OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 12:29:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Can a Lay Person Censure a Bishop for Participation in Ecumenism?  (Read 2475 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,183


that is not the teaching of...


« on: April 15, 2006, 07:52:20 PM »

Continuing from this thread...

PeterTheAleut

So, using your definition (which I think is great, btw), do you think that any Orthodox bishop has gone into heresy? For example, has any Orthodox bishop stated that "all Christian religions are equally salvific," or that "all Christians regardless of confession are all members of the same Church"? I have seen others make the argument that some have, but what do you think? And what is more problematic, when did this or that bishop go off track? And, if you believe that some have gone astray, have you talked to your bishop about your concern? Smiley


daher

Quote
Im using the criterion of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Canons of the Only True Church.

Well, you see the problem with that is that you aren't the one who gets to apply the canons, bishops are Wink Layman do not decide when canons will be applied strictly or less strictly (ie. economically), but bishops do. Thus, a bishop could disregard all of the canons you listed, and you as a lay person could not condemn him for that. You could of course talk to your bishop about your concerns, but you do not have the authority to actually do or say anything in public about it. As a matter of fact, some Churches have canons which punish people for publically making accusations instead of submitting them for usage in an ecclesiastical court... if you really are concerned with following the canons, you might want to ask your bishop about this! All of this is not to say that bishops can do whatever they want--but if they are to be disciplined for unjustly transgressing the canons or tradition, it is for a synod of bishops to reprimand (or take other actions against) them. That is part of the same tradition that the canons are a part of. So, please don't disregard the part of tradition that you don't like (doing things in an orderly, patient manner, and going through the proper channels), and just rant about the part of tradition you do want enforced.

Now, according to the 15th canon of the 1st-2nd Council, lay people can indeed seperate from their bishop if they consider him to be in heresy:

Quote
“For those who separate from communion with their president because of some heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers, when, that is, he preaches heresy to the whole people, and teaches it openly in the church, if such wall themselves off from communion with the above-mentioned bishop before conciliar examination not only are not subject to the penalty laid down by the canons, but are also worthy of the honour befitting the Orthodox. For they have condemned, not bishops, but false-bishops and false-teachers, and they have no sundered the unity of the Church by a schism, but have endeavoured to protect the Church from schisms and divisions.”

...However, this seperation is not an explicit condemnation in itself, but is merely something that is done while people wait for "conciliar examination" to confirm the error of the bishop and the validity of seperation from him. In other words, even the proof text often cited by traditionalists for breaking away or walling off says that this is only something that is done until a Council can vindicate their position. It is important to remember the context of this canon, however, for it is a unique in that the other canons from this Council all point in the opposite direction: firming up the power and authority of the bishop.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 08:11:01 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2006, 08:02:49 PM »

I would have to agree with Asteriktos here: as an individual layman, one can separate themselves from their bishop, but no individual period can depose/censure/etc. a bishop.  Now, if the whole of the polity is complaining, then you get situations like what happened in Jerusalem with Ireneos.  But the only groups that can censure/depose/defrock a bishop are: his synod, the synod of his patriarchate, an Ecumenical Synod.  Notice I didn't even list individual bishops, for in Orthodox belief individual bishops can't even depose/defrock other bishops.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2006, 01:53:49 AM »

Continuing from this thread...

PeterTheAleut

So, using your definition (which I think is great, btw), do you think that any Orthodox bishop has gone into heresy? For example, has any Orthodox bishop stated that "all Christian religions are equally salvific," or that "all Christians regardless of confession are all members of the same Church"? I have seen others make the argument that some have, but what do you think? And what is more problematic, when did this or that bishop go off track? And, if you believe that some have gone astray, have you talked to your bishop about your concern? Smiley


Asteriktos,

Thank you for your thoughtful inquiry.

