Orthodox approaches to ecumenism

[Hussam X]

Thanks Mina Mounir for your analysis. It is quite interesting, but the more interesting and in the same time very surprising news are the upcoming restoration of communion between the EO and OO. More astonishing is choosing Greece as the EO site to host the anticipated mass. The reverend monks of Mount Athos are not particularly sympathetic to the unity talks, and they exert some spiritual and political weight in the Church of Greece.

Till the last year, OO bishops were talking about overcoming the obstacles to unity and proposing ways to lift anathemas on saints and deal with the various jurisdiction problems. EO bishops for the most part were dicussing the necessity of confessing the eucumenical nature of council 4,5,6 and 7. On the other hand, in many EO circles such unity is not welcomed, for very logical and ecclesiogical reasons. While union will heal the schism with the OO, it will most probably introduce another one between the EO churches themselves.

Are all these problems solved already? Mentioning H.H. Pope Shenouda in Romania is a good gesture of respect and mutual love, but is it done on a frequent basis ? I understand that it was done one time in a visit of H.H. Pope Shenouda to Romania, and I do not believe H.H. took part in the mass. H.H. Patriarch of Romania ( or H.E. the Metropolitan, sorry,not really familiar with EO jurisdictions) is not mentioned in Coptic liturgies, for ecclesiological reasons that take priority over compliments.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The reverend monks of Mount Athos are not particularly sympathetic to the unity talks, and they exert some spiritual and political weight in the Church of Greece.

I think that a major stumbling block between us in recent times has been caused by the way in which talks, discussions, committees, etc were seen as being part of the world-wide ecumenical movement. This ecumenical movement has often been based on theological relativism and is under increasing criticism from within (Eastern) Orthodoxy. This I think is a major reason for the basic mistrust from the Athonite monks who are defenders of the Faith; ie there is not only the question of whether we are in fact seeing with the same Orthodox eyes. There is also the question of whether fundamental theological differences are being overlooked as part of the ecumenical movement.

My Athonite credentials are perhaps not as great as some others who post to monachos (maybe they could respond on this theme). But from my time there I would say that the Athonite Frs are not at all blind fanatics or incapable of compassionate economia on these issues. Rather they just want to be assured that nothing theologically fundamental is being minimised. And in connection with this it would probably help tremendously if the Oriental Orthodox would detach any official meetings from the ecumencial movement.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mina Soliman]

More astonishing is choosing Greece as the EO site to host the anticipated mass.

Dear Hussam X,

I'm quite interested in how or where you heard that. Is there an anticipated time of when this mass may occur?

God bless.

Mina

[Mina Soliman]

Oh never mind Hussam. I've just realized where you got them from.

Dear Mina Monir,

When are these liturgies going to be held? Are the a "step" towards unity, or the final step towards unity?

Just to share some thoughts,

First, HI! My name is Mina. I'm from NJ, USA. I just like to share that I personally was worried about a schism within our churches if this union is consummated. Although, I know of no heirarch in the OO churches that resist unity (I realize some Church laity however may resist union), I see that the EO are already in schism due to "ecumenism." So if a unity is consummated, there is no difference than what's happening today, imho.

Furthermore, I haven't read everything here, since there's so much, but I am quite convinced that ecclesiological differences will be solved, and that there is no reason to be divided. I look forward to the day we begin to show our One Church to the world as we slowly rediscover our oneness already.

God bless.

Mina

[Mina Soliman]

And in connection with this it would probably help tremendously if the Oriental Orthodox would detach any official meetings from the ecumencial movement.

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I totally agree with you. The monks find it hard to talk with people who are involved in today's fruitless ecumenism, and I pray the OO churches leave such councils.

God bless.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mina Soliman said,


Although, I know of no heirarch in the OO churches that resist unity (I realize some Church laity however may resist union), I see that the EO are already in schism due to "ecumenism." So if a unity is consummated, there is no difference than what's happening today, imho.

First of all welcome to the discussion! May God's purposes be accomplished through all of this.

If I could offer the following. Although it is true that one of the main issues canonically separating a number of Orthodox is ecumenism many and in fact more and more of the Orthodox are concerned with involvement in the ecumenical movement. For example you may already have heard of how the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America recently separated itself from the NCC in America. This was not due to some sort of categorical rejection of all other Christians but rather the tendency of the ecumenical movement to be based on theological and moral relativism.

