Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew

[PeterTheAleut]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

[Jonathan Gress]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

[elijahmaria]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

[podkarpatska]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

Sadly, many of us Christians, myself included, when it comes to circles, often seem to prefer the circular firing squad formation.

[Jonathan Gress]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

[podkarpatska]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

While I understand your point of view and respect your knowledge, I disagree with you. I suspect that I speak for more than myself when I  state that I take exception to your use of the term 'self-styled Orthodox hierarchs' to describe the episcopacy of most of us. I would hope that we would, myself included, refrain from the use of pejoratives such as 'vagrante'  to describe those hierarchs outside of communion with the majority of Orthodox and we should treat each other with the same respect. Unless, of course, you view the rest of 'us' as being within the category of schismatic or even numbered among the 'heterodox.'

[Irish Hermit]

Reading from the published works of the various ecumenical commissions and learned theologians of both Roman and Orthodox backgrounds,one can't help but come to the conclusion that this issue is where the dialogue bus comes to a dead stop.

As the OP reminds us, at least at the highest levels of the churches, our spiritual  leaders are engaged in cordial and fraternal exchanges of ideas and thought. It beats the alternative.

Before the meeting of the Joint International Commission
for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Church on Cyprus in October 2009 the bishops of the Greek Church
studied the Ravenna document and also the "Cretan Unia" a document composed
a year earlier on Crete which was created to form the basis of the
discussion on Cyprus -- and they were horrified by the extent to which the
documents are receptive to unorthodox teaching and especially on
ecclesiology and the concept of a universal primacy.

So they clamped down on the Dialogue, hard. At their Synod prior to Cyprus the
bishops ordered that Statements must not be issued by the International
Dialogue until they had been examined and approved by the bishops.

Metropolitan Zizioulas was thoroughly alarmed by this, and the word enraged
is not unfitting for his angry reaction. He wrote a nasty letter to the
Greek bishops accusing them of being obscurantist and of making themselves
look medieval in front of their flocks. His letter is on the web and I
shall find it. The bishops replied; they had the good sense to ignore
+Zizioulas' crassness and simply rejected his accusations.

Since then you will notice that neither Cyprus 2009 nor Vienna 2010 have
released any Joint Statements. They cannot do so without explicit approval
from the Greek bishops.  The Meeting scheduled for 2011 has not taken place.

The bishops, hardliners on matters doctrinal, are now the adjudicators of
the Dialogue. Glory to God!

Hierom.Ambrose


PS.  You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops and
quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

[Irish Hermit]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporarily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to oversee it.

[elijahmaria]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

[Irish Hermit]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

[elijahmaria]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

[Irish Hermit]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

[elijahmaria]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 

[Irish Hermit]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 

May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

[elijahmaria]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 

May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

Ask them...write....let us know what they say!!

In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps...

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

Fortunately this attitude does not reach to the highest levels in Orthodox hierarchies and the bi-lateral Orthodox/Catholic discussions continue apace.

Continue apace?  No, they don't.  If you watched the video clip posted recently in which  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware speaks of the Ravenna meeting, he also points out that the Meeting of the International Commission scheduled for 2011 was called off.  The reason was the involvement of the Church of Greece before the 2009 Cyprus Meeting and the Greek decision that the Dialogue was no longer in the hands of a small group of theologians and bishops but would, from henceforth, be examined and scrutinised by the Synod of Bishops.  The Greek bishops forbade the Commission to issue Statements without prior approval from the Synod of Bishops. Hence, no Statement fro Cyprus 2009 or Vienna 2010. This has, I am sure only temporartily, brought the dialogue to a halt while the bishops consider ways to control it.

We are soothed by your personal certitude.

I take it that the state of play does not please you?   Why would anyone (apart from the Metropolitan of Pergamon) be displeased that the bishops are now taking an active involvement in the dialogue?

Oh you presume too much.  I was responding to your ultimate statement of surety.  That was all. 

