Topic: Orthodoxy and the WCC

[primuspilus]

Many people most certainly are doing just that. Or have we forgot propaganda about worship of Mary? Or that we try to save ourselves by works and not at all by faith? etc

So this is what the WCC does? Educate on other traditions? Really? How has these views changed? Oh, thay haven't because that is not what the WCC does.

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

St. Basil, St Gregory of Nazianzen

The same who fought Arianism and didn't try to "find common ground as Christians?"

Inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism are two different things

As I said before, dialogue can (and has) been done without ascribing to some great "big-tent".

Somehow I doubt that the Fathers refused to listen and learn what they believe in and pontificated on an internet forum instead

Well since the internet wasn't around...in other news I believe some councils were set up stating what the faith was, and what it wasn't. So yeah, they did refuse to give creedence to those in schism. If they were here on earth today, I doubt they'd play house with folks who ordain an openly gay bishop who divorced his wife to practice homosexuality and call him bishop (Episcopal Church), or blesses same sex marriages (United Church of Christ), or those that deny the Eucharist (most protestants). There is no way that the fathers would dare be seen hand in hand with these folks. Would they say that they are not Christian? I can't say, but I dont think they would judge like that. But they would keep these folks at least, at arms leangth.

I am not saying there should not be dialogue, but it should be done from the outside, giving assistance when it is possible. We can claim to be the true faith all we want, but if we get in the water with fish, you're gonna get wet.

PP

[witega]

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

[primuspilus]

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

but if he stopped participating after this full union, how is that a plus for using him as a model for the WCC?

PP

[Peter J]

in other news I believe some councils were set up stating what the faith was, and what it wasn't.

And I suppose the Orthodox Churches that participate in the WCC don't state what the faith is and what it isn't? 

[primuspilus]

in other news I believe some councils were set up stating what the faith was, and what it wasn't.

And I suppose the Orthodox Churches that participate in the WCC don't state what the faith is and what it isn't? 

That is not what I was stating. That was in regard to the argument that the fathers would have given ear to the other denominations. History shows otherwise by the councils. 

PP

[witega]

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

but if he stopped participating after this full union, how is that a plus for using him as a model for the WCC?

PP

How is our current participation in the WCC any different than the actual example of St. Mark?

[podkarpatska]

I am not saying there should not be dialogue, but it should be done from the outside, giving assistance when it is possible. We can claim to be the true faith all we want, but if we get in the water with fish, you're gonna get wet.

PP

True, but fish, crustaceans and water-dwelling mammals all share a vested interest in preserving their habitats. That doesn't stop sharks from eating other fish, killer whales from eating dolphins, big crabs from eating little crabs and from them all eating each other. They co-exist in the same oceans and are adapted to  protecting themselves from their predators. Are we Orthodox no less capable of protecting our own interests in a big sea than a lowly crustacean?

[primuspilus]

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

but if he stopped participating after this full union, how is that a plus for using him as a model for the WCC?

PP

How is our current participation in the WCC any different than the actual example of St. Mark?

There is nothing being done. Is there more understanding between the various traditions? No. Is there more education on what the others believe? No. Is this council's purpose to unite into 1 Church? No.

Sitting around and giving the predicted answers to issues does nothing. Yes, hunger is bad, so is war, injustice, torture, evil, racism, and poverty. These are the statements coming out of the WCC. It is a waste of time and resources. These are statements that need no council to issue.

If the WCC actually accomplished something, I would be 100% behind it.

If the Church wants to have dialogue about beliefs, let it be 1-on-1. There is actual proof that such dialogue DOES work. But on such a scale nothing has been accomplished. I think that St. Mark would have walked away as well, simply because such a council would be considered a fool's errand.

PP

[Peter J]

St. Mark of Ephesus?

The same St. Mark that fought against heresies? The same St. Mark that refused to give the west an inch? The same St. Mark that charged his disciple to defend Orthodoxy? Awesome example

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

but if he stopped participating after this full union, how is that a plus for using him as a model for the WCC?

PP

I didn't see this post at first. Even now that I do see it, it doesn't make sense to me. Has there been a union as the result of Orthodox participation in WCC? I'm sure there are some individual Orthodox, somewhere or other, who are in the process of converting to other Christian bodies, but that can hardly be attributed to the Orthodox participation in WCC.