Add to this the fact that the largest overtly anti-ecumenical Orthodox church- the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad- may be on the verge of reconciliation with the Church in Russia; and you get a stronger anti-ecumenical stance within Orthodoxy and not a simple division between pro & anti- ecumenical Orthodox churches.

So this leads me back to the point I was making above. I believe that any genuine theological agreement between us is harmed by operating from within the overall umbrella of the ecumenical movement. This is because the tendency of the ecumenical movement towards theological & moral relativism contradicts the Orthodox obligation that any unity be based on genuine theological agreement.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for welcoming me. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Indeed, these councils have always assumed relativism. Someone posted in another website the the Coptic Church is anticipating a leave from the MECC because of Protestant attacks. These councils are a waste of time, and I believe one of the largest hindrances to Orthodox unity.

I personally believe there is a theological unity between OO's and EO's. Forgive me for I haven't read everything in this thread, but after intense research, I find no reason for a division among our churches.

God bless.

[Mina Soliman]

In fact, lemme share with you a British Orthodox deacon's views on the ecumenical talks:

http://www.britishorthodox.org/107d.php

Father Subdeacon Peter Theodore advocates the maximalist ecumenical talks that have been going on, but not the minimalist/relativist talks.

God bless.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following my earlier post in the 'Chalcedonian Christology, etc.' thread, I've opened a new thread to house the growing discussion on ecumenism, and have moved the relevant posts from the Christology thread to the new. You will find it by jumping to the location of the present post, or as Ecclesiology and the Church (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/4227.html?1131848348) >> Evangelism and Mission (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/25639.html?1131848348) >> Orthodox approaches to ecumenism (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4227/27045.html?1133042101).

INXC, Matthew

[Hussam X]

Dear Mina Soliman,
apparently the posts order got mixed, so I am not sure if you figured out that the reference to the anticipated reunion liturgy was made in Mina Mounir's post in the original thread.
I quote:
"....and we see team work in the WCC preparing for : i) one dyptiches for mutual usage between the famillies. ii)"Surprise!!" Coptic and Greek church will held two masses .. one in the St.Mark Cathedral in cairo and the other in greece .. in a great festival will be held to partake Communion together. we need intensive prays for that step to be taken soon. these new I got them from inside the Ecumenism office of the church and the WCC Journals."
[link] (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/26293.html?1133041865)

Regards.

(Message edited by admin on 27 November, 2005)

[Hussam X]

The article provided by Mina Soliman from the British Orthodox Church is benefical for our discussion about ecumenism, for it shows the difference in approach between EO-OO talks and the other ecumenical activities in the WCC or in local church councils. The difference is the presence of a common ground in dicussing the faith, as both families have overcome their previous points of conflict by coming to a confirmation of common faith -not a compromise- and have been able to discuss matters in charity , enjoying better circumstances than before.

It is therefore important to point out that our reference to the reverend monks of Athos and their zeal for Orthodoxy was not meant in sarcasm or in any negative manner, for these are qualities that have perserved the Orthodox Church. Yet we may ask those who put all ecumenical activities in the same basket about any resemblence or similarity between the EO-OO dialogues and the other ecumenical activities that are under criticism from both sides. Such is not an Orthodox behavior either, for both sides were engaged in ecumenical talks immediately after Chalcedon. To reject such steps is to reject the road that our fathers undertook in hope for reconcilation when schism was still "fresh". As long as their is a basis for discussion and a common Tradition before CHalcedon, why reject the whole thing ?

As for the criticised ecumenical activities in councils that include Orthodox in their membership, I believe Orthodox did not achieve any of their goals from such councils and talks because there was no clear criteria for our mission in such councils to begin with. Our presence was redundant, carrying little weight and exerting no influence as evident from the continuous development of new false teachings and practices within the Protestant churches and in part the Catholic church. On the other hand, Protestant teachings can creep from the backdoor into our churches.