The presumption was on your side, dear lady, by saying that the dialogue continues apace.  It isn't but your optimism makes a nice counterbalance to realism and I for one rather wish you were right.. 

Hardly presumption.  Had things shut down so stonily as you suggest on the flip side, it would be far more apparent in the interim activities...and it is the interim activities which are the bellwether and they are the activities to which I referred as moving along apace. 

May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

Ask them...write....let us know what they say!!

In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps...

M.

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

[elijahmaria]

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

[Jonathan Gress]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

While I understand your point of view and respect your knowledge, I disagree with you. I suspect that I speak for more than myself when I  state that I take exception to your use of the term 'self-styled Orthodox hierarchs' to describe the episcopacy of most of us. I would hope that we would, myself included, refrain from the use of pejoratives such as 'vagrante'  to describe those hierarchs outside of communion with the majority of Orthodox and we should treat each other with the same respect. Unless, of course, you view the rest of 'us' as being within the category of schismatic or even numbered among the 'heterodox.'

My point was that I don't consider a bishop's Orthodoxy to proceed from the wearing of a panagia. It proceeds from the right confession of faith. "Self-styled" is, from the True Orthodox point of view, correct, since by all accounts these bishops consider themselves Orthodox, even though their actions suggest otherwise. But I respect the fact that you disagree with this. In general I will try to speak of the "official Orthodox" churches for the most part, to indicate that these hierarchs are recognized as Orthodox by world officialdom, if not by the True Orthodox Church.

[elijahmaria]

My point was that I don't consider a bishop's Orthodoxy to proceed from the wearing of a panagia. It proceeds from the right confession of faith. "Self-styled" is, from the True Orthodox point of view, correct, since by all accounts these bishops consider themselves Orthodox, even though their actions suggest otherwise. But I respect the fact that you disagree with this. In general I will try to speak of the "official Orthodox" churches for the most part, to indicate that these hierarchs are recognized as Orthodox by world officialdom, if not by the True Orthodox Church.

How did you come to this manner of being and believing?

[username!]

"Breakdowns in human relationships, heresy, and schism do not really spring from different beliefs and opinions... No, divisions come from pride, arrogance, or other sins; from our failure to accept, from our distrust, intolerance, and self-righteousness."

(Orthodox Theology and Diakonia: Trends and Prospects, Emilianos Timiadis, "The Ecumenical Movement and Orthodoxy" [Hellenic College Press, 1981] p.311)

Reading from the published works of the various ecumenical commissions and learned theologians of both Roman and Orthodox backgrounds,one can't help but come to the conclusion that this issue is where the dialogue bus comes to a dead stop.

Perhaps a map depicting the dialogue bus on route to resolution running into a dead stop would help lol

[pensateomnia]

May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

The coordinating committee met in Rome from 22 to 25 November. It was in the news.

[Irish Hermit]

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours. 

[Irish Hermit]

May I ask what interim activities are being conducted by the International Commission?  Meetings?  Papers?

The coordinating committee met in Rome from 22 to 25 November. It was in the news.

Yes, I am aware.  A rather unsuccessful session which certainly does not qualify for Mary's optimistic, the dialogue "continues apace."

The Russian Church reports the presence of Metropolitan Hilarion who laid two demands before the Committee:

1.  A full discussion on the matter of Uniatism (the Russian term) must be held.  This was always a pre-condition of Russian participation.

2.  The position on papal primacy in the Ravenna Statement and in the "Cretan Unia" position paper formulated with the intention of being presented at Cyprus 2009 must be discarded.  There needs to be a return to examining the position of the Archbishop of Rome in the first millennium Church.

These two hardliner positions most certainly have not given rise for any optimism of the dialogue continuing apace.  They are more like spokes in the wheel!

[Irish Hermit]

A report from the Russian Church on the November meeting of the Coordinating Committee

http://www.mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/23/news53192/

[Deacon Lance]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

[Papist]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I'm tempted to agree with you.

