Poll

Should The Orthodox Church Attempt to "Re-missionize" the Churches in Schism?

Yes
0 (0%)
No
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Author Topic: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church  (Read 711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« on: February 03, 2014, 01:30:01 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 01:30:50 PM by orthoreader »

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,829
  • Pray for me, a sinner.
    • Blog
  • Faith: Confederate Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Puerto Rican Orthodox Sobor
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Another blog - http://literarydiktator.blogspot.com/

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2014, 02:02:32 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

We can get to my thoughts on that later. Dare I say, my opinion on that is not as important as the question, "should the Orthodox Church look at a missionary approach to Churches outside of Communion?"

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2014, 02:10:11 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,829
  • Pray for me, a sinner.
    • Blog
  • Faith: Confederate Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Puerto Rican Orthodox Sobor
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2014, 02:10:59 PM »
I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Another blog - http://literarydiktator.blogspot.com/

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,829
  • Pray for me, a sinner.
    • Blog
  • Faith: Confederate Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Puerto Rican Orthodox Sobor
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2014, 02:11:31 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Another blog - http://literarydiktator.blogspot.com/

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2014, 02:22:45 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?


Offline IoanC

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,414
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2014, 02:32:42 PM »
I am not sure if missionarizing is the right approach. When dealing with separation it is appropriate to approach things in the spirit of love and reconciliation. I believe these are hard and sensitive matters that deserve all of our attention, but we cannot expect true results over night.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,577
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2014, 02:35:28 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?



As to the Ukrainisn situation - Ukraine feels that as an independent country which has often been oppressed by its larger neighbor, and as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity among the Eastern Slavs, it should have an autocephalous Church.  The Mother Church here is actually a daughter or sister, depending on how you want to put it, acquired Motherhood due to some below board shenanigans, and is now trying to retain control for imperial reasons, among other things.  

Ukraine has declared autocephaly at least twice.  Most recently it almost took hold except that interference came from one of the bishops who upset the apple cart, splitting the group into two factions.  This has to work itself out before anyone can recognize them, including their co religionists who are still under the Russian Church.  

It's a mess.  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 02:36:02 PM by Yurysprudentsiya »

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,829
  • Pray for me, a sinner.
    • Blog
  • Faith: Confederate Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Puerto Rican Orthodox Sobor
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2014, 02:38:54 PM »
Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?

1)  I'd prefer reconciliation, but it hinges on mutual forgiveness and wanting to be a united Church.  So, for the sake of argument, the Church and a schismatic group reconciles, forgives one another, etc.  What next?  Immediate concelebration?  Maybe not.  Perhaps this part would be more missionizing.  I think this part would be to fix any anomalies in praxis that may have occurred or to correct any false teaching that may have crept in.  Even something like recognizing enthronement of bishops or ordinations of priests could take time.

2) In these instances, yes, I believe politics played a role.  Unfortunately, when hasn't politics played a role in the history of the Church?  There's alo the issue of ethnocentric/nationalistic pride that is so hard to stamp out; just pick any ethnicity/tribe/race/country in the world, there's a bit of pride.  The Mother Church does have a duty to heal such schism, but in the end people will be people.  The Church can go to then ends of the world or meet such a group's demands in its entirety and people may still want to stay in schism.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Another blog - http://literarydiktator.blogspot.com/

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2014, 02:40:14 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?



As to the Ukrainisn situation - Ukraine feels that as an independent country which has often been oppressed by its larger neighbor, and as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity among the Eastern Slavs, it should have an autocephalous Church.  The Mother Church here is actually a daughter or sister, depending on how you want to put it, acquired Motherhood due to some below board shenanigans, and is now trying to retain control for imperial reasons, among other things.  

Ukraine has declared autocephaly at least twice.  Most recently it almost took hold except that interference came from one of the bishops who upset the apple cart, splitting the group into two factions.  This has to work itself out before anyone can recognize them, including their co religionists who are still under the Russian Church.  

It's a mess.  

Then my question is: If a nation feels oppressed by another nation, which also represents the territory of the Mother Church does that church then have the "right/" is it justified/does the Church utilize economea etc to self-declare autocephaly?

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,829
  • Pray for me, a sinner.
    • Blog
  • Faith: Confederate Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Puerto Rican Orthodox Sobor
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2014, 02:43:37 PM »
I am not sure if missionarizing is the right approach. When dealing with separation it is appropriate to approach things in the spirit of love and reconciliation. I believe these are hard and sensitive matters that deserve all of our attention, but we cannot expect true results over night.

No, and I would be suspicious if two groups that had a bitter dispute all of a sudden said, "We're good now!  Everything's A-ok!"
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Another blog - http://literarydiktator.blogspot.com/

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,577
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2014, 02:49:10 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?