[primuspilus]

I didn't see this post at first. Even now that I do see it, it doesn't make sense to me. Has there been a full union as the resultof the WCC? I'm sure there are some individual Orthodox, somewhere or other, who are in the process of converting to other Christian bodies, but that can hardly be attributed to the Orthodox participation in WCC

Sorry, I was referring to St. Mark walking away from the council after the union was reached. If he walked away, not willing to find common ground, my question was how can he be used as an example?

Sorry if I was confusing.

PP

[witega]

I didn't see this post at first. Even now that I do see it, it doesn't make sense to me. Has there been a full union as the resultof the WCC? I'm sure there are some individual Orthodox, somewhere or other, who are in the process of converting to other Christian bodies, but that can hardly be attributed to the Orthodox participation in WCC

Sorry, I was referring to St. Mark walking away from the council after the union was reached. If he walked away, not willing to find common ground, my question was how can he be used as an example?

Sorry if I was confusing.

PP

I'm still not following your train of thought. St. Mark's attendance at Florence shows he was willing to talk. His behavior after Florence showed he was unwilling to accept a false union. Since no one is signing any union documents (false or otherwise) at the WCC, it is his response to talking, not to false union which seems the relevent example.

If the Church wants to have dialogue about beliefs, let it be 1-on-1. There is actual proof that such dialogue DOES work. But on such a scale nothing has been accomplished. I think that St. Mark would have walked away as well, simply because such a council would be considered a fool's errand.

And if someone else has the personal opinion that St. Mark wouldn't walk away, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?

(BTW, I'm in somewhat the same position as Alpo--I *agree* with you that the modern WCC is waste of time and resources and the best thing the Church could do at this point would be to walk away. But that's not my call to make, it's the bishops. And while I think they should make a different decision than they currently do, I can't argue that their decision is actually illegitimate. After all, the EO-OO talks were initiated under the auspices of the WCC--and I think there is ample proof that those talks actually have led to some significant progress.)

[Alpo]

I didn't see this post at first. Even now that I do see it, it doesn't make sense to me. Has there been a full union as the resultof the WCC? I'm sure there are some individual Orthodox, somewhere or other, who are in the process of converting to other Christian bodies, but that can hardly be attributed to the Orthodox participation in WCC

Sorry, I was referring to St. Mark walking away from the council after the union was reached. If he walked away, not willing to find common ground, my question was how can he be used as an example?

He was most certainly willing to find common ground. If he wasn't he wouldn't have discussed with Catholics. Also, him walking away is a prime example of proper ecumenism since unity with false compromises is bad unity and bad ecumenism.

Sitting around and giving the predicted answers to issues does nothing. Yes, hunger is bad, so is war, injustice, torture, evil, racism, and poverty. These are the statements coming out of the WCC. It is a waste of time and resources. These are statements that need no council to issue.

So since the World already knows what Christianity teaches we can stop evangelism?

The same who fought Arianism and didn't try to "find common ground as Christians?"

The same who said that separation from other Christians tears them apart. That's how we all should feel.

As I said before, dialogue can (and has) been done without ascribing to some great "big-tent".

Now you lost me. What do you mean?

[primuspilus]

So since the World already knows what Christianity teaches we can stop evangelism?

The goal of the WCC is not evangelism.

He was most certainly willing to find common ground. If he wasn't he wouldn't have discussed with Catholics

yeah, but when they would not move, he left and would not be associated with them.

And if someone else has the personal opinion that St. Mark wouldn't walk away, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs?

Nothing. As I have said on multiple threads multiple times. This is my opinion. You're entitled to yours. I'll argue, but I wont sit here and yell thunderbolts that "Your opinion is of satan" or some other rubbish. Just the opinion of one guy...nothing more.

Also, him walking away is a prime example of proper ecumenism since unity with false compromises is bad unity and bad ecumenism

That's the thing. There is no talks of union. I just feel that St. Mark would not sit down with folks who outright deny the eucharist and have the stances these people take.

I can't argue that their decision is actually illegitimate

No. I would never say that the bishop's decisions are illegitimate. Never. This is my opinion. If my bishop (for some insane reason) asked me to join him in going to one of these meetings, I would go (maybe they need a computer to be fixed, or need a bouncer....)