[Wyatt]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

Well said. I think when we all get to heaven, we're going to realize that all of these disagreements and discussions on earth were not as important as we thought they were.

[username!]

my concession; we will sing veni creator spiritus on Pentecost after the liturgy if you get rid of girl altarboys... see, concessions they can work

[Basil 320]

Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?

[podkarpatska]

Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?

I can't speak to the so-called international dialogue, but in reviewing the work of the North American commission, these issues are ongoing: 'Uniatism' in the context of Balamand was addressed in detail some years ago http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/27.html, a detailed critique of Ravenna has been published in 2010 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html  and the the issue of primacy in the first millenium context is at the core of their ongoing deliberations as expressed in their detailed 2010 paper on steps towards a reunited Church. http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

A review of that paper's concluding words sums this exercise up, in my opinion:

"Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst. (emphasis mine) The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world."

No one should labor under the misconception that this path is short or that a solution is on the horizon. Nor should they robotically assume that the participants are willing and able to 'sell each other out' in a misplaced zeal to find a solution to a problem that has evaded solution for well over a thousand years.Anyone who believes this to be true surely never met or known Metropolitan Maximos, the Orthodox chair of the commission for the last forty years until his retirement this year.

However, the reality as I see it, is that the mere fact that they continue to meet, talk and share ideas scares many in both the east and the west.  However, in terms of the pace of human history, and the complexity of the issues which divide us, there is cause to state that the discussions continue 'apace'.

Would it be preferable to stand at a line in the sand and hurl insults and inaccurate assertions at each other? (We do have the 'net' for that, don't we?)

I think not.  "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1, KJV

[JR]

Thank you Father, (Irish Hermit).  I hadn't seen anything about the meeting in Moscow.  I also don't see why the dialogue can't address Metropolitan Hilarion's concerns, the topics he's proposed.  I can't see why this dialogue can't honestly study the history of the issues that have divided us, in order to more fully understand them.  Why run around kissing each other, acting as if we're united, and just ignore what separates us?

I can't speak to the so-called international dialogue, but in reviewing the work of the North American commission, these issues are ongoing: 'Uniatism' in the context of Balamand was addressed in detail some years ago http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/27.html, a detailed critique of Ravenna has been published in 2010 http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/response-ravenna.html  and the the issue of primacy in the first millenium context is at the core of their ongoing deliberations as expressed in their detailed 2010 paper on steps towards a reunited Church. http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

A review of that paper's concluding words sums this exercise up, in my opinion:

"Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst. (emphasis mine) The challenge and the invitation to Orthodox and Catholic Christians, who understand themselves to be members of Christ’s Body precisely by sharing in the Eucharistic gifts and participating in the transforming life of the Holy Spirit, is now to see Christ authentically present in each other, and to find in those structures of leadership that have shaped our communities through the centuries a force to move us beyond disunity, mistrust, and competition, and towards that oneness in his Body, that obedience to his Spirit, that will reveal us as his disciples before the world."

No one should labor under the misconception that this path is short or that a solution is on the horizon. Nor should they robotically assume that the participants are willing and able to 'sell each other out' in a misplaced zeal to find a solution to a problem that has evaded solution for well over a thousand years.Anyone who believes this to be true surely never met or known Metropolitan Maximos, the Orthodox chair of the commission for the last forty years until his retirement this year.

However, the reality as I see it, is that the mere fact that they continue to meet, talk and share ideas scares many in both the east and the west.  However, in terms of the pace of human history, and the complexity of the issues which divide us, there is cause to state that the discussions continue 'apace'.

Would it be preferable to stand at a line in the sand and hurl insults and inaccurate assertions at each other? (We do have the 'net' for that, don't we?)

I think not.  "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psalm 133:1, KJV

Excellent, I agree with this, especially the quote of the Psalms 133:1.

I look forward to the day of unity, but until that day, may there be peace among us without the insults flying.

God bless us all.

[elijahmaria]

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours. 

Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is.  Would have surprised the heck out of me to say that a few years ago.  Strange things happen, Father.   Very strange things.  Why...I met YOU didn't I?

 

[elijahmaria]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

[Irish Hermit]

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours. 

Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is. 

Whoever your sources are I think they are pretty useless, shallow.   Why, we all remember a few months back when you persisted in offending us all by repeating that the Orthodox allow abortion.  Nobody with access to our bishops and theologians could possibly have tried to maintain that attitude.  And you were all at sea over Orthodox second marriages.  You gave up on that when I finally quoted Fr Ambrose Young.

[elijahmaria]

I read the Russian church papers.  I read the internet information services of the Russian Church.  I read the Internet forums in Russia.  There is nothing about the dialogue continuing apace. Do you really know what you are talking about?  Do you read Russian? or Greek?

Good for you.  I have other kinds of sources.

But that is not what you said....

"In the meantime read the papers for news of the MP and EP...and their reps..."

I believe my claim to esoteric insider information is better than yours. 

Ya know what, and oddly enough, I don't think it is. 

Whoever your sources are I think they are pretty useless, shallow.   Why, we all remember a few months back when you persisted in offending us all by repeating that the Orthodox allow abortion.  Nobody with access to our bishops and theologians could possibly have tried to maintain that attitude.  And you were all at sea over Orthodox second marriages.  You gave up on that when I finally quoted Fr Ambrose Young.

We are remarkably amused.

You punch your favorite buttons.  I punch mine.

When you play straight and stop poking at me as though I am the enemy, I'll give it some thought as well.

We do not hold our breath.

[WetCatechumen]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.

[Maria]

I have a question. Why do RC's still post on this forum? ...Again what is your purpose here? I'm dying to know.

My purpose has been to learn a little bit about the Orthodox Church. A while back, I did try to take an Orthodox catechism class which was given by an Orthodox priest, however, he said that  I would not be able to join since his class was not open to heretics.  
I have been somewhat distressed by some of what has gone on in the RCC recently with the huge  increase in marriage annulments (in the USA),  the sex scandals, the so-called "abuses" in the Roman liturgy, changes in disciplinary teachings, etc.  I see the Orthodox Church as an Apostolic Church, with an exceptionally fine liturgy and a certain stability in teaching, and I wanted to know a little more about what are the differences between the two Churches. R. Catholics have been talking about possible reunion with the E. Orthodox Church, but since neither side is willing to make concessions to the other, and since there is a whole lot of bad blood between the two Churches,  I don't see it happening (at least for a long while at best).

I was in your shoes back in the early 1990's.

Finally, an Orthodox Christian priest challenged me to put aside all thoughts of remaining with the Roman Catholic Church and all her liturgical and sexual abuses, and look into the Apostolic Catholic Church (the Holy Orthodox Church). Once I did so, I have not returned to Roman Catholicism. I rejoice that I have been accepted into communion with Holy Orthodoxy.

Regarding the ecumenist nature of the papal visits with the EP, it seems like only the Western church will benefit and that Orthodoxy has everything to lose. If a hypothetical union were to occur, then Orthodoxy would be challenged to CHANGE
1. their calendar
2. their honoring of the saints of the Catholic Church (union would imply that saints of both churches would be on equal pedestals)
3. their Divine Liturgy (because the RC has always been about changes starting in the 8th century)
4. their Holy Sacraments

Personally, I think the overtures of the EP and the MP toward Rome are fraught with dangers.
As Father Ambrose has stated, thankfully, so far there are a lot of roadblocks being placed in the way of a false unity with Rome.
And I am thankful that the SSPX has not given in to the pressures of Pope Benedict XVI.

[Maria]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

No I don't. We're not talking about politics. We're not talking about compromising our ideological purity in order to forge some coalition against a common partisan enemy. We're talking about our salvation, and when it comes to salvation, you're either in the Church, and hence have the chance to be saved, or you're outside the Church, where there is no chance to be saved, as St Cyprian teaches us.

