OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 09:45:43 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: For Ecumenists  (Read 3035 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« on: May 22, 2013, 01:22:39 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2013, 01:44:12 PM »

For me personally, if the entire Church hierarchy united with another faith community, I would accept it as legitimate.  I trust that God does and will preserve the Church and would not allow such a union unless it served His divine purpose.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2013, 01:56:51 PM »

What do you mean by "Ecumenist"?
Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2013, 02:01:46 PM »

An advocate for some form of union of Christian ecclesial communities into one Church, specially if this advocate sees the efforts towards this as a priority of Christian life. What this advocate means by "union" is what the answer to my question seeks to further clarify.

What do you mean by "Ecumenist"?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:03:40 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2013, 02:08:25 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate?

Those which compromise Tradition. I could techically "those which compromise Orthodox Faith" too but "Orthodox Faith" is often confused with current dogmatic trends so I chose "Tradition" instead.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:10:07 PM by Alpo » Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2013, 02:10:51 PM »

Which specific items do you have in mind? *Some* compromise somewhere would be necessary. Where there should be no compromise and how much compromise is too much?

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate?

Those which compromise the Tradition.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2013, 02:13:52 PM »

If, hypothetically, you have the OO, EO and RC unite and you aren't satisfied with the compromises made by your respective Church, where do you go from there?  Protestants? Mormons?  Some schismatic group?
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2013, 02:16:48 PM »

That's another interesting question, that opens up an entire new direction for analysis. I'd like to ask those who eventually join in to stick to the original question for now: "What kind and/or terms of union you would find unacceptable, preventing you from following with it?", just to keep the focus.

If, hypothetically, you have the OO, EO and RC unite and you aren't satisfied with the compromises made by your respective Church, where do you go from there?  Protestants? Mormons?  Some schismatic group?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:17:18 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2013, 02:20:33 PM »

Which specific items do you have in mind? *Some* compromise somewhere would be necessary.

If there is a compromise it's better to have no union at all. Bad Ecclesiology is not proper Ecummenisn.

The whole another thing is that we might learn that Tradition can be expressed in various ways or that the Heterodox doesn't necessarily believe what we have assumed them to believe.
Logged

TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2013, 02:26:58 PM »

That's another interesting question, that opens up an entire new direction for analysis. I'd like to ask those who eventually join in to stick to the original question for now: "What kind and/or terms of union you would find unacceptable, preventing you from following with it?", just to keep the focus.

If, hypothetically, you have the OO, EO and RC unite and you aren't satisfied with the compromises made by your respective Church, where do you go from there?  Protestants? Mormons?  Some schismatic group?

I see it kind of related to your question though.  Think of John 6:

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Since the Church is the Body of Christ and we have confidence that God's Truth is transmitted through the Church, where would be go if we decide to accept that the Church has fallen into error?  If you are going to decide that the Church has made an erroneous move, you must then decide where the infallible Church is.


Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2013, 02:32:29 PM »

Is the hierarchy a criteria though? There were times where the hierarchy were predominantly Arian or Iconoclast and the Orthodox were considered a minority schism. Why can't they go wrong again?

That's another interesting question, that opens up an entire new direction for analysis. I'd like to ask those who eventually join in to stick to the original question for now: "What kind and/or terms of union you would find unacceptable, preventing you from following with it?", just to keep the focus.

If, hypothetically, you have the OO, EO and RC unite and you aren't satisfied with the compromises made by your respective Church, where do you go from there?  Protestants? Mormons?  Some schismatic group?

I see it kind of related to your question though.  Think of John 6:

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Since the Church is the Body of Christ and we have confidence that God's Truth is transmitted through the Church, where would be go if we decide to accept that the Church has fallen into error?  If you are going to decide that the Church has made an erroneous move, you must then decide where the infallible Church is.



Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2013, 02:36:50 PM »

Is the hierarchy a criteria though? There were times where the hierarchy were predominantly Arian or Iconoclast and the Orthodox were considered a minority schism. Why can't they go wrong again?

There's less occasions to go wrong nowadays since our doctrine is much more settled now than during the first centuries.
Logged

Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,596



« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2013, 02:37:04 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?

Assuming for union that we're talking about non-Protestants, I really wouldn't be able to accept subjugation to RC Papal claims. I think that's the biggest issue for me. I also wouldn't like union with liberal groups like certain Old Catholics.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2013, 02:38:52 PM »

That is a limit I personally would not cross. It's bad historical science to give preference to the witness of biased interpreters dettached from from the original facts by centuries instead of primary sources and allowing the directly involved parts to define the original dispute. *That* line of thought sound to me a lot like "we'll do it regardless of facts".

The whole another thing is that we might learn that Tradition can be expressed in various ways or that the Heterodox doesn't necessarily believe what we have assumed them to believe.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2013, 02:40:42 PM »

Yet, it's not a democracy or a consensus. If 99% of the hierarchy decides on a particular way, this may be evidence, but no proof that they are right.

Is the hierarchy a criteria though? There were times where the hierarchy were predominantly Arian or Iconoclast and the Orthodox were considered a minority schism. Why can't they go wrong again?

There's less occasions to go wrong nowadays since our doctrine is much more settled now than during the first centuries.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2013, 02:48:57 PM »

Which of the papal claims?
Ex Cathedra infallibility?
Universal and ordinary jurisdiction?
Non-transferability of the Primacy from Rome?
That the above charismas belong exclusively to the Bishop of Rome?

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?

Assuming for union that we're talking about non-Protestants, I really wouldn't be able to accept subjugation to RC Papal claims. I think that's the biggest issue for me. I also wouldn't like union with liberal groups like certain Old Catholics.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2013, 02:50:57 PM »

That is a limit I personally would not cross. It's bad historical science to give preference to the witness of biased interpreters dettached from from the original facts by centuries instead of primary sources and allowing the directly involved parts to define the original dispute.

Not really if, say, the directly involved parts didn't understand each other's native language. I do agree though that historical EO expressions should be deemed as a sort of standard of Tradition.
Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2013, 02:54:38 PM »

For the same criteria that it would be difficult for them to understand each other, it would be even more difficult for us to understand any of them since we don't speak their languages any longer. Our assumptions that they were saying the same things in different words are based on our assumptions about their languages and that's circular thinking.


That is a limit I personally would not cross. It's bad historical science to give preference to the witness of biased interpreters dettached from from the original facts by centuries instead of primary sources and allowing the directly involved parts to define the original dispute.

Not really if, say, the directly involved parts didn't understand each other's native language. I do agree though that historical EO expressions should be deemed as a sort of standard of Tradition.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:55:27 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,494


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2013, 02:55:02 PM »

An advocate for some form of union of Christian ecclesial communities into one Church

With that definition no Orthodox can be "ecumenist" since the Orthodox Church is not one of the many "ecclesial communities". Your definition is flawed.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2013, 03:01:11 PM »

An advocate for some form of union of Christian ecclesial communities into one Church

With that definition no Orthodox can be "ecumenist" since the Orthodox Church is not one of the many "ecclesial communities". Your definition is flawed.

We are not one of many assembled (ecclesial) communities?   Huh

The Orthodox Church may be the only True, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church, but it is also one of many assembled communities.  Heck, any number of civic organizations could meet that definition as well.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2013, 03:02:09 PM »

What I have in mind are members of the Orthodox Church, Non-Chalcedonean Churches, RC, and traditional Reform churches.

An advocate for some form of union of Christian ecclesial communities into one Church

With that definition no Orthodox can be "ecumenist" since the Orthodox Church is not one of the many "ecclesial communities". Your definition is flawed.

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2013, 03:05:10 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,494


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2013, 03:06:45 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2013, 03:21:59 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,494


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2013, 03:28:34 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.

