OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 04:11:32 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 16841 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



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: 6,147



« 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: 6,147



« 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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


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: 10,190


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: 4,272


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


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: 4,272


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


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: 6,481


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: 4,272


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: 6,481


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: 4,272


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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


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
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,029


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: 6,147



« 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: 10,190


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


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: 6,147



« 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: 6,147



« 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: 2,438



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: 10,190


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: 6,147



« 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: 6,147



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 4,272


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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,652


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,568



« 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

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« 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: 2,438



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: 4,272


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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


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
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 0.219 seconds with 73 queries.