With all of the interaction between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, how can you tell if you are in the right place or not?

Because I don't believe the current ecumenical attitude of the official Orthodox hierarchy represents the authentic Apostolic position on the status of the heterodox. I believe that the position of the hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church represent the Apostolic tradition.

I don't believe that a teaching is Orthodox because self-styled Orthodox hierarchs say it is. I measure what they say against the traditional teaching of the Church, I see there are discrepancies, and I recognize that I must cleave to those bishops who actually agree with and promote the traditional teaching.

It is amusing to me how similar this is to what a member of the Society of St. Pius X might say.

If one understands that Jonathan is a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church (a traditionalist church), then it is not surprising that a member of the SSPX would express similar sentiments.

I did look into the SSPX before becoming an Orthodox Catechumen. And not surprisingly, there are marriages between the SSPX and Orthodox Christian faithful because both spouses hold traditional beliefs. In those cases, the Orthodox Crowning Ceremony in an Orthodox Church was followed immediately with an SSPX wedding in an SSPX chapel. Talk about a long day.

[username!]

Food for thought;  Is the Roman Catholic Church truly the same church it was before the split?  Have they moved so far away from the original Deposit of Faith that they are no longer the See of Rome?  Or is it equal to the Orthodox trying to re-unite with Anglicans?  Make sense?  
We just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the same body as it was nearly 1000 years ago, as if Antioch and Constantinople broke communion over say, having royal doors and the other not and then saying, ok, we really have no differences other than royal doors, ok, they believe in the same Deposit of Faith as they did when they broke communion, so you know you are re-uniting with the same original church.  
When the Russian church split in the USA and the Metropolia and the Synod were formed they didn't change beliefs they just weren't in communion with anyone.  While being separated from communion they maintained the same beliefs and practices.  So when they acknowledged and repented or whatever you want to call it (pretty much the bishops deciding the split wasn't dogmatic but pride-matic) there wasn't any issue other than hashing out who got to sit in what seat at the sobor.

[Maria]

Food for thought;  Is the Roman Catholic Church truly the same church it was before the split?  Have they moved so far away from the original Deposit of Faith that they are no longer the See of Rome?  Or is it equal to the Orthodox trying to re-unite with Anglicans?  Make sense?  
We just assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the same body as it was nearly 1000 years ago, as if Antioch and Constantinople broke communion over say, having royal doors and the other not and then saying, ok, we really have no differences other than royal doors, ok, they believe in the same Deposit of Faith as they did when they broke communion, so you know you are re-uniting with the same original church.  
When the Russian church split in the USA and the Metropolia and the Synod were formed they didn't change beliefs they just weren't in communion with anyone.  While being separated from communion they maintained the same beliefs and practices.  So when they acknowledged and repented or whatever you want to call it (pretty much the bishops deciding the split wasn't dogmatic but pride-matic) there wasn't any issue other than hashing out who got to sit in what seat at the sobor.

With the developments in doctrine that have plagued the Roman Catholic Church, she is definitely NOT the same church as before the 1054 Great Schism.

Case in point, Vatican I which defined Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility.
And let us not forget the Council of Trent, which defined the differences between mortal and venial sin. This was a dangerous innovation because all sin seriously offends God. To accept venial sin as a lesser sin is to enter the slippery slope. In addition, scrupulosity was introduced as Catholics tried to distinguish between mortal and venial sins to satisfy the confessional requirements to state species and kinds of sins. (Thank God I am Orthodox and do not have to worry about such things.)

[Maria]

From Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr Michael Pomazansky

Side by side with the straight, or right, path of faith there have always been those who thought differently (heterodoxountes, or "heterodox," in the expression of St. Ignatius the God-bearer), a world of greater or lesser errors among Christians, and sometimes even whole incorrect systems which attempted to burst into the midst of Orthodox Christians. As a result of the quest for truth there occurred divisions among Christians.