As to the Ukrainisn situation - Ukraine feels that as an independent country which has often been oppressed by its larger neighbor, and as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity among the Eastern Slavs, it should have an autocephalous Church.  The Mother Church here is actually a daughter or sister, depending on how you want to put it, acquired Motherhood due to some below board shenanigans, and is now trying to retain control for imperial reasons, among other things.  

Ukraine has declared autocephaly at least twice.  Most recently it almost took hold except that interference came from one of the bishops who upset the apple cart, splitting the group into two factions.  This has to work itself out before anyone can recognize them, including their co religionists who are still under the Russian Church.  

It's a mess.  

Then my question is: If a nation feels oppressed by another nation, which also represents the territory of the Mother Church does that church then have the "right/" is it justified/does the Church utilize economea etc to self-declare autocephaly?

I think that's been the norm.  But the question is - when does it take?   Who has to ratify it?  The Mother Church?  Constantinople?  A council? 

And what if only part of the church declares autocephaly?  What if the mother church accuses it of schism?  What if the remnant which did not declare autocephaly would do so and join the autocephalous church if it were recognized as canonical by another church or synod?

I'm not sure that we have answers for this. 

Offline orthoreader

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2014, 02:53:12 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?



As to the Ukrainisn situation - Ukraine feels that as an independent country which has often been oppressed by its larger neighbor, and as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity among the Eastern Slavs, it should have an autocephalous Church.  The Mother Church here is actually a daughter or sister, depending on how you want to put it, acquired Motherhood due to some below board shenanigans, and is now trying to retain control for imperial reasons, among other things.  

Ukraine has declared autocephaly at least twice.  Most recently it almost took hold except that interference came from one of the bishops who upset the apple cart, splitting the group into two factions.  This has to work itself out before anyone can recognize them, including their co religionists who are still under the Russian Church.  

It's a mess.  

Then my question is: If a nation feels oppressed by another nation, which also represents the territory of the Mother Church does that church then have the "right/" is it justified/does the Church utilize economea etc to self-declare autocephaly?

I think that's been the norm.  But the question is - when does it take?   Who has to ratify it?  The Mother Church?  Constantinople?  A council? 

And what if only part of the church declares autocephaly?  What if the mother church accuses it of schism?  What if the remnant which did not declare autocephaly would do so and join the autocephalous church if it were recognized as canonical by another church or synod?

I'm not sure that we have answers for this. 

I'm not sure that's the norm though. In the case of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, a Church that claimed mistreatment from her mother church (albeit I cannot find documented evidence of this) has yet to garner support from any other regional Church.

Offline Yurysprudentsiya

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,577
  • God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA, with a love for the UOC-USA
Re: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2014, 03:03:22 PM »
I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. :D

I believe there are more missionary opportunities beyond schismatic groups.  Those groups, although their beliefs may be the same, have chosen their own path.  I think that the Church can be cordial to those groups that have not fallen to heresy and perhaps begin a dialogue;  I doubt that could be considered a missionary approach, though.

Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.

Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?



As to the Ukrainisn situation - Ukraine feels that as an independent country which has often been oppressed by its larger neighbor, and as the cradle of Orthodox Christianity among the Eastern Slavs, it should have an autocephalous Church.  The Mother Church here is actually a daughter or sister, depending on how you want to put it, acquired Motherhood due to some below board shenanigans, and is now trying to retain control for imperial reasons, among other things.  

Ukraine has declared autocephaly at least twice.  Most recently it almost took hold except that interference came from one of the bishops who upset the apple cart, splitting the group into two factions.  This has to work itself out before anyone can recognize them, including their co religionists who are still under the Russian Church.  

It's a mess.  

Then my question is: If a nation feels oppressed by another nation, which also represents the territory of the Mother Church does that church then have the "right/" is it justified/does the Church utilize economea etc to self-declare autocephaly?

I think that's been the norm.  But the question is - when does it take?   Who has to ratify it?  The Mother Church?  Constantinople?  A council? 

And what if only part of the church declares autocephaly?  What if the mother church accuses it of schism?  What if the remnant which did not declare autocephaly would do so and join the autocephalous church if it were recognized as canonical by another church or synod?

I'm not sure that we have answers for this. 

I'm not sure that's the norm though. In the case of the Macedonian Orthodox Church, a Church that claimed mistreatment from her mother church (albeit I cannot find documented evidence of this) has yet to garner support from any other regional Church.

Maybe not outright oppression.  But the autocephalous of the 19th century were motivated by a recognition that the peoples were getting out from under the Ottoman yoke and the Patriarchate of Constantinople which symbolized an imperial past from which they were turning away.  I think this parallels the situation in Ukraine.