Big-Tent = Im ok, you're ok, our differences dont matter, all that matters is Jesus.

PP

[Alpo]

So since the World already knows what Christianity teaches we can stop evangelism?

The goal of the WCC is not evangelism.

Nope but your idea seemed to be that there is no need for statements on Christian ethics since everybody already knows what Christianity teaches.

yeah, but when they would not move, he left and would not be associated with them.

Yes, because of false union. That's how ecumenism works. He did however associate them in the sense that he travelled a long way to talk with them in a seemingly hopeless situation.

That's the thing. There is no talks of union.

After having this discussion I'm not sure whether I'd like to hear the outrage about pan-heresy ecumenism if there was. Union of all is the aim but since we aren't there yet we can always talk about specifics of union. Such as Christian ethics or ecclesiology.

I just feel that St. Mark would not sit down with folks who outright deny the eucharist and have the stances these people take.

Well he did sit down with folks who believed in Filioque, papacy, purgatory etc. Those are heresies too.

Big-Tent = Im ok, you're ok, our differences dont matter, all that matters is Jesus.

I don't think this is how WCC works. Surely there are people within WCC who think like that but that isn't the official policy.

[Peter J]

I didn't see this post at first. Even now that I do see it, it doesn't make sense to me. Has there been a full union as the resultof the WCC? I'm sure there are some individual Orthodox, somewhere or other, who are in the process of converting to other Christian bodies, but that can hardly be attributed to the Orthodox participation in WCC

Sorry, I was referring to St. Mark walking away from the council after the union was reached. If he walked away, not willing to find common ground, my question was how can he be used as an example?

Sorry if I was confusing.

PP

Oh that's alright. I just want to let you know that you (inadvertently) argued against your own position.

The St. Mark that attended Florence and was a full participant up until the point they actually enacted a false union.

but if he stopped participating after this full union, how is that a plus for using him as a model for the WCC?

[primuspilus]

Nope but your idea seemed to be that there is no need for statements on Christian ethics since everybody already knows what Christianity teaches

No, my idea is that such statements can be made. But we dont need to be of some body, wasting time and resources to do it.

Having a group set up for such purposes is meaningless.

Yes, because of false union. That's how ecumenism works. He did however associate them in the sense that he travelled a long way to talk with them in a seemingly hopeless situation

True, he did meet, and left. We met and stayed....and are still there.

Well he did sit down with folks who believed in Filioque, papacy, purgatory etc. Those are heresies too

Sitting down and discussing I have no problem with. It's staying when it is obvious that they have no desire nor inclination to unite.

PP

[Peter J]

Yes, because of false union. That's how ecumenism works. He did however associate them in the sense that he travelled a long way to talk with them in a seemingly hopeless situation

True, he did meet, and left. We met and stayed....and are still there.

You just don't seem to get what people are saying here. Mark of Ephesus rejected the union that was declared; but in the current situation, no union has been declared between the Eastern Orthodox and the RCC, or ACNA, or the Anglican Communion, or the ELCA ...

Hence, there isn't an opportunity for an Orthodox bishop to stand up, as new Mark of Ephesus if you will, and say "I reject this union."

[primuspilus]

Tell you what. I just read the assumptions from the toronto statement on their website. You can definitely keep them now. Im going to end my participation because I'll not be able to add anything of value. Folks can read it and come to their own conclusions. I will not be convinced that this body has merit. This body in my opinion is a waste of time. However, if other hold to a differing opinion, God bless you and good luck.

PP

[vasily]

vasily, I think you should study up on church history and learn what an ecumenical council is.

 I am familiar with what ecumenical councils are and represent. The WCC & NCC do not constitute an ecumenical council. The Ecumenical Councils made decisions concerning the One. Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 I think that one must seriously consider whether the Orthodox presence and our dialogue in both the WCC & the NCC has been productive? Since both the WCC and the NCC stress the "branch" theory, that all Christian groups hold certain truths, and a commonality, how has the Orthodox presence changed this? Should the Orthodox consider other alternatives to evangelizing the heterodox?

[Peter J]

vasily, I think you should study up on church history and learn what an ecumenical council is.

