Orthodoxy and ecumenism: the witness of truth

[Mina Monir]

I think in the modern developments , we need to ask our selves as orthodox... where is our orthodoxy in the map of christianity ?

today , there is a great ecumenical movement melts the ice mountain between christians ... but another important question , is it true that we can unite with non-orthodox again?
Catholic church follows the culture of containment ... and they still put the dogma of papacy as the condition ... not unity , but containment. on the other hand , splittings and splittings destroy the protestant side , even the Anglican episcopal communion is going to be divided because of discussing the doctrine of women and homosexuals ordination.

but between Oriental and Eastern orthodox... every thing is going to be one ... this is the truth. I think the Orthodox (I wont say oriental and eastern) side is strong, but as God's wish, we should preach and make the others taste the sweetness of grace . is it possible in such conditions and circumstances?

I hope this thread would be interesting , in the field of the most important christian issue ... ecumenism.

I will put the official agreements between churches as I could , and I hope we could exchange experiences for the sake of the word of life... word of god.

I'll begin by the official Agreement between Oriental and Orthodox famillies which finished every thing against unity. and letters between patriarches , and the official christological agreement between alexandria and rome. then I'll take one by one the relationship with non-orthodox churches. I hope all be one.

In Christ ,
Mina

[Edward Henderson]

I would kindly disagree with the idea that ecumenism is the "most important Christian issue." Secondly, to ask "is it true that we can unite with non-Orthodox again." Dialogue is, in itself, not bad and perhaps necessary. Secondly, cooperation with other Churches or even faiths in humanitarian or social causes also is not bad.

Ecumenism, as it manifested itself in the 20th century, has not brought about consensus in faith and moral values, rather it feeds the creed of relativism and syncretism.

To ask if the Orthodox can reunite with the non-Orthodox again, implies that Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy were once united. I admit that the Oriental Orthodox are very close to the Eastern Orthodox but they still refuse to accept other Ecumenical Synods. If the schism was the result of a misunderstanding and the Oriental Orthodox share our faith, then there should be no difficulty in rectifying the situation. We could point to linguistic misunderstandings but in this day, with mass communication as it is, one cannot play that card anymore. Thus, our separation is over dogmatic differences and cannot be truly resolved until one side admits they are wrong and the other in right. The same goes for the Latins and the Protestants.

What more, ecumenism has not only failed in its goal to bring those who confess Christ as God closer together, it has confused and divided the Orthodox believers.

Orthodox Christians do not have to worry about where they are on the map of Christianity, because Orthodox Christianity is the treasure map that leads to a greater unity and that is union with God. No other Church can match that.

Edward

[Mina Monir]

dear edward ,
u said &#34;Thus, our separation is over dogmatic differences and cannot be truly resolved until one side admits they are wrong and the other in right.&#34; would you please tell in a deeper view where is the problem? secondly , your idea about that someone must say i&#39;m wrong is totally wrong. Orthodox famillies share the same faith , but political issue played its role over chalcedon and we can talk about that in detail , if some one is wrong , this one is the byzantine which is till this moment has theologians describe us as monophysites! ecumenism must have a bright view, forgetting the unreasonable anathemas. and beginning a new relationship of mutual reunderstanding and this is what happening. about the OO churches that it condemns the other synods after Ephisus431 , excuse me , please read the official agreement before saying that. the agreement stated that : &#34;. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, <u>the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, <font color="ff0000">while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.</font></u>

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreements in this regard.

