Author Topic: For Ecumenists  (Read 3719 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2013, 07:14:41 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?   ???

It has been my experience that we, most of us, are too quick to decide how a word should be used. That's seems to be part of human nature.

(I'm reminded of something a protestant friend of mine observed to me many years ago: that a lot of Catholics will correct someone who calls them "Christian". )

For the case in point, I can't see any reason why calling the Orthodox Church one of the "ecclesial communities" should imply that it isn't the one true church.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,311
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2013, 11:11:28 PM »
"Visions of a United Church" is the topic at next week's Orientale Lumen Conference in Washinton. http://olconference.com/OL_FutCon_OL_XVII.html

This theme is based on the 2010 paper on the subject produced by the North American EO RCC Theological Dialouge.  http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Among the Orthodox presenters will be OCA Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), Holy Cross Dean, Father Thomas FitzGerald and Protopresbyter James Dutko of ACROD. The Jesuit Greek Catholic scholar, Archimandrite Robert Taft will also present.

AFR will offer podcasts of the sessions.Check their website for times.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2013, 11:21:24 PM by podkarpatska »

Offline KostaC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • Chicago River Dyeing, March 15th, 20
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2013, 01:26:22 AM »
"Visions of a United Church" is the topic at next week's Orientale Lumen Conference in Washinton. http://olconference.com/OL_FutCon_OL_XVII.html

This theme is based on the 2010 paper on the subject produced by the North American EO RCC Theological Dialouge.  http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Among the Orthodox presenters will be OCA Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), Holy Cross Dean, Father Thomas FitzGerald and Protopresbyter James Dutko of ACROD. The Jesuit Greek Catholic scholar, Archimandrite Robert Taft will also present.

AFR will offer podcasts of the sessions.Check their website for times.

Why is all this happening when I've left D.C. for the summer? I personally think that his Beatitude is the man, and I was lucky enough to witness his enthronement and eat lunch with him on Easter.


As for what I personally would reject, I would probably join the Oriental Orthodox Church if say something like the Council of Florence happened again, which it most likely never will. And if the Oriental Churches joined with us in some sort of strange union that uses selfish reasoning, then God help us.
«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."

Offline Gunnarr

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,932
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2013, 04:07:26 AM »
"Visions of a United Church" is the topic at next week's Orientale Lumen Conference in Washinton. http://olconference.com/OL_FutCon_OL_XVII.html

This theme is based on the 2010 paper on the subject produced by the North American EO RCC Theological Dialouge.  http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Among the Orthodox presenters will be OCA Metropolitan Tikhon (Mollard), Holy Cross Dean, Father Thomas FitzGerald and Protopresbyter James Dutko of ACROD. The Jesuit Greek Catholic scholar, Archimandrite Robert Taft will also present.

AFR will offer podcasts of the sessions.Check their website for times.

agh!!!

What is AFR!!!

NEVERMIND

Ancient Faith Radio! :P

butr I read this:

"ut will NOT include the Q&A sessions or panel discussions among the speakers."

awwwww but that is the exciting part...
« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 04:34:03 AM by Gunnarr »
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,961
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2013, 01:07:16 PM »
As for what I personally would reject, I would probably join the Oriental Orthodox Church if say something like the Council of Florence happened again, which it most likely never will. And if the Oriental Churches joined with us in some sort of strange union that uses selfish reasoning, then God help us.

What on earth does this mean?
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline KostaC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • Chicago River Dyeing, March 15th, 20
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2013, 02:04:08 PM »
What on earth does this mean?

Gospodi pomiłuj, that was poorly written!

Sorry, what I meant to say was...

I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome. While this is never going to happen ever, if it did. I'd ask to be received into the Oriental Orthodox Church, where I think I'd be happy. However, if the Oriental Orthodox Church did likewise in this hypothetical union and completely gave into Papal claims, them I wouldn't know where I'd turn.
«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,322
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2013, 02:17:39 PM »
. While this is never going to happen ever, if it did. I'd ask to be received into the Oriental Orthodox Church, where I think I'd be happy.