I am familiar with what ecumenical councils are and represent.

Yeah, alright. [/sarcasm] Talk to the person who said

Has the heterodox returned to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and Church through dialogue in these ecumenical councils?

[searn77]

vasily, I think you should study up on church history and learn what an ecumenical council is.

I am familiar with what ecumenical councils are and represent.

Yeah, alright. [/sarcasm] Talk to the person who said

Has the heterodox returned to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and Church through dialogue in these ecumenical councils?

I think there may be some confusion here when using the term "ecumenical council," as one may be using that term in regards to the modern day councils such as the NCC and WCC, modern councils which are often described as being "ecumenical" because they include a variety of different Christian denominations. Not to be confused with the Holy 7 Ecumenical Councils.

So I think Vasily may understand the difference between the two but maybe he just didn't type clearly what he was meaning to say, which is easy to do on here.

[primuspilus]

I dont get it. Its pretty obvious what Vasily was talking about.

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

PP

[searn77]

I dont get it. Its pretty obvious what Vasily was talking about.

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

PP

Yea I thought so too, but sometimes it's easy to misread what people mean to say.

[primuspilus]

I dont get it. Its pretty obvious what Vasily was talking about.

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

PP

Yea I thought so too, but sometimes it's easy to misread what people mean to say.

Totally understandable.

PP

[vasily]

 So far, in this poll, around 26% agree with the Orthodox involvement in the WCC. I would seriously know why you feel this way? I am out to defend the other side of the fence on this issue, so lets begin the debate.

[biro]

How can you teach people anything if you don't go and talk to them?

What you might gain is a chance to alert people of the history of the Church and thereby make them more sympathetic to you. Many Protestant churches today deny the history of the faith and assert pretty bizarre things in its place. Are we saying it's not important to go and wake them up out of that?

I don't get the 'we don't gain anything' argument. Is your mission to convert the world, or not?

[Peter J]

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. The WCC and the NCC don't call themselves either "Ecumenical Councils" or "ecumenical councils". Neither does ARCIC for that matter.

[searn77]

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. The WCC and the NCC don't call themselves either "Ecumenical Councils" or "ecumenical councils". Neither does ARCIC for that matter.

Here's a link that somewhat defines the modern popular usage of the word ecumenism when speaking from a Christian standpoint:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenism

So keeping this in mind, calling the WCC or NCC an ecumenical council is understandable.

[primuspilus]

WCC, et al. = ecumenical council

The councils = Ecumenical Councils

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. The WCC and the NCC don't call themselves either "Ecumenical Councils" or "ecumenical councils". Neither does ARCIC for that matter.

Then I submit a new name for them.

ecumenist councils

PP

[Iconodule]

How can you teach people anything if you don't go and talk to them?

What you might gain is a chance to alert people of the history of the Church and thereby make them more sympathetic to you. Many Protestant churches today deny the history of the faith and assert pretty bizarre things in its place. Are we saying it's not important to go and wake them up out of that?

I don't get the 'we don't gain anything' argument. Is your mission to convert the world, or not?

Again and again we meet this tired equation of ecumenism with missionary work. What actually goes on at these meetings? A bunch of official representatives of the various groups come together, discuss some points, find some superficial agreements, and hammer out a statement bland enough to express them. That is not an effective way of preaching Orthodoxy. Has anyone heard of an official representative at the WCC, NCC, etc. converting to Orthodoxy because of our "witness" there? Maybe it's happened, I don't know.

More broadly, how many on-the-ground Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. actually pay any attention (close or otherwise) to the goings-on at these meetings? If they do, what impression are they getting of the Orthodox, and how is that perception being filtered? 

[primuspilus]

How can you teach people anything if you don't go and talk to them?

What you might gain is a chance to alert people of the history of the Church and thereby make them more sympathetic to you. Many Protestant churches today deny the history of the faith and assert pretty bizarre things in its place. Are we saying it's not important to go and wake them up out of that?

I don't get the 'we don't gain anything' argument. Is your mission to convert the world, or not?