I don't know whether to take someone's opinion on OO theology seriously who thinks the entire Oriental Orthodox Church is rasta.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2013, 03:33:34 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.

I don't know whether to take someone's opinion on OO theology seriously who thinks the entire Oriental Orthodox Church is rasta.

LOL! POTM
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2013, 03:43:20 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory.
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart.
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me).
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church.
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2013, 03:55:42 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar.  Tongue
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,850



« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2013, 04:00:06 PM »

For the same criteria that it would be difficult for them to understand each other, it would be even more difficult for us to understand any of them since we don't speak their languages any longer. Our assumptions that they were saying the same things in different words are based on our assumptions about their languages and that's circular thinking.

I wasn't arguing for anything or against anything but expressing my point. Lighten up a bit. We're not having a debate but discussing.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2013, 04:21:16 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar.  Tongue
The question was hypothetical, saying what terms would you find difficult to accept. If the Bishop of Rome had agreed to the 6 terms mentioned, I would find them difficult to accept. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Church would be required to adopt these terms as many of them are jurisdictional issues as you have pointed out, but I did not understand that to be the  question asked.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 05:00:17 PM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar.  Tongue
The question was hypothetical, saying what terms would you find difficult to accept. If the Bishop of Rome had agreed to the 6 terms mentioned, I would find them difficult to accept. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Church would be required to adopt these terms as many of them are jurisdictional issues as you have pointed out, but I did not understand that to be the  question asked.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I do find that many of the issues that divide RC and Orthodox tend to be issues that would be jurisdictional in nature.  There are, of course, doctrinal issues, but I would hope that IF a union were to take place, both sides would exercise humility and not infringe on jurisdictional issues of the other.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,596



« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 09:40:01 PM »

Which of the papal claims?
Ex Cathedra infallibility?
Universal and ordinary jurisdiction?
Non-transferability of the Primacy from Rome?
That the above charismas belong exclusively to the Bishop of Rome?

All of the above.

I suppose I would also take problem with an attempt to force Latin dogmatic statements on a theoretical united church. The Latin Church could have its pious beliefs and doctrinal definitions, but they could not be enforced as universally binding dogmatic definitions. As it is, there is a lot of variation in expressing beliefs in Orthodoxy since we don't tend to have narrowly defined dogmatic statements, and I wouldn't desire for such and especially definitions that are foriegn to our Traditional expressions.
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 09:50:31 PM »

I would certainly call myself an "ecumenist," but I think a definition is in order.

If by "ecumenist" you mean I desire the unity of Christians and encourage honest and constructive dialogue between different groups, then, yes, I am an ecumenist.

However, if by "ecumenist" you mean I value unity over orthodoxy and am willing to compromise the Faith for the sake of making others feel better, than no, I am not an ecumenist.

With that said, I think I've largely answered the OP's question. Any terms of union that compromise the Faith are unacceptable.

However, if the canonical Orthodox Churches (of which I am a part) reconcile with another communion, I am obligated to follow them. Therefore, I do not believe there would ever be a situation where the Church would make a decision that would cause me to leave. If union is false, then I have faith that the Church would not participate in it.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,693



« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 10:47:04 PM »

I would certainly call myself an "ecumenist," but I think a definition is in order.

If by "ecumenist" you mean I desire the unity of Christians and encourage honest and constructive dialogue between different groups, then, yes, I am an ecumenist.

However, if by "ecumenist" you mean I value unity over orthodoxy and am willing to compromise the Faith for the sake of making others feel better, than no, I am not an ecumenist.

With that said, I think I've largely answered the OP's question. Any terms of union that compromise the Faith are unacceptable.