That's curious.
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,961
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2013, 08:39:10 PM »
I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome. While this is never going to happen ever, if it did. I'd ask to be received into the Oriental Orthodox Church, where I think I'd be happy. However, if the Oriental Orthodox Church did likewise in this hypothetical union and completely gave into Papal claims, them I wouldn't know where I'd turn.

We've been rejecting Papal claims since 451, I think we'll be OK.  :P
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2013, 08:53:05 PM »
I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome.

To me, Florence Part II is just what we need ... or rather, Florence Part III, if you count Florence as Florence Part II and Lyons II as Florence Part I. :)

Granted, if you know in advance what Florence Part III will be like ("... where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome") then I can understand your desire to reject it in advance.  8)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline KostaC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 233
  • Chicago River Dyeing, March 15th, 20
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2013, 09:09:57 PM »
I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome.

To me, Florence Part II is just what we need ... or rather, Florence Part III, if you count Florence as Florence Part II and Lyons II as Florence Part I. :)

Granted, if you know in advance what Florence Part III will be like ("... where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome") then I can understand your desire to reject it in advance.  8)

What would you say that the Council of Florence was about, then, if not a humiliated Emperor coercing his Empire's bishops into signing a decree that may or may not have guaranteed Papal aid against the Ottoman Empire?
«Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε λοιπὸν διὰ τὴν αὔριον, διὀτι ἡ αὐριανὴ ἡμέρα θὰ φροντίσῃ διὰ τὰ δικά της πράγματα. Φθάνει ἡ στεναχώρια τῆς ἡμέρας». Κατά Ματθαίον 6:34

"Bendito seja o que vem em nome do Senhor, o Senhor é Deus e se manifestou a nós."

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2013, 09:14:47 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?

While I trust the words of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail...

I would reject any union that declares our accepted councils to not be Orthodox, denies the sainthood of our saints, requires us to accept councils in which we did not take part in or accept as being universally binding, requires universal submission to a single bishop having ordinary jurisdictional authority over every local diocese, acknowledges any single bishop to be unable to make a mistake when speaking/writing in an official capacity by virtue of his office, and the adoption of a form of  the creed that has been historically rejected by us.

I think that just about covers all the non-Protestant traditions. As far as Protestants, they would have to accept our councils (all and whole), accept all of our teachings, adopt the sacraments as we believe them to be, adopt (if they don't already have one) a calendar including all the major feasts, a lectionary, and liturgical worship to include a divine liturgy and hours of prayer. This would probably be easier for some groups like Anglicans and Lutherans than for more non-liturgical groups like Pentecostals.

Just some thoughts.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2013, 10:08:27 PM »
I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome.

To me, Florence Part II is just what we need ... or rather, Florence Part III, if you count Florence as Florence Part II and Lyons II as Florence Part I. :)

Granted, if you know in advance what Florence Part III will be like ("... where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome") then I can understand your desire to reject it in advance.  8)

What would you say that the Council of Florence was about, then, if not a humiliated Emperor coercing his Empire's bishops into signing a decree that may or may not have guaranteed Papal aid against the Ottoman Empire?

Well, I wasn't going to get that much into the nitty-gritty. The big difference between Lyons II and Florence was the finality of Florence. The conversation at Lyons II went a bit sour, but at least it was able to resume less than 200 years later. But after Florence it was more like That's it, end of discussion.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #57 on: June 14, 2013, 06:43:40 AM »
I think that just about covers all the non-Protestant traditions. As far as Protestants, they would have to accept our councils (all and whole),
...

Like Chalcedon?
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,322
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #58 on: June 14, 2013, 06:48:29 AM »
I would personally reject some sort of Council of Florence: Part II where the Eastern Orthodox Church completely gave into Papal claims because it needed something from Rome. While this is never going to happen ever, if it did. I'd ask to be received into the Oriental Orthodox Church, where I think I'd be happy. However, if the Oriental Orthodox Church did likewise in this hypothetical union and completely gave into Papal claims, them I wouldn't know where I'd turn.

We've been rejecting Papal claims since 451, I think we'll be OK.  :P

You accepted them before 451?  :o
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,961
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #59 on: June 14, 2013, 10:53:55 AM »
You accepted them before 451?  :o

You're not serious, right?
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,322
  • We must go back!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #60 on: June 14, 2013, 11:11:51 AM »
You accepted them before 451? 