The Protestants had a clear agenda that promoted the establishment of the WCC as a way to reunite all their sects and cults. Because of the nature of Protestantism and the lack of common reference, the Protestants changed their approach from discussing theological,soteriological and other differences to quite the opposite, totally neglecting such matters. With the growth of certain Protestant denominations and cults and its evolution into political groups rather than religious and truth seeking groups, the ecumenical talks seems to serve their goals quite well. Protestants have for the most part eliminated much of the differences between them. They downplayed it as: "..a different color of a carpet" or " different taste for worship". It is in line with their own history and thought development.

As for RC church, ecumenical talks for them -in my humble view- is not so much about doctrines as much as to bring every christian sect under the umbrella of Rome. The unity with the Church of the East is not easy to understand if loyality to Tradition is considered. Taking this road required some concessions. The statement by H.H. Pope John Paul II regarding the possibility of salvation without the Blood of Christ, without the cross, in which H.H. reaffirmed the doctrines of Vatican II, is most troubling for Orthodox, but not for Rome. They are making progress towards their goal of Roman universal jurisdiction, and for the first time since centuries Protestants are not so negative about Rome. That Rome moved towards the liberal side -accorsing to orthodox standards- is quite expected, but they are moving towards their goal.

What is the goal for the Orthodox ?

By the way, a question to think about : Will an ecumenical religion that hones every other religion in it be the religion of the Antichrist ? A shot in the dark as any speculation about the end of times seems to be.

[Kosta]

The article provided by Mina Soliman from the British Orthodox Church is benefical for our discussion about ecumenism, for it shows the difference in approach between EO-OO talks and the other ecumenical activities in the WCC or in local church councils. The difference is the presence of a common ground in dicussing the faith, as both families have overcome their previous points of conflict by coming to a confirmation of common faith -not a compromise- and have been able to discuss matters in charity , enjoying better circumstances than before.

It is therefore important to point out that our reference to the reverend monks of Athos and their zeal for Orthodoxy was not meant in sarcasm or in any negative manner, for these are qualities that have perserved the Orthodox Church. Yet we may ask those who put all ecumenical activities in the same basket about any resemblence or similarity between the EO-OO dialogues and the other ecumenical activities that are under criticism from both sides. Such is not an Orthodox behavior either, for both sides were engaged in ecumenical talks immediately after Chalcedon. To reject such steps is to reject the road that our fathers undertook in hope for reconcilation when schism was still "fresh". As long as their is a basis for discussion and a common Tradition before CHalcedon, why reject the whole thing ?

As for the criticised ecumenical activities in councils that include Orthodox in their membership, I believe Orthodox did not achieve any of their goals from such councils and talks because there was no clear criteria for our mission in such councils to begin with. Our presence was redundant, carrying little weight and exerting no influence as evident from the continuous development of new false teachings and practices within the Protestant churches and in part the Catholic church. On the other hand, Protestant teachings can creep from the backdoor into our churches.

The Protestants had a clear agenda that promoted the establishment of the WCC as a way to reunite all their sects and cults. Because of the nature of Protestantism and the lack of common reference, the Protestants changed their approach from discussing theological,soteriological and other differences to quite the opposite, totally neglecting such matters. With the growth of certain Protestant denominations and cults and its evolution into political groups rather than religious and truth seeking groups, the ecumenical talks seems to serve their goals quite well. Protestants have for the most part eliminated much of the differences between them. They downplayed it as: "..a different color of a carpet" or " different taste for worship". It is in line with their own history and thought development.

As for RC church, ecumenical talks for them -in my humble view- is not so much about doctrines as much as to bring every christian sect under the umbrella of Rome. The unity with the Church of the East is not easy to understand if loyality to Tradition is considered. Taking this road required some concessions. The statement by H.H. Pope John Paul II regarding the possibility of salvation without the Blood of Christ, without the cross, in which H.H. reaffirmed the doctrines of Vatican II, is most troubling for Orthodox, but not for Rome. They are making progress towards their goal of Roman universal jurisdiction, and for the first time since centuries Protestants are not so negative about Rome. That Rome moved towards the liberal side -accorsing to orthodox standards- is quite expected, but they are moving towards their goal.

What is the goal for the Orthodox ?

By the way, a question to think about : Will an ecumenical religion that hones every other religion in it be the religion of the Antichrist ? A shot in the dark as any speculation about the end of times seems to be.