However, if the canonical Orthodox Churches (of which I am a part) reconcile with another communion, I am obligated to follow them. Therefore, I do not believe there would ever be a situation where the Church would make a decision that would cause me to leave. If union is false, then I have faith that the Church would not participate in it.
+1
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2013, 02:57:24 AM »

Which kinds and terms of union you would *not* accept as legitimate? Which ones, if accepted by hierarchy, would lead you to not follow them into a false union?
From the RC POV, the terms I would not like would be:
1. Doing away with venial sin and Purgatory. - This would be a doctrine issue
2. Requiring communion of both kinds (including wine).  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
3. Doing away with devotion to the Sacred Heart. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
4. Adopting the Orthodox rules for fasting during Lent (They are too severe for me). - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
5. No kneelers, no pews and no organ music in Church. - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue
6. No genuflecting, only bowing and kissing the Church floor is allowed.  - This would probably be a jurisdictional issue

The majority of the things you stated are jurisdictional issues.  I would imagine that if there was a union, those issues would continue to be under the purview of the Bishop of Rome.  As far as the Purgatory thing is concerned, you could always become a "toll-house" Orthodox, it is pretty similar.  Tongue
The question was hypothetical, saying what terms would you find difficult to accept. If the Bishop of Rome had agreed to the 6 terms mentioned, I would find them difficult to accept. Of course, it is highly unlikely that the Roman Church would be required to adopt these terms as many of them are jurisdictional issues as you have pointed out, but I did not understand that to be the  question asked.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  I do find that many of the issues that divide RC and Orthodox tend to be issues that would be jurisdictional in nature.  There are, of course, doctrinal issues, but I would hope that IF a union were to take place, both sides would exercise humility and not infringe on jurisdictional issues of the other.
Thanks a lot for your comments. You are right that there are both jurisdictional and doctrinal issues. How these are going to be resolved is a question. All I can see for now (and for a fairly long time into the future) is for both Churches working together on issues of common concern but without intercommunion. 
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 23, 2013, 08:08:50 AM »

Can you give examples of such terms?


With that said, I think I've largely answered the OP's question. Any terms of union that compromise the Faith are unacceptable.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,036



« Reply #36 on: May 23, 2013, 10:28:44 PM »

Can you give examples of such terms?

- We (Orthodox) must accept the filioque clause.
- We must accept that papal supremacy exists, even if the pope promises to never use it (this undermines the whole ecclesiology of the early Church).
- We must accept the doctrine of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and other post-Schism decrees OR accept that these doctrines can be validly held by our Latin counterparts.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2013, 11:14:04 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.
James, you clearly know nothing about OO theology. So do us all a favor, stop misrepresenting us, pick up a book, and get yourself educated!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 11:19:59 PM by Severian » Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2013, 11:22:22 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.
Pretty much where I stand as well.

I have no problem with plurality in unity, which is the Orthodox position, but you can't unify without a stricter catholicity.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2013, 11:28:20 AM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.

You wouldn't get flamed if you really believed there were significant differences between EO and OO that can't be overlooked, and if you could express something of those opinions with something approximating the use of reason.  You might be disagreed with, but not flamed.  When you, HOWEVER, assign "4+ cool points" to a Church you claim a theological disagreement with because of some Afro-Caribbean fantasies you dreamed up in a pot-induced haze, I'd say it's time you lay off the "bom-bom-biggy" and keep quiet lest people see your ignorance.     
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,748


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2013, 11:57:20 AM »

That is a limit I personally would not cross. It's bad historical science to give preference to the witness of biased interpreters dettached from from the original facts by centuries instead of primary sources and allowing the directly involved parts to define the original dispute. *That* line of thought sound to me a lot like "we'll do it regardless of facts".

The whole another thing is that we might learn that Tradition can be expressed in various ways or that the Heterodox doesn't necessarily believe what we have assumed them to believe.

Hi Fabio,

I think you have a point re: our "biased" interpretations today detached by centuries from a particular situation, primary sources, original parties, etc.  There's an "ignorance" in the air these days that takes a lot of things and just assumes we know better than our forbears did, and I think that's dangerous, especially if it leads to "we'll do it regardless of facts".  But I also think it's dangerous to just maintain the status quo with the blind faith that "they knew what they were doing", presuming that later generations are always and everywhere "worse" than those that came before. 

