Author Topic: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)  (Read 1727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gunnarr

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,107
I made this thread in case anyone wanted to debate about the topic, so to try to avoid thread getting locked in christian news

---

Excerpt:

Quote
ROCOR HOLY SYNOD on Pan-Orthodox Council Texts:

NEW YORK: Communication of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the Clerics and Faithful — 13 April 2016.

To the Very Reverend and Reverend Clergy, Venerable Monastics and Pious Faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia:

In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

In light of the welcome publication of the documents to be considered by the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council, scheduled to take place on Crete from 16-27 June 2016, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has undertaken to examine these texts, together with a multitude of other Hierarchs, clergy and laity who are doing the same as preparations for the Council continue, and to communicate with our God-preserved flock and others the manner of suggestions we are proposing, since the documents of the Council are the cause of interest and questioning to very many.

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2016/20160413_ensynodposlaniye.html
---

original thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,68803.new.html#new
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 06:53:15 PM by Gunnarr »
I am a demonic servant! Beware!

Offline Hinterlander

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2016, 10:32:39 AM »
Quote
Though of course all acknowledge the existence in history of groups who seek to follow the Saviour apart from the Orthodox Church, and which may by self-definition refer to themselves as ‘churches’, Orthodox ecclesiology permits of no pluralization of what is, and must always be, One: Christ’s Body itself. In casual usage such terminology (i.e. of ‘other churches’) may at times be employed out of convenience, but it can have no place in a formal document of the Church, which must be scrupulously precise and give clear, unequivocal voice to the traditions we have received from our Fathers, which they received from the Lord.

What label does ROCOR use to describe non-Orthodox Christian groups?  They mention "other churches" as informal.  What is the formal designation they would prefer?  "heterodox Christian groups"?

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,751
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2016, 10:35:55 AM »
Heretics. Unbelievers.


;)
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Hinterlander

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2016, 12:03:18 PM »
Heretics. Unbelievers.


;)

I can understand why they object to "other Christian Churches" but how would they phrase it?

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,751
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2016, 12:22:50 PM »
Heretics. Unbelievers.


;)

I can understand why they object to "other Christian Churches" but how would they phrase it?


in a formal document?


'Those other people'


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Bob2

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 785
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2016, 12:55:56 PM »
Quote
Though of course all acknowledge the existence in history of groups who seek to follow the Saviour apart from the Orthodox Church, and which may by self-definition refer to themselves as ‘churches’, Orthodox ecclesiology permits of no pluralization of what is, and must always be, One: Christ’s Body itself. In casual usage such terminology (i.e. of ‘other churches’) may at times be employed out of convenience, but it can have no place in a formal document of the Church, which must be scrupulously precise and give clear, unequivocal voice to the traditions we have received from our Fathers, which they received from the Lord.

What label does ROCOR use to describe non-Orthodox Christian groups?  They mention "other churches" as informal.  What is the formal designation they would prefer?  "heterodox Christian groups"?

How about simply the bolded above, it takes a few more words, but it is a little more tactful than heretic and avoids implying a false unity.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,877
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2016, 01:35:26 PM »
Quote
false unity

Since the adoption of the new calendar, involvement in the ecumenical movement, etc., concerns about "false union" or "false unity" have been expressed often, even as recently as this week.  How do people with this concern envision a "false union" or "false unity" coming about?  It has not happened so far...or do they think it has?  If it has, what is "false unity"?  What does it look like? 

"False unity" increasingly looks to me like one of several Orthodox bogeymen invoked to preserve a preferred status quo.   
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Regnare

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2016, 11:37:04 PM »
Quote
The heart of the problem lies in the document’s persistent use of the term “human person” where it ought to use “man”, and grounding its humanitarian discussion in elaborations on this phrase.[5] Usage of the term “person” for man emerges within Orthodox discussion in a notable way only from the time of V. Lossky, who himself acknowledged the novelty of his employment of it; and while it has become almost normative in contemporary discussions, the Holy Fathers are consistent in employing the Scriptural and liturgical language of “man”. The term “person” (Rus. лицо, Gr. πρόσωπον)[6] is chiefly used in Orthodox language in reference to the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, in confessing the unique hypostatic being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as the singular hypostatic reality of the One Son in Whom both the divine and human natures co-exist “unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably” (Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). Almost never is the term applied to the human creature (in whom such distinctions do not exist), precisely as a way of noting the absolute distinction between that which is created and that which is Uncreated — for while man is “in the image and likeness of God”, he is in no wise comparable, in his createdness, to Him Who has no beginning.