You make excellent points. And yes I think EO-OO dialogue is truly a place where a healthy ecumenism can produce good fruits.
I'm not sure though things are as cut and dry as you make it on the monophyiste controversy. Obviously there are also theologians on the Oriental side which disagree on the fruits of these discussions.

Thats where the Athonite monks make a clear stand. The Chalcedon controversy created martyrs on both sides many who are venerated Saints. Yet the current situation claims that these saints and church Fathers on BOTH sides were simply ignorant stupid men who couldnt tell the difference between semantics and heresy (even though the coptic and greek language and culture are alike!).

I also believe there are reservations on the OO side, since all thats holding re-union is for the non-chalcedon to accept the 4th-7th ecumenical councils.
If re-union occurs without the need to accept the councils, then we have become protestants. Any Ecumenist will find similar loopholes to push their agenda & protestant apologetics will use this to show that Orthodoxy accepts anyone as their own as well.

The other point i wanted to make is to criticise my Church on this.

You have truly summed up what most Orthodox believe. Unfortunately most heirarchs who are into the ecumenism scene do not care about the non-chalcedon churches. The Orthodox ecumenists only care about union with the large rich western churches. The E.P. needs their clout , he needs them as allies for his survival in Turkey. The other Ecumenists seem to have an inferiority complex, where the western churches "is where its at" and once again dont care about the other "dying" churches of the east. This is where the Laity needs to wake up and demand true healthy ecumenism and chastise their bishops for acting with submissiveness to the western heresies. Last time this happened it ended in an ecumenist tragedy of epic proportions: the council of florence!

[Ryan]

I have wondered, just what is "healthy ecumenism"? If a church is in the WCC but does not accept that "branch theory," then why is it there? There seems to be an idea that membership in the WCC is an aspect of missionary work. However, do ecumenists really expect to gain converts by meeting in committees with the official representatives of other churches, reaching decisions which most church members (in any church) will probably never hear about? It seems to me that membership in these bodies is at best a waste of time.

[Scott Pierson]

I have wondered, just what is "healthy ecumenism"? If a church is in the WCC but does not accept that "branch theory," then why is it there? There seems to be an idea that membership in the WCC is an aspect of missionary work. However, do ecumenists really expect to gain converts by meeting in committees with the official representatives of other churches, reaching decisions which most church members (in any church) will probably never hear about? It seems to me that membership in these bodies is at best a waste of time.

Good point. How many people do you know who became Orthodox because of evangelism that took place at a WCC meeting? Personally I dont know any. With all the time, effort, and money spent on it you would think our Church would be growing by leaps and bounds via the influx of new converts coming in from WCC meetings. Apparently our "ecumenical representatives" must have some reason other then the "evangelism" they talk so much about for going there. The only real fruit of the eccumenical movement = thousands of scandalized Orthodox and a few schisms! Instead of uniting Christians it actually works to divide Orthodox.

How ever did Saint Paul evangelize the world without a WCC?

[Mina Soliman]

Hi!

Just a few comments:


Thats where the Athonite monks make a clear stand. The Chalcedon controversy created martyrs on both sides many who are venerated Saints. Yet the current situation claims that these saints and church Fathers on BOTH sides were simply ignorant stupid men who couldnt tell the difference between semantics and heresy (even though the coptic and greek language and culture are alike!).

Such a conclusion is quite harsh. In the dialogues, I think they seem to have put it this way (paraphrasing in my own words): "Away from emperialistic threats and other factors, we were able to look past the condemnations and study deeply that no father spoke differently concerning doctrine."

Now, how was there any misunderstandings? That takes 100s of pages to explain, but I would recommend a book that seems to explain the situation very well and comprehensively (if you so wish, along with Fr. John Romanides' articles online). In conclusion, misunderstandings do happen, and we as humans are not infallible (although thank God, the Holy Spirit still kept the spirit of infallibility in us when it came to doctrine).

So, I contend that you need to make more research (and please don't make it one-sided, like orthodoxinfo.com, although I have a sympathy into why they are concerned) before you make such a conclusion like that.


I also believe there are reservations on the OO side, since all thats holding re-union is for the non-chalcedon to accept the 4th-7th ecumenical councils.
If re-union occurs without the need to accept the councils, then we have become protestants. Any Ecumenist will find similar loopholes to push their agenda & protestant apologetics will use this to show that Orthodoxy accepts anyone as their own as well.