Since the EO/OO split was brought up in this thread, I'll use that as an example.  We could simply maintain the current state of affairs and trust that our fathers knew what they were doing and let it be.  But to maintain this, I think both EO and OO have to ignore some "inconvenient truths".  So I think it's useful to dialogue and try to get to the bottom of things, and I don't think it always and everywhere leads to syncretism.  By all means, let whatever documentary evidence is out there help us define the original dispute, as you say.  But I don't think it's all a bunch of false assumptions to point to lingustic differences: even if all parties are writing in Greek, they're not all "Greek" in culture or understanding.  It was a lingua franca, like English is today, and while forms of English around the world are recognizable as English, we admit that something said in "Indian English" would have a different meaning when understood in "American English"...so I don't think the language thing is so easy to dismiss just because much, if not all, writing was done in Greek.  Also, while it is useful to use the primary sources to reconstruct the original dispute, it was clearly more than a literary disagreement.  I don't think it's a hyper-ecumenical cop-out to consider the original context of the dispute, with the interaction of factors like differences in cultures, politics, biases (not just a modern phenomenon!) and human sinfulness.  Our distance from the original situation, while presenting us with certain handicaps we need to "correct for", also allows us to look at it with an amount of dispassion that just could not apply back then.  That doesn't make us "better" or "worse" than our forefathers, it just puts us in a place to see with a fresh set of eyes, if we want to.         
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,647


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #41 on: May 24, 2013, 12:01:12 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.

You wouldn't get flamed if you really believed there were significant differences between EO and OO that can't be overlooked, and if you could express something of those opinions with something approximating the use of reason.  You might be disagreed with, but not flamed.  When you, HOWEVER, assign "4+ cool points" to a Church you claim a theological disagreement with because of some Afro-Caribbean fantasies you dreamed up in a pot-induced haze, I'd say it's time you lay off the "bom-bom-biggy" and keep quiet lest people see your ignorance.     
POM Nominee! Grin
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco Outside of San Francisco
Posts: 1,637


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #42 on: May 24, 2013, 12:23:36 PM »

Anything short of a total conversion to Orthodoxy should be rejected in my opinion.

What about the OO?

As flamed as I am going to get for this, I would say the same. Contrary to the false hopes that this board has, there are some significant differences between the EO and OO that can't be overlooked--as Orthonorm stated. HOWEVER, I will give the OO 4+ cool points because their Priests have cool Bob Marley dreadlocks and know how to grow some good bom-bom-biggy.

You wouldn't get flamed if you really believed there were significant differences between EO and OO that can't be overlooked, and if you could express something of those opinions with something approximating the use of reason.  You might be disagreed with, but not flamed.  When you, HOWEVER, assign "4+ cool points" to a Church you claim a theological disagreement with because of some Afro-Caribbean fantasies you dreamed up in a pot-induced haze, I'd say it's time you lay off the "bom-bom-biggy" and keep quiet lest people see your ignorance.      
Ephrem, meet JamesR.

Quote
POM Nominee!
Seconded.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 12:24:06 PM by Antonis » Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, tattoo it."
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,168



WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2013, 01:12:01 PM »

I don't think it's a matter of us or them being better. It's just what happened. Any dialogue between Orthodoxy and Non-Chalcedoneans has to start with the historical facts: differences were substantial as described by the primary sources. Trying to explain that away with the "Big Misunderstanding Theory" is unscientific and will never lead to a sustainable union.

People say that today we have the same faith. That may well be the case. But it's not the case that we always had. Someone changed along the centuries to correct the faith. I'd say it was the Non-Chalcedoneans. They probably would say it was us. This *new* questioning, though, would be progress towards union because 1) it's based on sound historical methodology; 2) it brings a *new* question and that is progress. I don't know if that's the right question, I don't know how and if it should be answered, but it moves beyond the previous stalemate.


