OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 03:15:42 PM *
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 16832 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 4,272


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: 6,145



« 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: 32,651


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: 10,177


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: 6,145



« 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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« 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

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,177


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

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« 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

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« 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

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,567



« 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

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« 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
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,576


Pokrov


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: 6,145



« 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 0.143 seconds with 55 queries.