been in the same room with them.  I would say that is a bit more of a "nuance", between my activities on this board and the activities of our Bishops at the WCC.  I have no problem proclaiming what I believe without attending pagan ceremonies.  In any case, it is getting late and my shift is over, so I need to break this off.  I need to rest a bit before I deal with any more of your logic fail.

Weak response on pretty much every level. You deny Christ's presence at the WCC (o rly?), appeal to your own assessment of whether bishops are filled with the spirit, attempt to wriggle out of what you posted by saying "that's not what I meant" and make a conclusory statement about men casting their pearls before swine.

Bear in mind that you are "in dialogue" with those you consider schismatics on this thread. I seriously fail to understand how you and others fail to see the contradiction and irony of threads like this.  (of course, you will deny this and attempt to nuance this dialogue as opposed to "official" dialogues...but that is a distinction without a difference...you can't simultaenously make this THE issue that essentially defines your faith yet dabble in nuance at your pleasure.)




You would be correct, if that is what was meant. However, I have not seen Jesus at any World Council of Churches meetings.  Were He there, I would not object.  What I do see are falible men casting their pearls before swine (Jesus' words, not mine).  The Holy Spirit cannot be corrupted.  But, I have seen far too many men claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit corrupted.  Some even Orthodox Bishops.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.



Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

haha. i actually lol'd.

theologically speaking, is it heresy to imply that the pure water of Christ and the Holy Spirit can be corrupted by the mere words of man? so i guess the pharisees were right about Christ when he ate with sinners and tax collectors after all...

/orthodox philosoraptor
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #156 on: May 25, 2011, 07:30:10 AM »

Hi Punch. I realize the post was directed to Orthodox posters, but this statement made me laugh:

As to "dialogue", I have attended no services with any of the "heretics" on this board, nor entered into prayer with them, nor been filmed with them, or even been in the same room with them.

So it isn't "dialogue" unless you do one of more of those things?

:raise eyebrow:
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 25, 2011, 07:48:15 AM »

Actually, I can do pretty much whatever I want without your permission.
Of course you can. We all can do whatever we desire to do.
But what is the point of freedom if I use it to become enslaved to my passions?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,025


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 25, 2011, 08:15:32 AM »

Haha!  Not quite.  This is my Toll House theory for Ecumenism, a metaphor for a deeper truth that even a simple peon can understand.  Obviously, the Orthodox are not pure water.  We all contain some stain of sin.  And, just as obviously, the heterodox are not liquid feces since all men carry the image of God.  However, I believe the signal is sent that I don't think Ecumenism is a good idea.  It also conveys my belief (my honest belief), that in this fallen world, good seldom purifies evil.  It is more likely that evil will corrupt the good.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.

Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

You sir are the ultimate cynic. I can see where you would be a glass half empty sort of fellow, what with your obsession about excrement.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,043



« Reply #159 on: May 25, 2011, 08:45:02 AM »

Ecumenism... the opinion of the Monastery of Gregoriou

Here is an excellent article from the Holy Mountain, from the sacred monastery of Gregoriou,  dealing with Ecumenism.  It refutes the argumentation sometimes presented on this Forum that because of the calendar issue and ecumenism -two issues which usually overlap in people's minds - one is justified in leaving the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The article upholds the position of those who do not separate from the canonical Churches.  It is worth serious consideration by those on both sides of the question.

"Schismatic Old-Calendarism is an anti-Patristic stance"
http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/sxismata/antipater1.htm#_Toc135058238

Introduction:
An article by fr. Nicholas Demaras was published in the periodical "Aghioi Kollyvades" (The Kollyvades Saints")[1], in which the Sacred Monastery of Saint Gregory was criticized for its stance against Ecumenism and Zealotry.

The reason for my action was the entirely inappropriate ecclesiological stance that the schismatic Zealots and other, so-called "Genuine Orthodox Christian" Old Calendarists had adopted...

I had first-hand experience near the otherwise sympathetic and virtuous zealot fathers, and I have every respect for their piety, their love for monastic living and their fighting spirit. However, I discerned that they are upholding an anti-canonical schism, and they are also misinterpreting the teaching of the holy Fathers and ecclesiastic history...

Chapter Headings:

A. PATRISTIC TEACHING
·         1. On condemned heretics
·         2. On those who unite themselves to condemned heretics
·         3. On those who preach heresy
·         4. On those who violate the sacred Canons
B. ECUMENISM AND ZEALOTRY
·         1. The Zealots’ misconstrued evaluation of Ecumenism
·         2. Similar phenomena of the past
·         3. Encouraging moves
·         4. Contemporary Zealotry
C. THE CASE OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS


Here's my question: if someone is generally considered to be a heretic, but really isn't, would you accept union with them? Or would you avoid union with them (knowing that they aren't really heretical) in order to please others?

Why cannot it be clarified that whoever is thought to be heretical is not in fact heretical?  Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Ideally that could be done, and would solve the problem. However, for many years now the Melkites have been trying to convince the Orthodox that the pope isn't a heretic. They don't seem to be any closer to doing so (nor do the Orthodox seem to be any closer to convincing the Melkites that the pope is a heretic). So the Melkites find themselves in the position of having to decide whether to "avoid union" with the pope on the basis of others thinking him to be a heretic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 158


« Reply #160 on: May 25, 2011, 08:51:50 AM »

 Roll Eyes

Glad to know your activities are well within whatever distinction you have made up to suit your purposes. And there is no logical fail on my part at all as I'm not the one telling people where Christ is or isn't, reading the hearts of other bishops, conjuring up my own definitions of what constitutes "dialogue" under canons or breaking off of communion with the apostolic church on that basis. All of that would be you my friend, so the burden of logical proof rests squarely on your shoulders. I would actually expect better logic from a pharisee.


Actually, I can do pretty much whatever I want without your permission.  Sorry if that bothers you.  In any case, your second statement sums up my opinion pretty well, making a response to the rest of them not necessary.  As to "dialogue", I have attended no services with any of the "heretics" on this board, nor entered into prayer with them, nor been filmed with them, or even been in the same room with them.  I would say that is a bit more of a "nuance", between my activities on this board and the activities of our Bishops at the WCC.  I have no problem proclaiming what I believe without attending pagan ceremonies.  In any case, it is getting late and my shift is over, so I need to break this off.  I need to rest a bit before I deal with any more of your logic fail.

Weak response on pretty much every level. You deny Christ's presence at the WCC (o rly?), appeal to your own assessment of whether bishops are filled with the spirit, attempt to wriggle out of what you posted by saying "that's not what I meant" and make a conclusory statement about men casting their pearls before swine.

Bear in mind that you are "in dialogue" with those you consider schismatics on this thread. I seriously fail to understand how you and others fail to see the contradiction and irony of threads like this.  (of course, you will deny this and attempt to nuance this dialogue as opposed to "official" dialogues...but that is a distinction without a difference...you can't simultaenously make this THE issue that essentially defines your faith yet dabble in nuance at your pleasure.)




You would be correct, if that is what was meant. However, I have not seen Jesus at any World Council of Churches meetings.  Were He there, I would not object.  What I do see are falible men casting their pearls before swine (Jesus' words, not mine).  The Holy Spirit cannot be corrupted.  But, I have seen far too many men claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit corrupted.  Some even Orthodox Bishops.


  I see Ecumenism much like this: take two 55 gallon barrels, one filled with pure water, and the other filled with liquid feces.  How much pure water do I need to put into the second barrel for you to drink it?  How much liquid feces do I need to put into the first before you won’t drink it?  This pretty much sums up my view of “dialogue” with heretics.



Good grief, Punch,  this may be over the top!  Many of your Serbian bishops are involved with ecumenism and some very enthusiastically, to the extent that (as you would know) it has caused discord in the Serbian Synod.    Do you really see your bishops as feces-drinkers ?!!

haha. i actually lol'd.

theologically speaking, is it heresy to imply that the pure water of Christ and the Holy Spirit can be corrupted by the mere words of man? so i guess the pharisees were right about Christ when he ate with sinners and tax collectors after all...

/orthodox philosoraptor
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 08:53:24 AM by android » Logged
Tags: ecumenism unity 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.617 seconds with 189 queries.