OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 02:00:54 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  
Poll
Question: Should The Orthodox Church Attempt to "Re-missionize" the Churches in Schism?
Yes - 0 (0%)
No - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 0

Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Missionary Zeal of the Orthodox Church  (Read 185 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« on: February 03, 2014, 01:30:01 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 01:30:50 PM by orthoreader » Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?
Logged

orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2014, 02:02:32 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

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

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2014, 02:10:11 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2014, 02:10:59 PM »

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

hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2014, 02:11:31 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy
Logged

orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2014, 02:22:45 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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

Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,354


« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2014, 02:32:42 PM »

I am not sure if missionarizing is the right approach. When dealing with separation it is appropriate to approach things in the spirit of love and reconciliation. I believe these are hard and sensitive matters that deserve all of our attention, but we cannot expect true results over night.
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2014, 02:35:28 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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



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

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

It's a mess.  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 02:36:02 PM by Yurysprudentsiya » Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2014, 02:38:54 PM »

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

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

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

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

orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2014, 02:40:14 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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



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

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

It's a mess.  

Then my question is: If a nation feels oppressed by another nation, which also represents the territory of the Mother Church does that church then have the "right/" is it justified/does the Church utilize economea etc to self-declare autocephaly?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2014, 02:43:37 PM »

I am not sure if missionarizing is the right approach. When dealing with separation it is appropriate to approach things in the spirit of love and reconciliation. I believe these are hard and sensitive matters that deserve all of our attention, but we cannot expect true results over night.

No, and I would be suspicious if two groups that had a bitter dispute all of a sudden said, "We're good now!  Everything's A-ok!"
Logged

Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2014, 02:49:10 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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



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

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

It's a mess.  

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

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

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

I'm not sure that we have answers for this. 
Logged
orthoreader
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Los Angeles and the West
Posts: 331



« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2014, 02:53:12 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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



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

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

It's a mess.  

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,277


« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2014, 03:03:22 PM »

I have been interested in this topic for some time. I think more often than not we fall to name calling finger and pointing instead of figuring out a way to bring the out-of-communion Churches back into Communion. If you ask me, some of the efforts have been good, some have been pretty bad. Yet, a good deal will call both 'missionary.'  

Examples?

So what do you think?

I was typing. Cheesy

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

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

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



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

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

It's a mess.  

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe not outright oppression.  But the autocephalous of the 19th century were motivated by a recognition that the peoples were getting out from under the Ottoman yoke and the Patriarchate of Constantinople which symbolized an imperial past from which they were turning away.  I think this parallels the situation in Ukraine. 
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 0.091 seconds with 44 queries.