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis of our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consulted on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.&#34;
}<font color="000000"> U also mentioned : &#34;ecumenism has not only failed in its goal to bring those who confess Christ as God closer together, it has confused and divided the Orthodox believers.&#34;
Ecumenism is the new movement of reunity , not division and Schism. and it managed to achieve great results . by ecumenical dialogue the orthodox famillies considered each family is orthodox as the last point in the agreement. consequently, Ecumenism managed to put me and you in a better position. someone would say : why do we do such that dialogue since there are official organisations and theologians of the famillies are taking this job? I think we should practise the official agreements between ordinary people i.e. me and you , for our agreements to fruit. the way you talk about that Orthodox christianity is the treasure map and it should not worry about christian map , kindly, I disagree with you. why did saint mark the apostle -for example - worry about egyptians and preached between them if he was christian and this was enough for him? it is the preaching. we have a duty to spread orthodoxy , because The christ came for every one , not only for greeks , egyptians and russians who are the biggest orthodox sees as I think. He came for every one and our duty to spread his word through a very high and diplomatic level i.e. ecumenism. but exchanging accusations will not reach anything and will deep the wound of the christ.
if you have any corrections for my thoughts I will be delighted to know it anf thanks in advance. and pleeeeeease read the agreements and comment one it if you want.
Your brother in One Christ,
Mina</font>

[Edward Henderson]

Dear Mina
I never suggested that Orthodoxy was only for Greeks and Russians. I am a convert with Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Scandinavian origins. I certainly respect the Coptic Christians for their piety and struggles, but I cannot say that they are fully Orthodox. I admit that we are close and dialogue between our churches is not a bad thing. However, if the Oriental Orthodox claim to accept the teachings of Ecumenical Synods, then why do they persist in not accepting the Synods themselves.
An example of this can be seen at the Orthodox-Monophysite consultations, held in Geneva, Switzerland, on August 16-21, 1970, and in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia, on January 22-23, 1971.
&#34;Prof. Karmiris wants that a new formula should be developed; but let us be quite clear that that should not be an attempt to get the non-Chalcedonians to accept Chalcedon.&#34; &#40;Bishop Theophiles of South India&#41;
&#34;Within the last five years a bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was suspended from his bishopric because something he wrote lent itself to be interpreted as an acceptance of Chalcedon.&#34; &#40;Rev. Joseph, South India, p, 29&#41;

&#34;Here I have the feeling that one side &#40;i.e. the Eastern Orthodox&#41; is assuming that they have a monopoly of the truth and think the other side should admit error.&#34; &#40;Abba Degou, Ethiopia, p. 29&#41;

&#34;Our fathers found Nestorianism in the horos &#40;i.e. doctrinal definition&#41; of Chalcedon. We cannot accept any expression that lends itself to be interpreted as a duality in the person of Jesus Christ...Even if we accept the teaching of Chalcedon we are not obliged to accept Chalcedon.&#34; &#40;Bishop Gregories &#40;Copt&#41;, p. 30&#41;

&#34;We have always held that Chalcedon was not ecumenical. By all means, you continue to believe in Chalcedon; but do not expect us to accept Chalcedon.&#34; &#40;Mariam of Ethiopia, p. 30&#41;

&#34;Let us be quite clear; Chalcedon is not acceptable to us.&#34; &#40;Bishop Zakka, Syrian Monophysite, pp. 30-31&#41;

&#34;There should be no misunderstanding of the position of the non-Chalcedonian Churches; there will be no formal acceptance of Chalcedon.&#34; &#40;Fr. Verghese, South India, p. 31&#41;

We also find rejection of the 6th Ecumenical Synod. &#34;If acceptance of the Sixth Council thus means our agreeing to condemn Dioscorus and Severus, who are true teachers of the Authentic Tradition, then we must choose the two fathers mentioned in preference to the Sixth Council, which appears to us badly muddled, not to say in grievous error&#34;...The argument in the horos of the Sixth Council is basically unacceptable for us...acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon...This council explicitly and unjustifiedly condemns our fathers Dioscorus and Severus, and calls the former &#39;hated of God&#39; and the doctrine of the latter &#39;mad and wicked&#39;...We are unable to accept the dithelite formula attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis...We regard Leo &#40;of Rome&#41; as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis... If the restoration of communion between our two families of Churches were to be dependent on our acceptance of the four councils now rejected by the non-Chalcedonian family, then we have little reason at present to hope that this condition can be fulfilled.&#34; &#40;Fr. Paul Verghese, Syrian Orthodox Church of India&#41;