And answering lovesupreme's other question elsewhere on why there's no union, it's easy to know. Nobody is willing to concede to have been wrong. Not apparently wrong, not misunderstood to have been wrong, but wrong wrong, dead wrong, in some serious issues. Infallibility and inerrancy are just relatively modern attempts of blocking even the possibility of that, basically dogmatizing unrepentence. And that because we all preach humility.

when I chose to become Orthodox, it was because I could not see any serious dogmatic or doctrinal deviation from the Apostles like one can see in all the others. Yet, even in Orhodoxy there are problems elsewhere (see canonical problems in the New World and others).

 
That is a limit I personally would not cross. It's bad historical science to give preference to the witness of biased interpreters dettached from from the original facts by centuries instead of primary sources and allowing the directly involved parts to define the original dispute. *That* line of thought sound to me a lot like "we'll do it regardless of facts".

The whole another thing is that we might learn that Tradition can be expressed in various ways or that the Heterodox doesn't necessarily believe what we have assumed them to believe.

Hi Fabio,

I think you have a point re: our "biased" interpretations today detached by centuries from a particular situation, primary sources, original parties, etc.  There's an "ignorance" in the air these days that takes a lot of things and just assumes we know better than our forbears did, and I think that's dangerous, especially if it leads to "we'll do it regardless of facts".  But I also think it's dangerous to just maintain the status quo with the blind faith that "they knew what they were doing", presuming that later generations are always and everywhere "worse" than those that came before.  

Since the EO/OO split was brought up in this thread, I'll use that as an example.  We could simply maintain the current state of affairs and trust that our fathers knew what they were doing and let it be.  But to maintain this, I think both EO and OO have to ignore some "inconvenient truths".  So I think it's useful to dialogue and try to get to the bottom of things, and I don't think it always and everywhere leads to syncretism.  By all means, let whatever documentary evidence is out there help us define the original dispute, as you say.  But I don't think it's all a bunch of false assumptions to point to lingustic differences: even if all parties are writing in Greek, they're not all "Greek" in culture or understanding.  It was a lingua franca, like English is today, and while forms of English around the world are recognizable as English, we admit that something said in "Indian English" would have a different meaning when understood in "American English"...so I don't think the language thing is so easy to dismiss just because much, if not all, writing was done in Greek.  Also, while it is useful to use the primary sources to reconstruct the original dispute, it was clearly more than a literary disagreement.  I don't think it's a hyper-ecumenical cop-out to consider the original context of the dispute, with the interaction of factors like differences in cultures, politics, biases (not just a modern phenomenon!) and human sinfulness.  Our distance from the original situation, while presenting us with certain handicaps we need to "correct for", also allows us to look at it with an amount of dispassion that just could not apply back then.  That doesn't make us "better" or "worse" than our forefathers, it just puts us in a place to see with a fresh set of eyes, if we want to.          
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 01:26:33 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,145



« Reply #44 on: June 05, 2013, 04:13:09 PM »

An advocate for some form of union of Christian ecclesial communities into one Church, specially if this advocate sees the efforts towards this as a priority of Christian life. What this advocate means by "union" is what the answer to my question seeks to further clarify.

What do you mean by "Ecumenist"?

Hi. Sorry I'm coming in late.

I'm okay with your definition of "ecumenism", but I would like to point out that for many, the big question isn't so much "What?" but "Who?"

I'm reminded of what William J. Tighe once asked in an interview "To put it bluntly, why the Nordic Catholic Church? Why not Rome? Why not Orthodoxy?" (In a subsequent question he asked about Old Catholicism.) That's in regard to a group of several Lutheran parishes that decided to form the Nordic Catholic Church in communion with the PNCC.

- Out on a Limb in Norway
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.168 seconds with 71 queries.