Again and again we meet this tired equation of ecumenism with missionary work. What actually goes on at these meetings? A bunch of official representatives of the various groups come together, discuss some points, find some superficial agreements, and hammer out a statement bland enough to express them. That is not an effective way of preaching Orthodoxy. Has anyone heard of an official representative at the WCC, NCC, etc. converting to Orthodoxy because of our "witness" there? Maybe it's happened, I don't know.

More broadly, how many on-the-ground Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. actually pay any attention (close or otherwise) to the goings-on at these meetings? If they do, what impression are they getting of the Orthodox, and how is that perception being filtered? 

Thank you!!!!!!

[Peter J]

Again and again we meet this tired equation of ecumenism with missionary work.

That cuts both ways, though. If it is true that ecumenism shouldn't present itself as missionary work, it equally true that missionary work shouldn't present itself as ecumenism.

However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.

(Sorry if I'm going a little off-topic.)

[primuspilus]

I said I would not come back into the discussion....looks like that didn't go too well.

As I have said. Not a soul has been converted to Orthodoxy because of the WCC (at least it was not reported). Also, I know the WCC has a mission to share in missionary efforts, but is that something Orthodoxy really wants to do?

I think it can really bring up conflict when groups who are branch Theorists missionize (a word?) with orthodox who are vehemently against this.

PP

[Peter J]

I said I would not come back into the discussion....looks like that didn't go too well.

As I have said. Not a soul has been converted to Orthodoxy because of the WCC (at least it was not reported). Also, I know the WCC has a mission to share in missionary efforts, but is that something Orthodoxy really wants to do?

I think it can really bring up conflict when groups who are branch Theorists missionize (a word?) with orthodox who are vehemently against this.

Can you show that this even happens? I'm not saying definitely that it doesn't, but I'm skeptical.

[primuspilus]

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1637/christians-reach-broad-co.htmlThis is the url about the mission statement agreed upon in the WCC. At the bottom is the actual statement. It seems innocent enough, but it really makes it difficult for Orthodox to stand on principle if such a thing were to happen.

I apologize if I alluded to the contrary, but no such missionizing (still not sure if thats a word) has happened yet to my knowledge. However, the door is open for such things based upon the statement which was agreed to all. More than a few of the members of the WCC do adhere to the Branch Theory (as it is really just an extension of the Invisible Church theory).

Sorry if I confused.

PP

[Peter J]

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1637/christians-reach-broad-co.htmlThis is the url about the mission statement agreed upon in the WCC. At the bottom is the actual statement. It seems innocent enough, but it really makes it difficult for Orthodox to stand on principle if such a thing were to happen.

I read the webpage you linked to. Is there something in it that you object to?

I haven't yet read the document in question, but I'll probably do so later today.

[primuspilus]

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1637/christians-reach-broad-co.htmlThis is the url about the mission statement agreed upon in the WCC. At the bottom is the actual statement. It seems innocent enough, but it really makes it difficult for Orthodox to stand on principle if such a thing were to happen.

I read the webpage you linked to. Is there something in it that you object to?

I haven't yet read the document in question, but I'll probably do so later today.

What I object to is not what is written, but what it implies. My opinion is that the statement pushes the idea of "Im ok, you're ok, its all for Christ". For me, that is simply too broad of a statement if Orthodox are to stand on principles on what is believed. If going to Africa to missionize with a WCC group, you'll have some folks saying that the magic prayer is the only way, some say that it is in the Church, others saying its some kind of convoluted semi-Calvinistic way.

"Its all about Jesus" is nice on paper, but in practice it would be a nightmare.

Please understand, this is simply the way I took it.

PP

[Peter J]

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/1637/christians-reach-broad-co.htmlThis is the url about the mission statement agreed upon in the WCC. At the bottom is the actual statement. It seems innocent enough, but it really makes it difficult for Orthodox to stand on principle if such a thing were to happen.

I read the webpage you linked to. Is there something in it that you object to?

I haven't yet read the document in question, but I'll probably do so later today.

What I object to is not what is written, but what it implies. My opinion is that the statement pushes the idea of "Im ok, you're ok, its all for Christ". For me, that is simply too broad of a statement if Orthodox are to stand on principles on what is believed. If going to Africa to missionize with a WCC group, you'll have some folks saying that the magic prayer is the only way, some say that it is in the Church, others saying its some kind of convoluted semi-Calvinistic way.