I would highly recommend you read this article, http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

I also recommend this article of Father John Romanides, http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_g od_the_log.htm

Thus, I cannot be accused of supporting &#34;Byzantine&#34; Orthodoxy for ethnic reasons. The fullness of truth and life in Christ lies solely in the Eastern &#40;not Oriental&#41; Orthodox Church. We would rejoice to see the Oriental Orthodox Churches enter into full union with us, but this cannot be done until there is full unity of faith, which would entail fully accepting the Canons and anathemas of the Synod of Chalcedon and the subsequent Ecumenical Synods &#40;I cannot just say 7, because I agree with Father John Romanides view that there were 9&#41;. So, Mina, I do wish to reject you and the fact of your Egyptian ethnicity is not a problem or even an issue here. This issue here is not about Greek vs. Egyptian, but Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy, Truth vs Heresy. I had to accept that the beliefs of my parents and ancestors was flawed since the 11th century. I love my heritage but God and Truth must be above anything else. So, I wish to embrace you as my brother in Christ Mina. You are created in the image and likeness of God and by God&#39;s grace are called to a life of full communion with Him. Thus, the doors of the Orthodox Church are not closed to you wait to receive you into the Church. That goes for all who are not members of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, Christ&#39;s Body, waits to receive into Her midst.

Edward

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear friends,

There was a time at the beginning of the 20th century when two families used to meet and talk about the “future” of their children, a young boy and a young girl, and when they came to a mutual agreement they would engage them in a relation, which in time would become a lifetime relation: a marriage.

Now, as I understand things, ecumenism is a form of matchmaking.

For some, all that is needed is consensus, for others all that is needed is for the other party to accept certain terms. At the same time the “bride” and the “bridegroom” are not alive entities but isolated argumentative objects that would get to know its other only under the frame of the specific agreement.

Allow me to present a personal experience. I have been in Roman Catholic Church services in France and I have felt the Spirit of God blowing in the hearts of the praying Catholic brothers and sisters. I believe that the same thing is true for the Coptic Church. It is a not for humans to define, the burning from love, relation with God.

Having said that, I also believe that the Vatican Church, as well as the Coptic Church, became isolated from the roots of the Church &#40;the Papal church by choice and the Coptic Church by external forces&#41;. What is needed it to drive them back to the roots is the experience of the isolated lamb in the desert. And the good shepherd should take them on his shoulders and bring them in the house of joy. This road has nothing to do with the ecumenical matchmaking.

There was a time, when the Greek Church also had broken away from the roots of the Church and wondered for decades in the desert, like the lost lamb. Neither the theological discussions, nor the human effort, nor the good will, nor the self esteem, nor tradition, nor modernism had shown the road back. It was the realization of the “isolation”, the realization that we stand alone out from the live relation with God, but with a burning love in our hearts, that brought the Greek Church – around 1970/1975 - to the humble path that drives to the roots.

Ecumenism is like matchmaking. Instead of seeking the genuine relation that would make us relatives, we construct an agreed marriage from a superficial relation, in our effort to strive against isolation and loneliness. We may use terms like “family”, “reunification”, “cooperation” and “communion” but nevertheless matchmaking is based on bringing together two strangers.

May God bless us, all.

&#40;Message edited by lpap on 10 September, 2005&#41;

[Mina Monir]

dear edward. thanks for your kind message , but again you wrote &#34; the doors of the Orthodox Church are not closed to you wait to receive you into the Church. That goes for all who are not members of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, Christ&#39;s Body, waits to receive into Her midst.
&#34; really I hope you read my last message and especially the underlined quotes which says I&#39;m orthodox like you. and I didn&#39;t cut the apostolic succession as in the 9th point. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASE READ AND COMMENT IF YOU SEE IT IS NOT RIGHT.
and again, the famous question : mention the differences between us please.