No, I'm not personally aware that any Orthodox bishop has made any public statements that match the definition of ecumenist heresy that I have provided.  I am somewhat familiar--I wouldn't consider myself a quotable scholar on this, though--with some of the statements of Ecumenical Patriarchs that the more ardent anti-ecumenists deem to be heretics.  I can see how these statements could ruffle the feathers of the anti-ecumenists, but I don't see the EPs going so far as to embrace Catholics as fellow members of the same Church.  To my knowledge, even His All-Holiness, the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagorus(sic?), continued to speak of differences in dogma as a continued impediment to sacramental reunion between Catholics and the Orthodox, even while he made attempts to break down the walls dividing the two sides.  Some of the public statements of recent EPs do concern me as professing ecumenist teachings to which I cannot subscribe, but I don't see these teachings as so severe that I would actually say the EP has fallen into heresy.  (To no small degree, I think a lot of today's anti-ecumenist fervor is really frought with serious overreactions to EP statements.)

Quote
And, if you believe that some have gone astray, have you talked to your bishop about your concern? Smiley

If I felt that some bishops had gone astray, I would probably talk first to my priest to receive his guidance on how I should address this issue.  I believe very strongly in going through the proper ecclesiastical channels to address my personal concerns with Church authorities--I guess this is something that I had ingrained into me during my service in the U.S. Marine Corps.  I learned an extremely valuable lesson about this once when I got in some very hot water with my priest for chastising him in a private email.  Embarrassed

I also try not to get involved in higher church politics unless I sense that my very salvation is at stake.  I would much rather focus on what I can do in my own sphere of life to repent of my own sins.  For the most part, I just don't see what good I can do for my own repentance to meddle in the affairs of my hierarchs--I can definitely see how such meddling could be a great evil for me, though, with my tendency to judge situations too quickly with too little information.  If I felt that my own bishop had fallen into heresy, I would follow the path I explained in my previous paragraph and express my concerns first to my priest.

I hope this helps you understand me and my positions better.  Again, thanks for asking.

- Peter
Logged
daher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 42

Orthodoxy or Death!


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2006, 12:43:56 PM »

Sorry asteriskos, i dont speak with agnostics.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2006, 01:43:52 PM »

Sorry asteriskos, i dont speak with agnostics.

Wow - duh, you've just broken your own rule, now haven't you?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
daher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 42

Orthodoxy or Death!


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2006, 01:48:41 PM »

Wow - duh, you've just broken your own rule, now haven't you?

Another new calendarist  Huh I only advice him, i dont wanna see this guy wasting his time.  Grin

I will not respond orthodox questions formulated by one agnostic, son of the darkness.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2006, 01:53:09 PM »

son of darkness, eh?  quite interesting.

how about sentiments more in line with the spirit of Holy Week.

Quote from: The Bible!
The Reading is from Matthew 26:1-20; John 13:3-17; Matthew 26:21-39; Luke 22:43-44; Matthew 26:40-75; 27:1-2

At that time, Jesus said to His disciples: "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of man will be delivered up to be crucified." Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult among the people." Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head, as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For this ointment might have been sold for a large sum, and given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her." Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him. Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?" He said, "Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, `The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.'" And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover.

When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, "Lord, do you wash my feet?" Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand." Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" Jesus said to him, "He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you." For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, "You are not all clean." When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." And they were very sorrowful, and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me. The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born." Judas, who betrayed him, said, "Is it I, Master?" He said to him, "You have said so." Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee." Peter declared to him, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away." Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples. Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, "Sit here, while I go yonder and pray." And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."

An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
daher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 42

Orthodoxy or Death!


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2006, 02:01:02 PM »

son of darkness, eh?  quite interesting.

how about sentiments more in line with the spirit of Holy Week.


If he call himself of agnostic, i dont see any problem in call him of son of the darkness. All atheists and agnostics are sons of darkness, on the Holy Week also.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2006, 02:09:01 PM »

If he call himself of agnostic, i dont see any problem in call him of son of the darkness. All atheists and agnostics are sons of darkness, on the Holy Week also.

All this coming from someone who appears to not even be in communion with Constantinople. I have lots of really cool quotes from the fathers saying really mean things about schismatics, but is it really necessary for me to start quoting them right now?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2006, 02:09:23 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
orth_christian2000
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in Canada
Posts: 139


He must increase, I must decrease...