"Its all about Jesus" is nice on paper, but in practice it would be a nightmare.

Please understand, this is simply the way I took it.

PP

Thing is, none of us can really challenge, or do anything about, the way that you took it. We're not inside of you.

[primuspilus]

Thing is, none of us can really challenge, or do anything about, the way that you took it. We're not inside of you

I was just reiterating that it was an opinion. I dont think I have to tell you how many folks pontificate about certian things and if you dont agree, you're a moron.....

[Peter J]

Again and again we meet this tired equation of ecumenism with missionary work. What actually goes on at these meetings? A bunch of official representatives of the various groups come together, discuss some points, find some superficial agreements, and hammer out a statement bland enough to express them. That is not an effective way of preaching Orthodoxy. Has anyone heard of an official representative at the WCC, NCC, etc. converting to Orthodoxy because of our "witness" there? Maybe it's happened, I don't know.

This is from the blog article The Goal of Ecumenism (omitting some of the descriptions):

Ecumenism: Progression of Stages
This “ministry towards unity” is always present, however, it need not be carried out in exactly the same (practical) manner in every particular circumstance.  Nor must it necessarily take place suddenly or all at once.
...

Stage 1:  Charity in Truth

...

Stage 2: Dialogue

...

Stage 3: Cooperation

...

Stage 4: Conversion of Hearts

...

Stage 5: Final Preparation and Reconciliation
The various preliminary stages above are supposed to lead to conversion in the sense of formal enterance into the Catholic Church (i.e., "full and visible communion").  Therefore, this last step is not considered ecumenism, strictly speaking, but rather is considered as the ultimate goal of ecumenism.   

[vasily]

 Some points to ponder on.

 It seems that Protestant involvement in ecumenism, being pluralistic in doctrine and activistic in orientation, is seeking agreement on social issues, so that together with other ecumenical groups it may work effectively for the solution of social problems. With the existence of all the different Protestant sects teaching their own interpretations of Scriptures and ideology, there will never be an agreement on what is truth. Roman Catholic involvement is directed to uniting all the rest of the Christians under the Pope as the head of all Christian bodies. History alone has proven this. (One must fully understand that the First Vatican Council taught and put into doctrine," We must hold as of the Faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge." This has been reaffirmed many times, "that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church." Per Vatican II, this is also part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church( no. 776)). Orthodox involvement,as it was conceived by George Florovsky and was carried on by Orthodox theologians, prior to the innovations of Patriarch Athenagoras, was a movement to conduct missionary activity and to convert the non-Orthodox to the Orthodox Church. This has yet to became a reality.

 Patriarch Athenagoras replaced the doctrinal approach of Orthodox ecumenism by a political approach. The Patriarch appears to have believed that by avoiding discussions on the doctrinal differences which separate the Orthodox from the heterodox the Patriarch would win support of the heterodox and in turn would put pressure on the Turkish government. (This was in 1963) The beginning of the active participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement dates from 1924. That year Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis introduced the new calender into the church in Constantinople. The Patriarch introduced the new calender without any consultation with the other Orthodox  Churches. Was this calender change an effort to conform to the heterodox? This decision went against the synodal form of decision making that existed in the church. This was to divide the Orthodox.

 Those Orthodox who are involved in the ecumenical and interfaith movements are disregarding the Holy Canons. The 45th and 65th Apostolic Canons. The 65th Canon is contained in the rudder, the constitution of the Orthodox Church and states," If any clergyman. or layman, enter a synagogue of Jews or of heretics, to pray, let them be both deposed and excommunicated." The intent of these Canons is to protect the Orthodox Faith from any kind of relativistic misunderstanding.

[primuspilus]

I would like to give my views on the below points:

Stage 1:  Charity in Truth

This can definitely happen with the WCC

Stage 2: Dialogue

This is also happening, but I must ask dialogue on what? Theological dialogue? Social dialogue? Morality?

Stage 3: Cooperation

Again, cooperation on what? Helping the poor? Ok, that is good. Victims of tragedies? Ok sure. Missionary activities? Should we do that as Orthodox? Missionize with say, Lutherans? This doesn't ring alarm bells?