You're not serious, right?

No, I am not. I thought it curious that you said that the Syriacs didn't accept the papal claims since 451.
"Par ma foi! Il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien."
-Molière, The Middle-Class Gentleman.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #61 on: June 14, 2013, 11:15:11 AM »
Actually he said "We've been rejecting Papal claims since 451."
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Deep Roots

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #62 on: June 14, 2013, 12:09:47 PM »
I think I'd be cool with just a handshake.
Peace.

Offline William

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,354
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #63 on: June 14, 2013, 01:11:54 PM »
You accepted them before 451? 

You're not serious, right?

No, I am not. I thought it curious that you said that the Syriacs didn't accept the papal claims since 451.

He might be using the line that Pope St. Leo was a papal supremacist. IDK.
Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,268
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #64 on: June 14, 2013, 01:33:55 PM »
I think I'd be cool with just a handshake.

Okay, as long as it's a secret handshake that only we know.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Deep Roots

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #65 on: June 14, 2013, 01:59:30 PM »
I think I'd be cool with just a handshake.

Okay, as long as it's a secret handshake that only we know.
naturally.  maybe after our handshake, the East and the West can be reunited secretly.

Peace.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • The Fourteenth Apostle and Judge of the Interwebs
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,961
  • "In those days I will pour out my Spirit..."
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #66 on: June 14, 2013, 02:01:35 PM »
He might be using the line that Pope St. Leo was a papal supremacist. IDK.

More or less, yes, I had Pope Leo I in mind when I joked about rejecting papal claims.
"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet.  He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants.  But he really isn't around anymore.


Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #67 on: June 14, 2013, 08:07:06 PM »
I think that just about covers all the non-Protestant traditions. As far as Protestants, they would have to accept our councils (all and whole),
...
Like Chalcedon?

Yes, I would expect Protestants to accept Chalcedon as a whole, even though I would expect most Protestants to not have any issues with the decrees of that particular council, unless I'm, overlooking something. The decree defending Mary's role as Theotokos was given earlier, the decree defending her ever-virginity was given later, and I would expect the seventh to the most problematic out of all of them.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline TheTrisagion

  • The cat is back and its better than ever!
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,668
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #68 on: June 14, 2013, 08:25:53 PM »
There are as many varieties of Protestants as there are of favors of ice cream, probably more.

The Protestants I grew up with disagreed with most of counsels and certainly did not find any of them to be binding.  I don't think they had a strongly enough developed Christology to know if they believed in Chalcedon or not.

They were vehemently opposed to calling Mary the "Mother of God" and were fiercely iconoclastic.

I didn't know until I encountered Orthodoxy that I was a follower of the arch-heretic Nestorius.  eek!  :o
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 08:27:11 PM by TheTrisagion »
Will we all have to prove our Orthodoxy by adopting St Nicholas avatars now?

Offline Melodist

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,523
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #69 on: June 14, 2013, 08:55:30 PM »
The Protestants I grew up with disagreed with most of counsels and certainly did not find any of them to be binding.

Most Protestants agree with the majority of what was proclaimed in at least the first five councils, most Protestants that reject councils in general reject the authority or necessity of a council regardless of and sometimes not knowing what it proclaims. For example, a good Baptist will reject the very concept of a council while defending the Trinity, the divinity and personhood of all three Persons, and that Christ was truly human, even if they reject the expressions of these beliefs.
And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God

Offline Nephi

  • Monster Tamer
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,762
Re: For Ecumenists
« Reply #70 on: June 14, 2013, 09:24:43 PM »
The Reformed I've spoken with tend to accept the first four councils, and tentative at best towards later ones with outright rejection of the seventh.

It seems that the Reformed I've been into contact with (with their views on the real presence, etc.) lean towards a Nestorian-esque Christology. Interestingly they tend to make no reference to Chalcedon, or any council for that matter. It seems their acceptance of the first four councils is more lipservice when it comes to their actual theological formulations resting on more recent authorities, IME.