This clarification, which may at first strike as overly nuanced or even pedantic, is of fundamental importance to Orthodox theology and anthropology, and demonstrates the need for the most exacting attention when considering documents for widespread circulation (even in a case such as this, where the text does not purport to be about Trinitarian doctrine at all, yet inadvertently puts forward doctrinally problematic themes). The rise in misapplication of the term “person” to man over the past 75 years has resulted in numerous perversions of theological language in the realm of doctrinal reflection, one of the most notable of which, the concept that there is a “communion of Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity”, is directly stated in the document (art. 2.i).[7] The precise theological discussions of the fourth and fifth centuries clarified that the Father, Son and Spirit are united in an eternal communion of essence (in the begottenness of the Son, the procession of the Spirit and the monarchia of the Father), but not a communion of Persons. Misapplication of the term “person” to man has led, however, to considerations of the community of the human race being applied to the nature of the Holy Trinity in a manner that contradicts the clear teaching of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. Furthermore, such improper language of Trinity creates new anthropological problems that arise from seeing “the human person” as “a community of persons in the unity of the human race reflecting the life and communion of the Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity” (art. 2.i — one of the most problematic phrases in the document).[8] While it is true that man’s freedom (the subject of Article 2) is a gift arising from his being created “in the image” of God, neither his life in the broad community of the race of men, nor the freedom he exercises within it, are comparable to the freedom of the Divine Persons expressed in their eternal, mutual indwelling.

...What? This is the first time I've ever heard an Orthodox Christian argue that the Trinity isn't a model for human relationship.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust." --Psalm 91: 1-2

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,215
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2016, 12:51:19 AM »
"Heterodox bodies" works. No puns.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2016, 01:05:21 PM »
Quote
false unity

Since the adoption of the new calendar, involvement in the ecumenical movement, etc., concerns about "false union" or "false unity" have been expressed often, even as recently as this week.  How do people with this concern envision a "false union" or "false unity" coming about?  It has not happened so far...or do they think it has?  If it has, what is "false unity"?  What does it look like? 
"False unity" increasingly looks to me like one of several Orthodox bogeymen invoked to preserve a preferred status quo.   

Good point: 'tis is an oxymoron....not much more.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2016, 12:26:26 PM »
Quote
false unity

Since the adoption of the new calendar, involvement in the ecumenical movement, etc., concerns about "false union" or "false unity" have been expressed often, even as recently as this week.  How do people with this concern envision a "false union" or "false unity" coming about?  It has not happened so far...or do they think it has?  If it has, what is "false unity"?  What does it look like? 

"False unity" increasingly looks to me like one of several Orthodox bogeymen invoked to preserve a preferred status quo.   

Fear of upsetting the status quo...

But...it does seem to me that challenging AND upsetting the status quo was part of what Christ confronted in His mission and lifetime and what the early Christians had to courage to do..... 

Offline Bob2

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 785
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: ROCOR response to Pan-Orthodox Council documents (discussion)
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2016, 09:44:50 PM »
Quote
false unity

Since the adoption of the new calendar, involvement in the ecumenical movement, etc., concerns about "false union" or "false unity" have been expressed often, even as recently as this week.  How do people with this concern envision a "false union" or "false unity" coming about?  It has not happened so far...or do they think it has?  If it has, what is "false unity"?  What does it look like

"False unity" increasingly looks to me like one of several Orthodox bogeymen invoked to preserve a preferred status quo.   

What I mean by "false unity" is giving the impression, intentionally or unintentionally, that the differences between the Orthodox church and other "churches," are less numerous and/or less significant than they really are.

I tend to agree that fears about "false unity" can be overblown. However, given that some groups understand us to all be the same, since we all have Jesus, our actions and language can encourage or discourage such notions.

For example, a few years ago I was visiting a home-bound lady who a Roman Catholic, her deacon came to the door to bring her communion, he asked if I was Catholic, and when I said, "No, Orthodox," he that he could still offer me communion, I politely declined.

I think it is good to work together with other "churches," and there is no need to be confrontational, but we shouldn't lose sight of what we understand the Church to be.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 09:53:25 PM by Bob2 »