Stage 4: Conversion of Hearts

Ok, conversion of hearts how? For love? That would be good, but what if its Christian conversion of hearts. That is when you run into real problems.

Stage 5: Final Preparation and Reconciliation

Final preparation for what? Unity? There is only 1 unity that is acceptable. That is all coming back to the faith of the Apostles, which is Orthodoxy. I doubt very seriously that any of the above would do anything to bring all back to Orthodoxy.

I would ask, has any "denomination" came back to Orthodoxy from ANY group like this?

PP

[vasily]

 In these ecumenical groups comes the "branch theory" of the Church, where there exists many Christians Churches and the Orthodox is just one of many. This branch theory stands in glaring contradiction to the Orthodox Symbol of Faith, the Creed, which states that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Of all the Christian bodies, the Orthodox Church is the only one that remained the faithful keeper of the whole Sacred Tradition, avoiding heretical doctrines and other unwarranted innovations. The Faith does not alter with the times, it does not deteriorate from circumstances, but remains the same, both old and new.

 So how is union with the heterodox to the Orthodox Faith even possible through our involvement in ecumenical circles? Is the search for the Truth important in these ecumenical circle? I seriously think it is time for the Orthodox who participate in any of these ecumenical or interfaith movements to reconsider their position. After all these years of our involvement the West has yet to grasp anything Orthodox. Have any of our goals of the Orthodox been achieved?  Our continued involvement disregards what the Lord told His Disciples, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:19-20).

 Would Christianity exist today, if the Holy Apostles ,instead of preaching repentance, as they were commanded by our Lord and God, had undertaken interfaith dialogues and cooperated with idolaters for the supposed good of the world? What purpose does the Orthodox have in interfaith participation when the CC has had speakers such as the Presbyterian  theologian Dr. Chung and the Dalai Lama? Are these speakers and others , the 'speakers" of Truth?

[primuspilus]

I just think Orthodoxy needs to approach groups in a singular fashion. The Orthodox and the RC's are making headway here in the USA (of course I doubt union any time soon but real, measurable progress is made). More than one group joined Orthodoxy due to direct talks. I will be chrismated in a month directly because of such talks. Talking directly with groups who are interested in Orthodoxy does so much more than grouping with folks and hoping for the best.


PP

[vasily]

 Meanwhile, incidents have happened behind our backs. After the liberation of Romania in 1989, 10,000 copies of the Bible in the Romanian language were sent to Romanian Orthodox parishes by a Protestant source in the USA. It was discovered that the word "idol" had been consistently translated "icon" in an attempt to undermine Orthodox dogmatic teachings. While the Oecumenical Patriarch and the Pope exchange greetings in the spirit of a "theology of love", the Ukrainian Catholics are proselytizing among the Orthodox and taking over Orthodox Churches by force. After the fall of communism, all the Protestant and Evangelical groups sent to Eastern Europe, Russia, and Ukraine to convert those "people" to Christianity.

 Recommendations:
1. Withdraw and break off all relations and dialogues with the ecumenical and interfaith movements.
2. Cultivate pan-Orthodox unity, cooperation to the highest degree possible, so that peace and love will exist among all the Eastern Orthodox.
3. Rekindle the Eucharist life and the concord of Faith. Educate and create an awareness concerning Orthodoxy, the history, traditions and teachings of the church.
4. Promote the Liturgical, theological wealth of Patristic Traditions and return to the purity of the Orthodox Faith. (Let us discard/eliminate any Western innovations that have invaded the Orthodox Church).
5. To develop in love and humility all of the invaluable gifts of charismatic Orthodoxy, s a responsible missionary offering and invitation to the contemporary world.

 I would like to thank and highly recommend the following authors for their works on this subject matter. They have written what I think. Thank God for the Truth seekers.

Ecumenism Examined by Constantine Cavarnos-Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
The Rush to Embrace by Archpriest Alexey Young-Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society
Orthodox Christianity and the Spirit of Contemporary Ecumenism by Father Daniel Degyansky-Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros-St. Nectarios Press
Ecumenism: A Movement for Union or a Syncretistic Heresy? by Bishop Angelos of Avlona-Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
Orthodox and the Ecumenical Movement by Archimandrite Cyprian Agiokyprianites- Center for Tradtionalist Orthodox Studies