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2006, 02:09:25 PM »

A new calendarist, an agnostic....son of darkness? ÂÂ  Wow, that's truly interesting. ÂÂ And is that an Orthodox phronema, daher, to look on souls in struggle as "sons of darkness", and not as souls in the struggle between good and evil, much like your soul, and mine and everyone else's? ÂÂ  Is that what "Orthodoxy or Death" is? ÂÂ Even the blessed Champion of Orthodoxy, St. Mark of Ephesus (may he intercede to God for us), had dialogue with those who had gone astray. ÂÂ Even St. Basil the Great prayed for the illumination of those in darkness in his holy liturgy. ÂÂ But you, not knowing this man, not seeing his heart, not knowing absolutely anything in regards to his struggle to find God, to seek out His will, to learn of Him....rather than offer an encouraging word, so as to not nurture the demons' attack of despair and disorder, you want to call them a "son of darkness"? ÂÂ  It seems Orthodoxy, without the compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, to be compassionate, is not OrthoPRAXY. ÂÂ Orthodoxy or Death, absolutely. ÂÂ But living Orthodoxy is compassion, and not condemnation, as a "son of darkness". ÂÂ This son of darkness, tomorrow, or the day after that, finds the Light of Christ and surpasses our righteousness. ÂÂ The same Lord that created you, created him, and God is no respector of persons...He loves this person, whom you call "a son of darkness" as He loves you. ÂÂ And, were it not for the grace of God, other, far worse situations would befall us. ÂÂ
Kyrie Eleison.
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner
jlerms
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 826


O sweet Jesus, cleanse my soul.


« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2006, 02:12:58 PM »

Amen and very well put Ortho_Christian2000!!
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,183


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2006, 03:42:18 PM »

daher

Quote
Sorry asteriskos, i dont speak with agnostics.

Fair enough, and --though I am very tempted! Smiley --I won't make any comments that could possibly lure you back into a discussion.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2006, 03:43:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
daher
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 42

Orthodoxy or Death!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2006, 04:27:12 PM »

A new calendarist, an agnostic....son of darkness?  

I call only the agnostics.  Tongue I don't call any new calendarist of son of darkness.


Wow, that's truly interesting.  And is that an Orthodox phronema, daher, to look on souls in struggle as "sons of darkness", and not as souls in the struggle between good and evil, much like your soul, and mine and everyone else's?   Is that what "Orthodoxy or Death" is?  Even the blessed Champion of Orthodoxy, St. Mark of Ephesus (may he intercede to God for us), had dialogue with those who had gone astray.  Even St. Basil the Great prayed for the illumination of those in darkness in his holy liturgy.  But you, not knowing this man, not seeing his heart, not knowing absolutely anything in regards to his struggle to find God, to seek out His will, to learn of Him....rather than offer an encouraging word, so as to not nurture the demons' attack of despair and disorder, you want to call them a "son of darkness"?   It seems Orthodoxy, without the compassion of the Lord Jesus Christ, who taught us to love our enemies, to be compassionate, is not OrthoPRAXY.  Orthodoxy or Death, absolutely.  But living Orthodoxy is compassion, and not condemnation, as a "son of darkness".  This son of darkness, tomorrow, or the day after that, finds the Light of Christ and surpasses our righteousness.  The same Lord that created you, created him, and God is no respector of persons...He loves this person, whom you call "a son of darkness" as He loves you.  And, were it not for the grace of God, other, far worse situations would befall us.  
Kyrie Eleison.

Of what St. Tikhon call the bolsheviks? And of what the russian saints call the sergianists and the atheists?
Give-me a break! We can't call any Christian of son of darkness, but who are a public enimie of God are a son of darkeness and a anti-Christ servant.
Logged
orth_christian2000
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in Canada
Posts: 139


He must increase, I must decrease...


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2006, 05:53:20 PM »

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists.  This man was not denying that God exists, he was merely saying he's not sure.  For someone who is sure, I just feel that you'd do well to speak in a greater compassion.  You may have all the answers that you seek in your life daher, with regards to your faith.  Others do not...try to put yourself in that person's shoes.  Try to think about what kind of pain that must be, what anguish?  You want to add salt to a wound by calling them an anti-christ, or a son of darkness?  Why not a simple prayer?  "You're not sure today, I hope you'll keep looking and find the Truth, because Truth perseveres"?  Do you think statements like yours inspire people to look for the good, or to ascribe to an Orthodoxy that is so merciless and lacking compassion?  This is not a man!  Made in God's image and likeness!  An icon of Christ!  If you were not sure, would you want someone to encourage you, or would you be encouraged by someone saying you're a son of darkness?  Just remember, for all our words, we will give account.  