Becoming acquainted with the history of the Church, and likewise observing the contemporary world, we see that the errors which war against Orthodox Truth have appeared and do appear a) under the influence of other religions, b) under the influence of philosophy, and c) through the weakness and inclinations of fallen human nature, which seeks the rights and justifications of these weaknesses and inclinations.

Errors take root and become obstinate most frequently because of the pride of those who defend them, because of intellectual pride.

I'm not sure what Timiadis means, to be honest. Is he saying the "different beliefs and opinions" don't matter in themselves? If so, it seems dangerous to dismiss them like that. Of course, pride is the reason heretics remain obstinate in their false beliefs and opinions, and pride must be overcome for them to return to the Church. But in the end there are also real differences of belief, and we need to remember that among these differences there lie the true beliefs and the true opinions, set against all the false ones.

While I am 'open-minded' to honest dialogue, I concur that 'different beliefs and opinions' DO matter.

From the Orthodox point of view however, we need to be on guard that our own justified pride in our historical defense of Orthodoxy does not blind us to the possibility of honest discussion and potential reunification with others. Pride is a most dangerous sin as it allows humans to construct barriers to the recognition of truth.

I guess then we need to define "honest dialog". I wouldn't say that the current ecumenical dialogs taking place are "honest", for example, because they presuppose that heterodox groups are in some sense part of the Church, which is not an Orthodox presupposition. Otherwise, if the heterodox are understood to be completely outside the Church, why are they permitted to participate in Orthodox services when they don't show any intention of converting to the true faith? For evidence of this kind of occurrence, you can watch the video I posted earlier (and other videos are available if you're interested).

Honest, irenical dialog of the kind I think you're hoping for is exemplified by the many cases of correspondence between the Orthodox and the heterodox when the latter have inquired about what the Orthodox believe. For example, there is the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and the Lutherans in the 16th century. No unwarranted attacks were made on the Lutherans, but when it became clear the Protestants had no intention of accepting Orthodoxy, the correspondence quietly ended. There was never any statement made about the "common mission" or "calling" of the Lutherans and the Orthodox, precisely because there is no common mission between the heterodox and the Orthodox. The mission of the heterodox is diametrically opposed to the mission of the Orthodox.

But don't you think that the forces that assail Christians of all stripes present to us a much bigger circle with a much bigger diameter, such that the small circle on which we Christians stand on opposite sides pales in comparison?

Sadly, many of us Christians, myself included, when it comes to circles, often seem to prefer the circular firing squad formation.

Lord have mercy.

[Deacon Lance]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

[elijahmaria]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all. 

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply. 

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

Well here's a case of Internet Whiplash!

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[jnorm888]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I'm tempted to agree with you.

I don't think that's possible in the extreme secular environment we both live in today. They will do what they want to do. What they feel is necessary.


Thus, they will continue to talk regardless if we like it or not. Whatever will be will be.

It is what it is.

[jnorm888]

Let there be an end to these fruitless, unneccessary, and wasteful (of time, energy, and money) meetings.  Let us agree to disagree and get on with following Christ in our own ways.

I disagree with you whole-heartedly!

Communion is not something automatic.

It must be worked for, forged out of our shared life in Christ, and then maintained.

If you don't think so: take a good long look at Orthodox jurisdictions and the Catholic Church in various parts of the world, particularly where the parish churches are near empty.

We dare not stop!  Oddly enough the Orthodox hierarchs know that as well and I believe they are as driven as we are or we'd not be talking at all.  

Only in places like this is the impetus to pull away sharply.  

I agree.  But both side have to come to the table in good faith.  Many of the Orthodox Churches are only participating in the hope to eradicate the Eastern Catholic Churches as evidenced by Metropolitan Hilarion's demand to revisit the "problem of the Unia".

You make it sound as if eradication is a bad thing? It's obviously a major issue/problem/concern in Eastern Europe and so it should be revisited!

If there is going to be talks between the two communions then this issue must be put on the table!

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Pope Benedict to Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew