OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:21:38 PM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What ecumenical movement?  (Read 1289 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,255



« on: October 12, 2013, 04:06:49 PM »

The straw that broke the camels back for me was the Antiochians in the US pulling out of the ecumenical movement and my priest telling me the OCA is barely hanging in there, only staying due to a filibuster at the Synod.
I am not quoting this so everyone can beat up on poor Daedelus, just to follow up on a topic without redirecting another thread, which is apparently now out of vogue.

Anyway.

The question that arises in my mind is what ecumenical movement?

I know on this board we hear grumblings from two or three Old Calendarists who see ecumenism behind every mitre, but the distinct impression I get is that the ecumenical movement as a real, organized, pan-denominational/Church kind of thing with specific aims fell apart years ago. What survives is the domain of 1970s nuns and the mainline puppet processioneers.

Even YIM’s fabled WCC event happened before some of the members here were born.

The younger set’s version of the ecumenical movement mostly seems to be “live and let live, and don’t worry about the meetings or dues.” 

Maybe there's more to it in the North or out West, but from my perspective the ecumenical movement was DOA with the advent of the new millennium.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2013, 04:53:32 PM »

I think the watering down of traditional theology in the mainline Protestant denominations, Anglican-Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Methodist; the addition of vagrant groups into these organizations; and attacks from within Orthodoxy have marginalized ecumenical activities.  I recall representatives of Orthodox Churches participating in meetings were always reported in the Orthodox Church media, but no longer. I can't remember when I last read anything about the National Council of Churches of Christ or the World Council of Churches in our church media.

Interactions and communications between Orthodox Church representatives and the Vatican remain frequently reported, the exchange of fraternal visits on the Patronal Feasts of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, on-going dialogue between the Vatican and the Church of Russia about a Papal visit, and occasional fraternal visits by a head of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches to the Vatican, are about all one can expect to see reported these days.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,219



« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2013, 05:24:18 PM »

Ecumenism is a relativism that comes from the legacy of warring Protestant sectarians.

Since the relativism in Protestantism is 'orthodox' Protestantism, (i.e., all Protestants are Christians even though they believe in different things about Christ) so they assume that it is 'orthodox' for all religions to be relativistic.

You do see a kind of 'Ecumenism' in Islam among Shi'ite sects as well. But this is mainly because Shi'ites are the minority population, so they use Ecumenism to protect their numbers.
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,073



« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2013, 08:03:57 PM »

Coming from a protestant background, there is a rather big emphasis with non-denominational type churches (ala Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, etc) to minimize doctrinal differences and focus on "loving God as a community". Many of the mainline protestant churches have gotten in on this and they will often use each others teaching materials and invite speakers of another denomination to speak at their church. There is a much bigger push by protestants to try to come together, probably because they perceive that they are being assaulted by the forces of "evil" (aka gays, pro-choice, atheists, etc) and need to band together.
Logged

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

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2013, 01:48:14 AM »

orthodox bishops still praying with heretics and schismatics, orthodox chuches still in the World Council of "CHURCHES" the ecumenist movement is still alive and well, although not as much compared to the time of His All Holiness Patriarch Athenegoras (by the way, what is a better title, All Holiness, or Saint? seeing as Saint simply means holy.) where orthodox bishops prayed even in the company of pagans, attending pagan dances and prayers

besides, the whole point of ecumenism is to become ONE. To "re"unite all christians. Even if they have female priests apparently (looking at you anglicans ((why are we still trying with them again?))

Titular Metropolitan Kallistos Ware had a speech about the history of the divide of the catholics and the orthodox church in a catholic cathedral. towards the end, he then talked about ecumenism (in the catholic cathedral). He said, that some are against it. But he was for it. And he said, the reason he is for it (he goes on awhile) basically, that a person once said, that for a PERSON to EXIST, it requires other PEOPLE. And apparently, this weird view made an impression on Metropolitan Ware, since he then says that he believes this is also true for the "Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church". That is, The Orthodox Church NEEDS the Catholics Church in order to exist, and the Catholic Church NEEDS the Orthodox Church in order to exist. The Orthodox Church NEEDS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH in order to be ITSELF! Pretty ecumenist, I would say heretical thought on the Church. then again, what is he supposed to say, he is in a catholic church making a speech in front of catholic bishops.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:07:14 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2013, 01:55:18 AM »

here is the video btw

if you want to skip some nice history of catholic vs orthodox and views on papacy, go to 47 minutes mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp4rdwtxsPQ

no comments or liking aloud, the Church is infallible remember!

I think it is funny. Earlier, he talks about the ecumenical council, that the Orthodox look to a respected saint to confirm their beliefs, speaking in a way that this is very good. Yet here, he is not going to a respected saint, but instead to a protestant philosopher to confirm his beliefs.

not once quoting a saint for his beliefs, but only a scottish philosopher and "a great orthodox ecumenist". (Uh oh, Metropolitan Kallistos better take that back, doesnt he know the EP considers ecumenism to be wrong now!?)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:11:43 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2013, 02:51:09 AM »

since he then says that he believes this is also true for the "Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church". That is, The Orthodox Church NEEDS the Catholics Church in order to exist, and the Catholic Church NEEDS the Orthodox Church in order to exist. The Orthodox Church NEEDS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH in order to be ITSELF! Pretty ecumenist, I would say heretical thought on the Church. then again, what is he supposed to say, he is in a catholic church making a speech in front of catholic bishops.



Not ecumenist much since it assumes there will not be a reconcillation.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,423


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2013, 12:17:22 PM »

I think the watering down of traditional theology in the mainline Protestant denominations, Anglican-Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, United Methodist; the addition of vagrant groups into these organizations; and attacks from within Orthodoxy have marginalized ecumenical activities.  I recall representatives of Orthodox Churches participating in meetings were always reported in the Orthodox Church media, but no longer. I can't remember when I last read anything about the National Council of Churches of Christ or the World Council of Churches in our church media.

Interactions and communications between Orthodox Church representatives and the Vatican remain frequently reported, the exchange of fraternal visits on the Patronal Feasts of the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, on-going dialogue between the Vatican and the Church of Russia about a Papal visit, and occasional fraternal visits by a head of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches to the Vatican, are about all one can expect to see reported these days.

And they talk and exchange fraternal embraces which is better than throwing rocks at each other. Some rather small real progress to better understanding each other has occurred these past fifty years, but nothing to water down the steadfastness of the Orthodox position on the institution of the papacy and its aggrandizement over the centuries which remains the big issue.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,753



« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2013, 06:03:58 AM »

since he then says that he believes this is also true for the "Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church". That is, The Orthodox Church NEEDS the Catholics Church in order to exist, and the Catholic Church NEEDS the Orthodox Church in order to exist. The Orthodox Church NEEDS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH in order to be ITSELF! Pretty ecumenist, I would say heretical thought on the Church. then again, what is he supposed to say, he is in a catholic church making a speech in front of catholic bishops.



Not ecumenist much since it assumes there will not be a reconcillation.

No, it is ecumenist since it assumes that catholics and orthodox must be together in order to exist. The point is they must be together in order to exist, the point is not that they no longer exist if they are together
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2013, 06:19:59 AM »

The straw that broke the camels back for me was the Antiochians in the US pulling out of the ecumenical movement and my priest telling me the OCA is barely hanging in there, only staying due to a filibuster at the Synod.
I am not quoting this so everyone can beat up on poor Daedelus, just to follow up on a topic without redirecting another thread, which is apparently now out of vogue.

Anyway.

The question that arises in my mind is what ecumenical movement?

I know on this board we hear grumblings from two or three Old Calendarists who see ecumenism behind every mitre, but the distinct impression I get is that the ecumenical movement as a real, organized, pan-denominational/Church kind of thing with specific aims fell apart years ago. What survives is the domain of 1970s nuns and the mainline puppet processioneers.

Even YIM’s fabled WCC event happened before some of the members here were born.

The younger set’s version of the ecumenical movement mostly seems to be “live and let live, and don’t worry about the meetings or dues.” 

Maybe there's more to it in the North or out West, but from my perspective the ecumenical movement was DOA with the advent of the new millennium.

Sorry, in Greece alone protests against so-called ecumenism is not simply the province of Old Calendarists. Our spiritual forbears were not difficult characters who liked to throw rocks at each other but had a healthy reaction to heresy, rather like a body with a strong immune system.

The ecumenical movement may have gone quiet but it isn't dead. And Catholic incorporates a question of quality not quantity.
Logged
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2013, 11:06:36 AM »

I am completely against the lifting of the anathema of 1054.  I mean, the roman catholic church has not changed their very important differences between us -papal infallibility, immaculate conception, original sin, created Grace, filioque, gregorian calendar and the change of the Paschalion (which councils accursed whomever would change them), "vicar of Christ" and its inherent meaning- since then, so why lift the anathema? -why is a sole Patriarch or one particular Patriarchate taking such action?  Aren't we a conciliar Church?

I am completely fine and in agreement with having cordial and open dialogue with the heterodox and even other religions like islam and judaism.  The problem is joining them in prayer and in "ecumenical liturgies" like in the activities of the WWC: something that was accursed and specifically condemned in previous councils and became Canons of The Church.

Aside from this, other tragic outcomes of the ecumenical movement have been the accepting of heretical baptisms, saying that we're all "co-inheritors of the promises of Christ" (yes, it was said by the Oecumenical Patriarchate!).  In other words, seeing "the true expression of what The Church is could only be found in the syncretism and combination of ALL Christian bodies, including our Church."  Thus,  accepting ALL christian confessions as part of "The Church"! This obviously, eliminates our Church from calling herself "The True and Original Church", "The Body of Christ", "The people of God", "The New redeemed Israel", etc.  We can forget about the Hymns of Sunday of Orthodoxy, especially: "This is the faith of the apostles! This is the faith of the fathers! This is the Orthodox faith! This faith has established the universe!"  I've seen things like joint-roman catholic and orthodox funeral services!!  I've seen our Bishops and Presbyters in activities where there was australian aboriginal rituals and dances performed in the stage of the convocation of the WWC.  Native American dancers, banging drums and saying encantations with Orthodox clergy present -what is this??!!

What would Saint Photios The Great say about this?
What would Saint Gregory Palamas say about this?
What would Saint Mark of Ephesos say about this?

If Old Calendarists have walled themselves off from such innovations it is to protect their Orthodox Faith.  They have done this as an act of conscience!! If anything, we should be trying a re-approach the Old Calendarists instead of trying to find "commonality" with protestants and roman catholics -this would only be an act of logic but most importantly, true Orthodox intention.  We should be more concerned  to return to how our Church was -in its fullness prior to 1924. 

If there has been a "rupture" in the Church, it has been caused by the ecumenical movement.

ST.JUSTIN OF CELIJE himself called it: "the panheresy of ecumenism."  Other saints and very noted Theologians of the Church have spoken against it.  Father Georges Florovsky pulled himself out of the movement when he saw that things were going out of control and has written that without unity of Faith -not political unity, nor sentimental unity-  we cannot become one Church,  but of course, that would mean that the rest of the Christian world would convert to/become Orthodox(y) (this would be TRUE Ecumenism!).   Patriarch Diodoros I of Jerusalem has shown very open support for the Holy Synod of Resistance Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece.  By the way, many of our Orthodox Church bookstores and catalogues, like Light & Life publishing carry literature produced by them as well.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 11:22:16 AM by Nektarios_In_E.S. » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2013, 11:17:00 AM »

I am completely against the lifting of the anathema of 1054.  I mean, the roman catholic church has not changed their very important differences between us -papal infallibility, immaculate conception, original sin, created Grace, filioque, gregorian calendar and the change of the Paschalion (which councils accursed whomever would change them), "vicar of Christ" and its inherent meaning- since then so why lift them? -why is a sole Patriarch or one particular Patriarchate taking such action?  Aren't we a conciliar Church?

I am completely fine and in agreement with having cordial and open dialogue with the heterodox and even other religions like islam and judaism.  The problem is joining them in prayer and in "ecumenical liturgies" like in the activities of the WWC: something that was accursed and specifically condemned in previous councils and became Canons of The Church.

Aside from this, other tragic outcomes of the ecumenical movement have been the accepting of heretical baptisms, saying that we're all "co-inheritors of the promises of Christ" (yes, it was said by the Oecumenical Patriarchate!).  Accepting all christian confessions as part of the "The Church"!  I've seen things like joint-roman catholic and orthodox funeral services!!  I've seen our Bishops and Presbyters in activities where there was australian aboriginal rituals and dances performed in the stage of the convocation of the WWC.  Native American dancers, banging drums and saying encantations with Orthodox clergy present -what is this??!!

What would Saint Photios The Great say about this?
What would Saint Gregory Palamas say about this?
What would Saint Mark of Ephesos say about this?

If Old Calendarists have walled themselves off from such innovations it is to protect their Orthodox Faith.  It has been an act of conscience!! If anything, we should be trying a re-approach the Old Calendarists instead of trying to find "commonality" with protestants and roman catholics -this would only be an act of logic but most importantly, true Orthodox intention.  We should be more concerned  to return to how our Church was -in its fullness prior to 1924. 

If there has been a "rupture" in the Church, it has been caused by the ecumenical movement.

ST.JUSTIN OF CELIJE himself called it: "the panheresy of ecumenism."  Other saints and very noted Theologians of the Church have spoken against it.  Father Georges Florovsky pulled himself out of the movement when he saw that things were going out of control and has written that without unity of Faith -not political, nor sentimental unity- can we become one Church,  but of course, that would mean that the rest of the Christian world would convert to/become Orthodox(y) (this would be TRUE Ecumenism!).   Patriarch Diodoros I of Jerusalem has shown very open support for the Holy Synod of Resistance Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece.  By the way, many of our Orthodox Church bookstores and catalogues, like Light & Life publishing carry literature produced by them as well.

Sorry, didn't mean to pull down the whole quote......

Another who has written against the erroneous concept of a shared Baptism is the erudite priest of the Church of Greece, Father George Metallinos.

Ecumenism has moved on and become endemic, joined by syncretism (think here of the RC monk Thomas Merton), and now Inter-Faith - Assisi and Kazakhstan gatherings. Yes, the formal movement is quieter but it's fruits are everywhere including in our Orthodox seminaries.
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,255



« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2013, 12:53:25 PM »

I am completely against the lifting of the anathema of 1054.  I mean, the roman catholic church has not changed their very important differences between us -papal infallibility, immaculate conception, original sin, created Grace, filioque, gregorian calendar and the change of the Paschalion (which councils accursed whomever would change them), "vicar of Christ" and its inherent meaning- since then, so why lift the anathema? -why is a sole Patriarch or one particular Patriarchate taking such action?  Aren't we a conciliar Church?

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,406



« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2013, 12:59:57 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.
Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2013, 01:07:36 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.
Logged
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2013, 01:33:22 PM »

Quote
Another who has written against the erroneous concept of a shared Baptism is the erudite priest of the Church of Greece, Father George Metallinos.

Yes, that is a very good point.  I've read a few of his essays and do agree.

Further, other prominent Orthodox figures against ecumenism:

The great Iconographer, writer, educator and art-museum curator, Photios Kontoglou.

The noted author, lecturer, founder of the Institute of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies and Schemamonk, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos

Blessed Archimandrite Philotheos Zervakos

Quote
Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

Great point.  The reason(s) for the anathema(s) are not "just" regarding a decision    of a "jurisdiction" but are clear evidence that both churches are essentially different and that these differences have very important points -points not to be taken lightly- with many theological and dogmatic implications.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,406



« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2013, 01:37:14 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

Then the other Churches can keep their continuance of the anathemas.

Also, I hear it regularly repeated so it may just be a trope, but did it really take centuries for Antioch to really embrace the anathemas against Rome? I can understand not embracing it for a couple centuries at least since they Byzantinized by the end of the 12th century, but this oft-heard idea holds that Antioch didn't really assert an opinion against Rome until sometime in the 15-17th centuries. Anyone know if it's true?
Logged
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,255



« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2013, 01:43:34 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

Then the other Churches can keep their continuance of the anathemas.
Did they ever adopt them? Or simply nod in agreement (perhaps centuries after the fact)?
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2013, 01:43:51 PM »

There had not been any anathemas against Rome to begin with.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,255



« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2013, 02:00:20 PM »

There had not been any anathemas against Rome to begin with.
Sorry, this is my understanding as well.

In this case, I  have somewhat sloppily used "anathema" and "excommunication" interchangeably.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,406



« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2013, 02:20:27 PM »

There had not been any anathemas against Rome to begin with.
Sorry, this is my understanding as well.

In this case, I  have somewhat sloppily used "anathema" and "excommunication" interchangeably.

Yeah, I've been sloppy in being specific as well.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2013, 05:13:10 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

The Patriarch of Constantinople convened Their Beatitudes, the remaining Heads of the Ancient Patriarchates, who pronounced "Anathema" upon the Church of Rome.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2013, 05:15:32 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

The Patriarch of Constantinople convened Their Beatitudes, the remaining Heads of the Ancient Patriarchates, who pronounced "Anathema" upon the Church of Rome.

When?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2013, 05:22:04 PM »

Not long after the "Anathema" from the Church of Rome; it was a reciprocal action.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2013, 05:28:09 PM »

Not long after the "Anathema" from the Church of Rome; it was a reciprocal action.

When, who, what?

The only one anathema I know is by Patriarch Michael against Roman legates in Constantinople.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,239


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2013, 05:29:57 PM »

What has Russia to do with Constantinople's anathemas?

By that I mean the anathemas were issued by Constantinople, they can be lifted by Constantinople. I didn't realize a local church had to get conciliar approval to lift the excommunication of a handful of people who had been dead for a millennium.

This is a good point. IMO, it shows that many Orthodox, unconsciously or otherwise, are treating Constantinople analogously to Rome for Catholics.

Not at all, the anathemas have had the support for centuries of Orthodox Church as a whole, not just this or that local church. The issues went beyond simply Rome on the one hand and Constantinople upon the other.

The Patriarch of Constantinople convened Their Beatitudes, the remaining Heads of the Ancient Patriarchates, who pronounced "Anathema" upon the Church of Rome.

When?

Never.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2013, 05:34:38 PM »

Not long after the "Anathema" from the Church of Rome; it was a reciprocal action.

When, who, what?

The only one anathema I know is by Patriarch Michael against Roman legates in Constantinople.

You may be right. The Wikipedia article seems to support your position.  I thought I read in Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church" that Patriarch Michael convened the Patriarchs of the Ancient Patriarchates who in turn issued an Anathema, but I don't have time right now to look for that book.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2013, 05:53:20 PM »

I'll back off on my comments in Reply Nos. 21 and 23, for now.  I skimmed "The Orthodox Church," and cannot find what I asserted in Reply No. 21.  I will do some research at a later time.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,198



« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2013, 09:05:36 PM »

Try www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1568/
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2014, 03:49:07 PM »

I am completely against the lifting of the anathema of 1054.  I mean, the roman catholic church has not changed their very important differences between us -papal infallibility, immaculate conception, original sin, created Grace, filioque, gregorian calendar and the change of the Paschalion (which councils accursed whomever would change them), "vicar of Christ" and its inherent meaning- since then, so why lift the anathema? -why is a sole Patriarch or one particular Patriarchate taking such action?  Aren't we a conciliar Church?

I am completely fine and in agreement with having cordial and open dialogue with the heterodox and even other religions like islam and judaism.  The problem is joining them in prayer and in "ecumenical liturgies" like in the activities of the WWC: something that was accursed and specifically condemned in previous councils and became Canons of The Church.

Aside from this, other tragic outcomes of the ecumenical movement have been the accepting of heretical baptisms, saying that we're all "co-inheritors of the promises of Christ" (yes, it was said by the Oecumenical Patriarchate!).  In other words, seeing "the true expression of what The Church is could only be found in the syncretism and combination of ALL Christian bodies, including our Church."  Thus,  accepting ALL christian confessions as part of "The Church"! This obviously, eliminates our Church from calling herself "The True and Original Church", "The Body of Christ", "The people of God", "The New redeemed Israel", etc.  We can forget about the Hymns of Sunday of Orthodoxy, especially: "This is the faith of the apostles! This is the faith of the fathers! This is the Orthodox faith! This faith has established the universe!"  I've seen things like joint-roman catholic and orthodox funeral services!!  I've seen our Bishops and Presbyters in activities where there was australian aboriginal rituals and dances performed in the stage of the convocation of the WWC.  Native American dancers, banging drums and saying encantations with Orthodox clergy present -what is this??!!

What would Saint Photios The Great say about this?
What would Saint Gregory Palamas say about this?
What would Saint Mark of Ephesos say about this?

If Old Calendarists have walled themselves off from such innovations it is to protect their Orthodox Faith.  They have done this as an act of conscience!! If anything, we should be trying a re-approach the Old Calendarists instead of trying to find "commonality" with protestants and roman catholics -this would only be an act of logic but most importantly, true Orthodox intention.  We should be more concerned  to return to how our Church was -in its fullness prior to 1924. 

If there has been a "rupture" in the Church, it has been caused by the ecumenical movement.

ST.JUSTIN OF CELIJE himself called it: "the panheresy of ecumenism."  Other saints and very noted Theologians of the Church have spoken against it.  Father Georges Florovsky pulled himself out of the movement when he saw that things were going out of control and has written that without unity of Faith -not political unity, nor sentimental unity-  we cannot become one Church,  but of course, that would mean that the rest of the Christian world would convert to/become Orthodox(y) (this would be TRUE Ecumenism!).   Patriarch Diodoros I of Jerusalem has shown very open support for the Holy Synod of Resistance Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece.  By the way, many of our Orthodox Church bookstores and catalogues, like Light & Life publishing carry literature produced by them as well.

The Ecumenial Movement from an Orthodox point of view is simply discussions with non-Orthodox. Orthodox ecumenism is based on certain presuppositions. The first is the Toronto Statement made in 1950 that membership in an ecumenical organization or dialogue with another group that calls itself Christian is not to be taken as recognition by the Eastern Orthodox Church that the others are "Church" in the fullest sense of what it means to be "Church. Another principle is that the Church is not divided, but is found in it fullness in the Eastern Orthodox Church which is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Branch Theory of the Church. Another is that union between Eastern Orthodoxy can only take place on the basis of acceptance of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils as preserved without corruption by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox also reject the Protestant practice of Intercommunion. According to Eastern Orthodoxy there is only Communion based on full and complete doctrinal agreement on the basis of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church as preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Finally, years ago the Eastern Orthodox ceased participating in so called ecumenical worship at the meetings of the World Council of Churches. Thus, the claims of groups like the Synod in Resistance about the true nature of Orthodox Ecumenism are false. They mistakenly attribute to Eastern Orthodox Protestant attitudes towards ecumenism.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,053



« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2014, 07:28:53 PM »

It's so beneficial to the forum, Fr. John, to have your informed, rational input in these debates with paranoid fanatics.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Yurysprudentsiya
Section Moderator
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 1,776


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2014, 07:57:00 PM »

It's so beneficial to the forum, Fr. John, to have your informed, rational input in these debates with paranoid fanatics.

+1.  I find myself looking forward to Fr. Johns posts on any topic as I know that I will learn something valuable. there. 
Logged
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 300



« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2014, 09:47:16 PM »

The Ecumenial Movement from an Orthodox point of view is simply discussions with non-Orthodox. Orthodox ecumenism is based on certain presuppositions. The first is the Toronto Statement made in 1950 that membership in an ecumenical organization or dialogue with another group that calls itself Christian is not to be taken as recognition by the Eastern Orthodox Church that the others are "Church" in the fullest sense of what it means to be "Church. Another principle is that the Church is not divided, but is found in it fullness in the Eastern Orthodox Church which is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Branch Theory of the Church. Another is that union between Eastern Orthodoxy can only take place on the basis of acceptance of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils as preserved without corruption by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox also reject the Protestant practice of Intercommunion. According to Eastern Orthodoxy there is only Communion based on full and complete doctrinal agreement on the basis of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church as preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Finally, years ago the Eastern Orthodox ceased participating in so called ecumenical worship at the meetings of the World Council of Churches. Thus, the claims of groups like the Synod in Resistance about the true nature of Orthodox Ecumenism are false. They mistakenly attribute to Eastern Orthodox Protestant attitudes towards ecumenism.

Fr. John W. Morris

I'm very glad to hear this, Father, but there is this one part of the Toronto Statement which seems to contradict the rest, and I'm wondering how the Orthodox Church understands it:
Quote
3. The member churches recognize that the membership of the Church of Christ is more inclusive than the membership of their own church body. They seek, therefore, to enter into living contact with those outside their own ranks who confess the Lordship of Christ.

All the Christian churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no complete identity between the membership of the Church Universal and the membership of their own church. They recognize that there are church members "extra muros", that these belong "aliquo modo" to the Church, or even that there is an "ecclesia extra ecclesiam". This recognition finds expression in the fact that with very few exceptions the Christian churches accept the baptism administered by other churches as valid.

But the question arises what consequences are to be drawn from this teaching. Most often in church history the churches have only drawn the negative consequence that they should have no dealings with those outside their membership. The underlying assumption of the ecumenical movement is that each church has a positive task to fulfill in this realm. That task is to seek fellowship with all those who, while not members of the same visible body, belong together as members of the mystical body. And the ecumenical movement is the place where this search and discovery take place.
Logged

"I give praise to your holy Nature, Lord, for you have made my nature a sanctuary for your hiddenness and a tabernacle for your holy mysteries, a place where you can dwell, and a holy temple for your Divinity." --Venerable St. Isaac of Nineveh
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2014, 10:40:15 PM »

The Ecumenial Movement from an Orthodox point of view is simply discussions with non-Orthodox. Orthodox ecumenism is based on certain presuppositions. The first is the Toronto Statement made in 1950 that membership in an ecumenical organization or dialogue with another group that calls itself Christian is not to be taken as recognition by the Eastern Orthodox Church that the others are "Church" in the fullest sense of what it means to be "Church. Another principle is that the Church is not divided, but is found in it fullness in the Eastern Orthodox Church which is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Branch Theory of the Church. Another is that union between Eastern Orthodoxy can only take place on the basis of acceptance of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils as preserved without corruption by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodox also reject the Protestant practice of Intercommunion. According to Eastern Orthodoxy there is only Communion based on full and complete doctrinal agreement on the basis of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church as preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Finally, years ago the Eastern Orthodox ceased participating in so called ecumenical worship at the meetings of the World Council of Churches. Thus, the claims of groups like the Synod in Resistance about the true nature of Orthodox Ecumenism are false. They mistakenly attribute to Eastern Orthodox Protestant attitudes towards ecumenism.

Fr. John W. Morris

I'm very glad to hear this, Father, but there is this one part of the Toronto Statement which seems to contradict the rest, and I'm wondering how the Orthodox Church understands it:
Quote
3. The member churches recognize that the membership of the Church of Christ is more inclusive than the membership of their own church body. They seek, therefore, to enter into living contact with those outside their own ranks who confess the Lordship of Christ.

All the Christian churches, including the Church of Rome, hold that there is no complete identity between the membership of the Church Universal and the membership of their own church. They recognize that there are church members "extra muros", that these belong "aliquo modo" to the Church, or even that there is an "ecclesia extra ecclesiam". This recognition finds expression in the fact that with very few exceptions the Christian churches accept the baptism administered by other churches as valid.

But the question arises what consequences are to be drawn from this teaching. Most often in church history the churches have only drawn the negative consequence that they should have no dealings with those outside their membership. The underlying assumption of the ecumenical movement is that each church has a positive task to fulfill in this realm. That task is to seek fellowship with all those who, while not members of the same visible body, belong together as members of the mystical body. And the ecumenical movement is the place where this search and discovery take place.
The Toronto Document also contained the following statements.
Membership in the World Council of Churches does not imply that a church treats its own conception of the Church as merely relative.
Membership in the World Council does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity.
The member churches of the World Council consider the relationship of other churches to the Holy Catholic Church which the Creeds profess as a subject for mutual consideration. Nevertheless, membership does not imply that each church must regard the other member churches as churches in the true and full sense of the word.

Orthodox have emphasized the above paragraph as an essential expression of its view towards participation in ecumenical organizations.
The section that you have quoted is not necessarily unacceptable to Eastern Orthodox. The great 19th century Russian theologian Alexi Khomiakov wrote essentially the same thing. He reasoned that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that only those within the Church can be saved, that since the Orthodox Church also teaches that non-Orthodox can be saved, those outside the visible Orthodox Church are members of the Orthodox Church in a way that is known only to God.
I also strongly suggest that you read the documents that have been presented by Orthodox representatives at the WCC and other ecumenical meetings, and put your quote in the context of what the Orthodox have told the non-Orthodox. You can find them at the end of the Ecumenical Guidelines published by SCOBA in 1973 which can be downloaded at http://www.scoba.us/assets/files/guide_for_orthodox.pdf
It is always best to read the actual record of Orthodox ecumenism as contained in official documents and statements given by actual Orthodox representatives at ecumenical meetings, instead of something posted on the internet or spread by non-canonical groups about Orthodox ecumenism. For example, HOCNA published a book, I believe that it is titled something like The Struggle Against Ecumenism This document claims several times that Metropolitan Philip, of blessed memory, allows his clergy to give Communion to Roman Catholics. I know for a fact that is not true. I have heard him tell his clergy many times that we must not give the Eucharist to non-Orthodox. I know for a fact that His Eminence was not a supporter of Ecumenism. I represented him at several ecumenical meetings and know that I was instructed not to compromise any aspect of the Orthodox Faith. Last summer when I had a short conversation with him about ecumenism, he referred to the ecumenical movement as "garbage." Once years ago, one of the anti-Ecumenical groups reported that Bishop Antoun participated in an Ecumenical Communion service at a meeting of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, Canada. The problem was that I saw him that particular Sunday at the Archdiocesan Convention in Toronto. Do not believe all the claims of the self-proclaimed protectors of Orthodoxy against the "heresy" of ecumenism. Read and study the official documents and reports on Orthodox ecumenical activity for yourself.
I know what I am writing about. I have represented the Orthodox Church at ecumenical meetings and know what actually happens. Believe me, we did no mince any words telling the Lutherans where we disagreed with them. The Lutherans finally suspended the dialogue because they were wasting their time trying to persuade us to make compromises with them.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 10:47:41 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.152 seconds with 60 queries.