And for the record, I didn't disagree that those outside Christianity are walking "outside the Light" which is Christ Himself.  I was simply saying, that like St. Basil the Great, like St. Mark of Ephesus, and like so many other compassionate saints of the Church, I would rather pass on two words to ENCOURAGE someone, rather than two words that would give the demons ground to cast that soul into despair.

The least in Christ,
Theodore(Ted)
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2006, 06:01:36 PM »

An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists.  This man was not denying that God exists, he was merely saying he's not sure.  For someone who is sure, I just feel that you'd do well to speak in a greater compassion.

And the Great Irony about this is that from our discussions I belive Asteriktos to be more concerned about what the Church says and less likely to directly challenge the fathers than I, a loyal subject of the Great Church of Christ, am. But I'm sure than an Ecumenist like myself who would support Metropolitan Sergius, believing him to be one of the greatest Hierarchs in the History of the Russian Church and a defender of Christendom and Saviour of the Chrurch, would be no better received in the eyes of daher than an atheist or agnostic...lol.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2006, 06:48:07 PM »

Sorry asteriskos, i dont speak with agnostics.

The current spiritual condition or self-identification is completely irrelevant to his argument.  If you will not address his argument, then you are being just as unreasonable as those Imams who refuse to discuss Islam with "heretics".  
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2006, 03:43:24 AM »

But I'm sure than an Ecumenist like myself who would support Metropolitan Sergius, believing him to be one of the greatest Hierarchs in the History of the Russian Church and a defender of Christendom and Saviour of the Chrurch, would be no better received in the eyes of daher than an atheist or agnostic...lol.

From what I know, I would NOT call Metropolitan Sergius a defender and savior of the Church, for all I can see in his record is how he compromised with the anti-theist, anti-Christian Communist regime.  This from an OCA boy.  Heck, even the pre-OCA Metropolia refused to submit to the dictates of Metropolitan Sergius and his successors demanding loyalty of the Russian churches abroad to the Soviet government, for such loyalty would have been nothing short of treason for the Russian churches in America.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2006, 12:50:14 PM »

From what I know, I would NOT call Metropolitan Sergius a defender and savior of the Church, for all I can see in his record is how he compromised with the anti-theist, anti-Christian Communist regime.

And it was by this compromise that he saved and preserved the Churc in Russia, the fact that the Russian Church today actually has something to rebuild can be contributed to the political maneuverings of Metropolitan Sergius; without someone like him the Church in Russia would have probably been utterly destroyed.

Quote
Heck, even the pre-OCA Metropolia refused to submit to the dictates of Metropolitan Sergius and his successors demanding loyalty of the Russian churches abroad to the Soviet government, for such loyalty would have been nothing short of treason for the Russian churches in America.

The could have taken the course of Action of the Metropolis of Paris and submitted themselves to the Great Church of Christ.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 12:50:30 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2006, 01:28:30 PM »

And it was by this compromise that he saved and preserved the Churc in Russia, the fact that the Russian Church today actually has something to rebuild can be contributed to the political maneuverings of Metropolitan Sergius; without someone like him the Church in Russia would have probably been utterly destroyed.

The could have taken the course of Action of the Metropolis of Paris and submitted themselves to the Great Church of Christ.

Yes, very consistent with your strict identification of the Church with its institutional structures.  It would be you to say that the ecclesiastical institution would have been destroyed if not for the men who saved it.  It would be you to identify the eccelesiastical institution in communion with Constantinople as the Great Church of Christ, just as RCs see the ecclesiastical institution in communion with Rome as the Church.  Where in all of your analyses is there room for the very Mystery of the Church?

You see, any group of people can assemble themselves into the human organization that you call the Church, but this will forever remain a mere human organization governed by the rules of human institutions without the sacred Mystery that transforms the mere human assembly into the Church.  Only Christ's presence in our midst via the Eucharist can transform the mere human ecclesia into the very Church of Christ.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 01:29:15 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2006, 01:49:43 PM »

Yes, very consistent with your strict identification of the Church with its institutional structures.
The Church is an institutional structure. It is a structure instituted by Christ.

It would be you to say that the ecclesiastical institution would have been destroyed if not for the men who saved it.  
Like Christ, the Church is "theanthropic"; a "Divine-Human" institution. If no human wanted to belong to the Church, it would cease to exist on Earth, no matter how much God wants it, since He will not force us against our will. Christ needs human people for the Church to operate, as much as the People need Christ for the Church to operate. The hymns for the feast of St. Mark of Ephesus call him "the Atlas of Orthodoxy" on whose shoulders all of Orthodoxy rested. It is possible that the actions of men can save the Church, and that Christ operates in the world through men.
Saving the Orthodox Church in Russia is hardly a reason to despise Metropolitan Sergius.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2006, 02:51:14 PM »

The Church is an institutional structure. It is a structure instituted by Christ.

However, without the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Church will never be anything more than another human institution.  The Eucharist is the Mystery that gives the Church its life and makes the assembly of humans into the Church.  The Church is also an institution only in that it must adopt human structures in order to manifest the human side of its Divine-human nature to the world.

Quote
Like Christ, the Church is "theanthropic"; a "Divine-Human" institution. If no human wanted to belong to the Church, it would cease to exist on Earth, no matter how much God wants it, since He will not force us against our will. Christ needs human people for the Church to operate, as much as the People need Christ for the Church to operate. The hymns for the feast of St. Mark of Ephesus call him "the Atlas of Orthodoxy" on whose shoulders all of Orthodoxy rested. It is possible that the actions of men can save the Church, and that Christ operates in the world through men.

I recognize the absolute need for the Church to manifest its Mystery through human institutions.  How could it even be a Divine-human organism without the human side working in synergy with God's Divine energies?  The human institutions (e.g., the threefold ministry of bishop/priest/deacon, the Ecumenical Synods, the Scriptures) are necessary also for safeguarding the Sacred Mystery.  What I object to is any identification of the Church with its human institutional nature that shows no dependence on the sacred Mystery of our salvation, which I see in a lot of GiC's posts.  Maybe GiC has a faith based on the Mystery of the Eucharist, but I certainly don't see this in his preaching of Constantinopapalism and identification of Orthodoxy with Byzantine imperialism.

Quote
Saving the Orthodox Church in Russia is hardly a reason to despise Metropolitan Sergius.

Just as I disagree with those who praise President Reagan for bringing about the downfall of Soviet Russia, so do I disagree with those who praise Metropolitan Sergius for saving the Russian Orthodox Church.  Both pov's give too much praise to political maneuvering and not enough emphasis on what God really did through the Orthodox faithful to bring down the Soviet Empire and save the ROC.  If Metr. Sergius really did save the ROC--should I say the ecclesiastical institution of the ROC--he did so while compromising the Russian Orthodox faith to the point that this faith was almost totally destroyed.  Can genuine Orthodox Christians see anything praiseworthy in this?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2006, 03:42:50 PM »

If Metr. Sergius really did save the ROC--should I say the ecclesiastical institution of the ROC--he did so while compromising the Russian Orthodox faith to the point that this faith was almost totally destroyed.  Can genuine Orthodox Christians see anything praiseworthy in this?

Firstly, the Church is not some ethereal, nebulous plasma, it is flesh and blood as well as Spirit. I'm not sure you can make a distinction between the Church and "the ecclesiastical institution of the ROC". "The ecclesiastical institution of the ROC" is the Church in Russia. Period.
Secondly, how exactly did Met. Sergius "compromise the Russian Orthodox Faith"? Did he deny the doctrines of Christ? Did he adopt heresy? What damage did he do to the Faith. One thing I have learned about Russian Orthodoxy is that there are as many varied definitions of what constitutes "Sergianism" as there are schisms in Russian Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 03:46:39 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2006, 04:43:35 PM »

Firstly, the Church is not some ethereal, nebulous plasma, it is flesh and blood as well as Spirit.

Apparently, my responses above have not been very clear, since you don't seem to recognize that I actually agree with you on this point.

Quote
I'm not sure you can make a distinction between the Church and "the ecclesiastical institution of the ROC". "The ecclesiastical institution of the ROC" is the Church in Russia. Period.

Yes, I can make a distinction between the Church and the ecclesiastical institution.  If the human institution of the Church departs from the faith of the Church, then the institution ceases to be the Church--this is in fact what the Roman Catholic church has done to itself.  The institution then becomes nothing more than another organization based on human philosophies.  The converse is also true.  For the Mystery of our salvation to be the Church, the Mystery must manifest itself in a concrete, flesh and blood, institutional form.  There is no purely invisible Church as many Protestants believe.

Quote
Secondly, how exactly did Met. Sergius "compromise the Russian Orthodox Faith"? Did he deny the doctrines of Christ? Did he adopt heresy? What damage did he do to the Faith. One thing I have learned about Russian Orthodoxy is that there are as many varied definitions of what constitutes "Sergianism" as there are schisms in Russian Orthodoxy.

Metropolitan Sergius made allegiance to the atheistic Soviet regime a required element of Russian Orthodoxy, even for those Russian churches located outside of the USSR (i.e., the American Metropolia).

Just so you understand the foundation of my arguments, I don't follow the ROCOR party line that Metr. Sergius actually compromised all of his canonical authority.  He may have compromised the faith to some degree by requiring submission to the Soviet state even from the Russian churches abroad, but he never departed entirely from the Orthodox faith, nor was he ever convicted in an ecumenical church court of actually being a heretic or schismatic.  Some of the dictates of the Metropolitan and his successors the American Metropolia found impossible to follow, but the Metropolia never totally denied the MP's authority as the ROCOR did and continued to recognize the MP as a canonical church authority.  This is the pov that I've chosen to follow.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 05:02:06 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2006, 07:37:36 PM »

If the human institution of the Church departs from the faith of the Church, then the institution ceases to be the Church
Are you saying that the Moscow Patriarchate, (which your own juristiction of the Orthodox Church in America is in full communion with) is not the Church? Is the MP somehow "less" the Church than the OCA?

Metropolitan Sergius made allegiance to the atheistic Soviet regime a required element of Russian Orthodoxy, even for those Russian churches located outside of the USSR (i.e., the American Metropolia).
Technically, the government of Australia is atheist. Should I not be a loyal citizen? St. Paul exhorts the Christians to be loyal to the Pagan state authorities- is St. Paul making allegience to paganism a requirement for Christians? The Church of constantinople is under the control of the Turkish government, and the Jerusalem Patriarchate is under the control of the Jordanian and Israeli governments- are they therefore "compromising the faith" by choosing to adapt in order to continue to exist?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2006, 10:58:56 PM »

Are you saying that the Moscow Patriarchate, (which your own juristiction of the Orthodox Church in America is in full communion with) is not the Church? Is the MP somehow "less" the Church than the OCA?

Are you even reading my posts?  I've never actually accused the Moscow Patriarchate of ever ceasing to be the Church.  In fact, I've explicitly stated the exact opposite, as can be seen in the quote below.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Just so you understand the foundation of my arguments, I don't follow the ROCOR party line that Metr. Sergius actually compromised all of his canonical authority.  He may have compromised the faith to some degree by requiring submission to the Soviet state even from the Russian churches abroad, but he never departed entirely from the Orthodox faith, nor was he ever convicted in an ecumenical church court of actually being a heretic or schismatic.  Some of the dictates of the Metropolitan and his successors the American Metropolia found impossible to follow, but the Metropolia never totally denied the MP's authority as the ROCOR did and continued to recognize the MP as a canonical church authority.  This is the pov that I've chosen to follow.

Quote from: ozgeorge
Technically, the government of Australia is atheist. Should I not be a loyal citizen? St. Paul exhorts the Christians to be loyal to the Pagan state authorities- is St. Paul making allegience to paganism a requirement for Christians? The Church of constantinople is under the control of the Turkish government, and the Jerusalem Patriarchate is under the control of the Jordanian and Israeli governments- are they therefore "compromising the faith" by choosing to adapt in order to continue to exist?

Again, please read my posts more closely.  I don't have much of a problem with the Russian Orthodox Church adapting to life in the U.S.S.R. by demanding that her own communicants inside Russia submit to those Soviet laws that don't conflict with the commandments of Jesus Christ.  My assertion is that the Moscow Patriarchate was way out of line to demand this loyalty to the Soviet regime even from those communicants who were no longer or were never Russian citizens.  What of those Russians who had become nationalized U.S. citizens?  Or what about U.S. citizens of non-Russian ethnicity who embraced the Russian Orthodox faith?  Or cradle Orthodox of non-Russian ethnicity living in the U.S.?  Could the Moscow Patriarchate demand loyalty to the Soviet Union from these communicants under her jurisdiction in the USA?  For any U.S. citizen to swear allegiance to the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War would have been nothing short of treason, yet this is what the MP demanded.  This is the problem I address in my quote below.

Quote from: PeterTheAleut
Metropolitan Sergius made allegiance to the atheistic Soviet regime a required element of Russian Orthodoxy, even for those Russian churches located outside of the USSR (i.e., the American Metropolia).

Of course, I do have to point out one fault in your analogy of the atheistic Australian government.  Has this atheistic Australian government ever launched a campaign to totally exterminate the Church as the Soviet Union did?  When a Patriarch or Metropolitan demands obedience even to government efforts to destroy churches, is he not acting as an enemy of the very Church he swore to protect in his episcopal vows?  I'm not accusing any Moscow Patriarch or Metropolitan of having done this, since I really don't know and would prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt in my ignorance.  All I know is that others HAVE accused the MP of actually cooperating with Soviet efforts to destroy the Church.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 11:15:51 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2006, 05:34:49 AM »

I'm not accusing any Moscow Patriarch or Metropolitan of having done this, since I really don't know and would prefer to extend the benefit of the doubt in my ignorance.
But, Peter, you didn't extend the benefit of the doubt. See below.

All I know is that others HAVE accused the MP of actually cooperating with Soviet efforts to destroy the Church.
And you also accused the MP of the same. What you said was:

From what I know, I would NOT call Metropolitan Sergius a defender and savior of the Church, for all I can see in his record is how he compromised with the anti-theist, anti-Christian Communist regime.  This from an OCA boy.  Heck, even the pre-OCA Metropolia refused to submit to the dictates of Metropolitan Sergius and his successors demanding loyalty of the Russian churches abroad to the Soviet government, for such loyalty would have been nothing short of treason for the Russian churches in America.

The modus operandi chosen by Patriarch Sergius during this difficult time was probably the same one I would have chosen in his position. During the persecution of the Serbs in World War II, the Serbian Bishops urged the Faithful to accept Roman Catholicism rather than be slaughtered, and again, I think I would have done the same in the circumstances. Patriarch Sergius' cooperation with the Soviets meant that at least the Church would be permitted to exist in Russia in some form. Encouraging the martyrdom of every Orthodox Christian Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Monastic and Layman in Russia in "defiance" of the Soviets is hardly preferable if it meant that the whole of Russia would have to be baptised again, and be a Juristiction of The Oecumenical Patriarchate. Can you imagine Russians answering directly to His All Holininess Bartholomew?!!
If we really wish to extend the benefit of the doubt to Patriarch Sergius, let's credit him with enough intelligence to see that the Soviet Government of Russia would only be temporary, and therefore he established temporary measures for the Church to cope with it.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 06:59:02 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,903


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2006, 11:38:14 AM »

But, Peter, you didn't extend the benefit of the doubt.

And you also accused the MP of the same.

Are you going to read my posts thoroughly and in the context I set, or are you going to set the context to meet your own needs and use snippets of my own posts out of context to prooftext me?  Either read my posts thoroughly and try to actually understand what I'm saying before you argue with me, or just stop arguing with me altogether.
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 0.134 seconds with 55 queries.