[Mina Monir]

Dear Mathew,

1)I apologize if I pushed the discussion towards a personal ternd , but I don't mean that ...never. besides, my talking is about what leandros said (Matchmaking through ecumenism.) so, using Monophysite word to describe or attack a church is not acceptable as you know we believe in the same christology but we stress on cyrillian terminology.

2) I didn't mean to push the discussion towards christology, I wanted to discuss the concept of Ecumenical dialogues and ecumenism. and I tried to pass over the OO EO relationship by putting the final agreement which confesses that both famillies are orthodox. then , I talk about the dialogue with non-Orthodox churches , and share in showing the results and agreement , because it is the will of our lord is to be one , and to push the non-orthodox to taste how god's grace is sweet. if it is not suitable to discuss this point , it is ok. if we can discuss it in another branch else (i mean not in the branch of "Depth : texts and sources") it is ok too.

in Christ,
Mina

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

I have a simple puzzle to be solved by Mina Monir, an honest challenge.

The coptic Trisagion is :

Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy Immortal,Who was born of the Virgin, have mercy upon us. Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us. Holy God, Holy Almighty , Holy Immortal,Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, have mercy upon us

The Orthodox Trisagion is:

Holy God, holy Strong, holy Immortal, have mercy on us

You can see in this &#34;article&#34; (http://www.anastasis.org.uk/THE%20TRISAGION02.pdf) that the Holy Trisagion of the Orthodox Church is understood as being addressed to Trinity, while the Holy Trisagion of the Coptic Church is understood as being addressed to Christ, therefore the Copts annexed the phrases : &#34;Who was born of the Virgin&#34; - &#34;Who was crucified for us&#34; - &#34;Who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven&#34;, because these phrases are valid only for Christ.

Do you think that these additions are without theological substance ? Let me say that these additions are due to &#34;miaphysis&#34; doctrine of the coptic Church which has such implications in worship.

Would you stop saying these additions and adopt the original Trisagion Humn without them, after the alleged union?

Is this an issue of ecumenical union?

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Let me also attach the article that I mention in my previous post No 256 for your convenience.

[Mina Monir]

well , i think it is an amateur challenge... not puzzle. but it's ok, let me ask you a very simple question ... what does the word houmosion theologically mean? secondly , could you find the contradiction between Miaphysitism and your previous trisagion quote? because you are now clashing with St.Cyril terminology. honestly, I will read the pdf file more than once , and in that time give me an answer -if it is possible- for the previous questions.

in christ,
Mina

[Mina Monir]

By the way , another smaller question , is the virgin is the mother of god?

besides , you give me a difference in liturgical quote to refer to a difference in theology... very nice, would you please tell me DIRECTLY what is that difference?


Do you think that these additions are without theological substance ? Let me say that these additions are due to "miaphysis" doctrine of the coptic Church which has such implications in worship.

ok, would you explain to me why your church uses the miaphysis terminology ? (revise the official agreement , point 7 ), and again , would you DIRECTLY tell me the difference in faith?

after you give me the difference, would you please tell me if that contradicts the official agreements? (revise point 9 and comment if u can) ...at the end : i wont accept any explains out of my question , I'm an electronics engineer and my language is 0 or 1 ... 0 volt or 1 volt. boolean algebra solves every thing. letters you type here are collected by zeros and ones ... so, without so much talking and poetries... answer my previous question. thnx in advance and please don't take it personally.

at last: if you would like to talk in christology , let's move to the "Chalcedon and non-chalcedon " thread and continue ... maybe I would find a difference in faith and drop the agreements in the trash and not trust in your clergy. here I wanted to talk how we could unite with the non-orthodox and open an area with the other ... who does not have an apostolic faith. how could we preach between the heathens... but I know now why roman catholic church and roman orthodox are in a greaaaat problem in europe with protestant... a church condemns a church because it prays in turkish...how it could understand the concept of preaching...(excuse me, I did not see that champion and brave heart when the muslims made constantinople istanbul...excommunicate them, they are in arabic 'kafara'!!...2000 years of continious persecution and copts still copts and the arabs here are from other nationalities )

I hope you could have more patience and tolerance.remember my question please and tell me the answers.

in christ
Mina

[Mina Monir]

&#43; I hope that there is more than a hymn divides us

[Mina Monir]

dear leandros , I read the text u sent and thanks for your efforts. in fact , I laughed when i read it... it does not imply to any heresey , what is the problem here?

it is simple... what do u think if i gave to you different parts in liturgies between eastern orthodox churches? would you excommunicate them because they are 'kafara' and devils and draculas?

wait three days , I will give them to you... and close this topic... but answer my questions first (questions are in two messages)

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Mina Monir,

I am staying on the subject of this thread. Later on I shall issue my answer to your question at the proper thread.

When the (hypothetical) ecumenical council closes its sessions and the alleged unity would be declared between our churches we should go together under the roof of a Church. There, we are going to chant our hymns to God. And it is there that our unity is going to be tested, not in a bureaucratic and scholastic council, after all.

The Trisagion hymn of the Coptic Church, as I will explain in my post at the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1575) thread, is a typical substantial declination from the Orthodox Spirit of worshipping God. It is not just a variation.

I know the differences between the eastern-Orthodox Churches’ rituals/“typikon”, which are expressing different historical and cultural variations of the same Spirit of worshipping God.

It seems to me that you are interesting in the historical union and you pass by the liturgical and spiritual union. But as it is the case with the roman Catholics, our differences with the Coptic Church are in the character of the way we worship God. The differences are not theological, mental and philosophical but practical and actual.

As the single addition of the words “and of the Son” in the Creed by the Vatican Church has profound implications in the Papal Church life and in the way that they worship God, likewise the additions in the Trisagion hymn by the Coptic Church is the aftermath of a “different” worship of God alien and incompatible from the Eastern Orthodox Church’s worship.

The Papal Church accepts the Christological dogma and the Church Councils by using the same verbal formulation like the Orthodox Church does but the Vatican has been aliened from the Spirit in practise. The Vatican created, under specific circumstances, in eastern Europe some local Churches that imitate the external form of the Orthodox Church in every aspect – Church building, iconography, ritual practises and liturgical formality- which are being called Uniatic Churches in a “desperate” attempt for union. I think that this is also the case with the Coptic Church that has many external characteristics with the Eastern Orthodox Church, with the difference that the Coptic Church is an imitator by tradition and the Vatican Church is an imitator by choice. But “communion” is not “union” of formality and verbal agreement.

Ecumenism has failed and it may produce nothing more than friedly talks because it is an effort to produce historical results. It does not have the power to penetrate eternity. Ecumenism is a holistic ideology brought in the area of religion.

Orthodox Church was never aware of having a “mission” to change the world, or to unify the world. Church members were assuming missionary assignments in the context of giving testimony of the life and resurrection of Christ and of the reception of the Paraclete. But the Church was never found herself to be ecumenical in a holistic manner.

May God bless us, all.

[Mina Monir]

no answer.... ok
if you remember my questions ... I asked you what are the differences, you told me many times there are differences, and I asked you to know them , you did not answer... dear leandros , as i told you before : 0 or 1
thnx
in christ
Mina

[Mina Monir]

Orthodox Church was never aware of having a “mission” to change the world, or to unify the world.

believe me , this is so fanatic opinion.

orthodox faith is established on missionry and preach. how could be a church think in that way... I will take that opinion as your individual opinion.

[Mina Monir]

As the single addition of the words “and of the Son” in the Creed by the Vatican Church has profound implications in the Papal Church life and in the way that they worship God,

not only the way of the worshipping dear , addition of the filioque referred to a big theological issue which is the procession from the son , this procession created a conflict in the trinitrian positions and we can discuss that later when we come to the dialogue with our brothers in christ , the catholics.

I hope you answer my previous questions because they will put you face to face with the true of the fact that we have the same belief.

Father John Romanides presented in the dialogue a paper named (Dioscorus and Leo) I hope we read it to put our hand on the last obstacle... the story of the hymn was not on the map of the dialogue because they did not come to talk about a hymn, but about a belief. the EO and OO declared that they both have the same faith.

[Mina Monir]

no ... no problem dear... every thing is ok , we are talking in the spirit of love and friendship.
god blesses us.

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Orthodox Church was never aware of having a “mission” to change the world, or to unify the world.

believe me , this is so fanatic opinion. orthodox faith is established on missionry and preach. how could be a church think in that way... I will take that opinion as your individual opinion.

The "mission" of the Church is to glorify men and women through Christ by cleaning their hearts and let them wait, in there, for the visit of Holy Trinity .

The Church never aimed to produce a unified world. The aim of Church was, and still is, to reveal the absolute uniqueness of each person, to make known the inexperienced existential personal self awareness through the loving personal relation with Christ, in Spirit, as each person is being offered the Love of the Father by the Son.

This has nothing to do with the grouping under the same “umbrella” of faith. When Christians see each other, they see the Christ inside the other, not symbolically but ontologically. An orthodox monk from Mount Athos said once: we are like millions of little mirrors, and in each mirror Christ is reflected, like the reflection of the sun on each little piece of a large broken mirror. If the broken pieces of the mirror were to be united, then they would reflect one image and they would be one mirror. But Christ does not want us like that. Our perfection is not in our size or in our cooperation but in the reflection. Clean the heart and it will reflect Christ. And as each one does the same, millions of little mirrors will reflect the image of God.

Ecumanism does not know this type of "reflections". Its aim is to expand and become strong, for a good cause. And in the end its reflection should be compared to the gigantic mirror-self. May God save us from this illusion of theosis.

[Mina Monir]

if we note the red and underlined sentences in the agreements , we find that no one from both sides broke the apostolic tradition,and both sides are orthodox whether fanatics like it or not. and this is the fruit of ecumenism , the ecumenical dialogue is the most gentle technique to understand each other. even with the other non-orthodox , for example, in our dialogue with the Episcopal church (anglican church) , we managed to put an official agreement on christology based on Cyrillian terminology (I will show it). and in the issue of homosexual and women ordination , we had a dialogue with the episcopal church in egypt and we convinced them how serious and danger is the taken step in the anglican communion in Lambeth conference which accepted continuing communion between anglican church (Canterbury) and the American episcopal church which ordinated Gene Robinson the homosexual to be the bishop of New Hampshire. the episcopal church in egypt and its metropolitan (Monir hanna anees) after the dialogue with our theologians he sent an official declaration to the Archbishop of Canterbury telling him his refuse to the Lambeth conference results... it is another gain for ecumenism. so, it is not just a friendly talking .. it can find a formula of mutual understand. let me show you the paper of the Coptic Orthodox church which presented to the episcopal church and it was the main reason for declaring the refuse of the episcopal church of egypt to the ordination of women. next message I will discuss the christological official agreement , and at last , I will put as points the honor results of the Anglican-Coptic ecumenical dialogue.

remembering that the anglican communion deleted the filioque from its creed of faith from along time.

I hope it would be fruitful.
in Christ ,
Mina

[Mina Monir]

Ecumanism does not know this type of "reflections". Its aim is to expand and become strong, for a good cause. And in the end its reflection should be compared to the gigantic mirror-self

again dear leandros , it is your individual opinion, not more.

Ecumenism is a holy activity practised by all churches , Eastern Orthodox church began ecumenical dialogue before the oriental by centuries ... the first church began ecumenical dialogue with protestants was the EO , and also they have their ecumenical dialogue with the anglicans , Prof.John Romanides has a very nice paper about ecumenical activity with anglicans,catholics ... AND Jews! u can revise that at his site www.romanity.org (http://www.romanity.org)

ecumenism is important , it repairs errors of the past. for example , through the dialogue between coptic church and catholic church, they declared we are not monophysites and that they were wrong in using this term (words by HE metropolitan yohanna kolta COPTIC catholic church). this opened a new gate for relationships. prof.Romanides talked about the dublin conference around filioque , and showed how it is interesting to talk with our anglican brothers.

in contrary, refusing ecumenism has a double edged weapon : 1. it increases individuality and getting us back to the era when the emperor forced a church to excommunicate another church.

2. it is against god's will for missionry and preach , which is the main goal for priesthood... is to make all can taste how sweet is the grace of god. let's continue showing the results to prove how great is the ecmenical dialogue.

i will put the results of the dialogue of the eastern orthodox communion with the other churches to show to you how vital it is. Last thing i want to mention : you church is 25% of the WCC (world council of churches) and 20% of the MECC(middle east council of churches)

in Christ,
Mina

[Leandros Papadopoulos]

Dear Friends,

I submit a pre-published excerpt from the Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox Conference with Title: "Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations and Disenchantment", organized by the Department of Pastoral and Social Theology of the School of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & The Society of Orthodox Studies.

The excerpt is an address made by Hieromonk Alexios Karakallinos(from the Karakalou monastery of Mount Athos), with the title "Contours of Conversion and the Ecumenical movement: Some Personal Reflections"

Here is a small passage:

"Of course, as the ecumenical movement and involvement in the World Council of Churches clearly show, not everyone who is exposed to Orthodoxy necessarily converts, even if many admire certain aspects of the Orthodox faith.

In fact, Frank Schaeffer,asks the question, 'How many converts have the ecumenists made amongst the heterodox in the last sixty years? How many evangelistic efforts have they mounted to each Protestants, Roman Catholics, and others with Orthodoxy? The answer to both questions is 'none'....

We need to humbly encourage these people to acquire a strong enough faith to truly believe that 'there is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, and in the world to come eternal life'(Mark 10:29-30). Of course, this means that we must show these people that we are their brethren and that heterodox confessions are houses to be left behind. Naturally, ecumenism would tell them to retain in their houses....

Perhaps, the most difficult problem involves those who approach Orthodoxy with a level of complacency with respect to their heterodox confession that does not permit them to put down roots and probe Orthodoxy, but only to judge Orthodoxy according to appearance. If such was not the case of the respected historian Sir Steven Runciman, it certainly is the case of the protestant theologian, Daniel Clendenin. Both men have written books in admiration of much in Orthodoxy, but never taken the step to become Orthodox. In particular, Clendenin's pitfall involves the acceptance of the false and superficial ecumenical view that the Orthodox and evangelical hold the ecumenical councils in common and his distant investigation of Orthodoxy without a personal commitment. His position of admiration without commitment is common to those in the ecumenical movement who seek unity, but not salvation. It is not enough, however, to admire the Truth. It must be embraced. And in fact those who simply admire the truth don't really believe it is the Truth, but simply one truth among many others also worthy of admiration...."

You can find the full text in the attached file.

Leandros

[Mina Monir]

In fact, Frank Schaeffer,asks the question, 'How many converts have the ecumenists made amongst the heterodox in the last sixty years? How many evangelistic efforts have they mounted to each Protestants, Roman Catholics, and others with Orthodoxy? The answer to both questions is 'none'....

and who said that ecumenism is a personal preach and is based on denying the other?
and who said that individuality gave results? do u want to tell u how many greek orthodox became into jehovah witness? i'll send it around these days... Ecumenism repairs Doctrines of churches and clears the misunderstandings to have a bright future.