Again, you seem to haven't studied the situation comprehensively in order to get the gist. The flip side to this argument would be that you reject Chalcedon completely to unite with us, and that is a very tempting thing to do (in fact, I'm sure many OO's want this). In addition, if you go with a one-sided unity plan, we might also require you to accept Ephesus 449 and 475 (even though we don't consider them "ecumenical," but have a significant importance to OO tradition).

Or, you can read the history and understand why certain things occured. Did you know or ever consider that what was known as the "Robber's Council" was actually not endorsing Eutychianism? Or that Ephesus 475 attended by 500+ bishops condemned Nestorianism (which included Chalcedon at the time) and Eutychianism as well? Did you ever consider reading those parts of history before you make judgments like yours? Did you ever consider the bloodshed Marcian had done in order to force both Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo down the OO's throats? Or that the four Christological adverbs adopted by the definition of Chalcedon were actually Dioscorian (in the council itself)? (forgive me for this one-sidedness, but I'm only making a point; I'm sure there is the other side to consider)

I personally believe that it's wonderful that despite our stubborn miscommunications through the centuries, we spoke the same Orthodox faith, and that to me is the work of the Holy Spirit. To me, we are not the Church of Leo or Dioscorus (even though we [should] respect aspects of both men), but we are the Church of Christ, that kept the true faith.


You have truly summed up what most Orthodox believe. Unfortunately most heirarchs who are into the ecumenism scene do not care about the non-chalcedon churches. The Orthodox ecumenists only care about union with the large rich western churches. The E.P. needs their clout , he needs them as allies for his survival in Turkey. The other Ecumenists seem to have an inferiority complex, where the western churches "is where its at" and once again dont care about the other "dying" churches of the east. This is where the Laity needs to wake up and demand true healthy ecumenism and chastise their bishops for acting with submissiveness to the western heresies. Last time this happened it ended in an ecumenist tragedy of epic proportions: the council of florence!

That's a very interesting pov. This and many other factors (including disunity within OO's and EO's) may in fact hinder future developments to unity.

But I'd like to reiterate and invite you to read the article I posted a couple of posts ago. The OO-EO talks are a different "ecumenism." In fact, one traditionalist Chalcedonian have noticed how much Coptic Orthodox have composed themselves in such ecumenical meetings and in not compromising their faith, which is considered quite admirable, and "true ecumenism." Perhaps, by being so traditionalist ourselves (Copts), we seem to slowly attract more and show why the meetings reached to such an interesting conclusion.

I've watched a video concerning the issue of ecumenism, and I've seen why it's been an issue to EO's (despite the fact that it was anti-OO). As for us, we don't go for a minimalist view like the RC's or Protestants, but we have to look at all the aspects of faith before unity, and this we did, and I assure you, you will be pleased if you take the time to read the minutes and see what they had to go through in order to understand one another, rather than the political wastes of time you see in places like the WCC.

Please forgive me, a sinner.

Mina

[Olga]

Dear Scott

St Paul didn't need a WCC to evangelise the world for two reasons: Firstly, the numbers of the faithful were smaller then, and secondly, the Church had not been divided by schism into thousands of denominations and splinter groups as is the case today. BTW, I also cannot see the point of a WCC as being beneficial to the Orthodox Church.

[Mina Soliman]

I'd like to apoligize for leading the topic astray a bit. Perhaps, I can do myself some service and bring it back, and try to bring some relevance into the last post I've written. Perhaps also this may convince that, at least in the OO perspective, we are not "ecumenists" in the sense of compromising our faith for false unity. In fact, this article that I will show is written by a very well-known Coptic Orthodox Metropolitan, and a leading figure in today's ecumenical talks, and he shares in part of this article an experience that got him and many other Orthodox Christian theologians and clergy irritated with the WCC.

I hope perhaps this could be one of many proofs that (at least the OO's) do not beat around the bush just for the sake of unity with EO's, but rather these meetings were deeply thought-provoking dialogues.

God bless.

Mina

================================================== =================

Principals of Ecumenical Theological Education


First : Listening to Other Opinions
We want to raise a generation which is prepared to listen to the opinions of others despite of its difference. There is such a distinction between having clarity in sight, in problems concerning dogma, and between not being ready to listen to an opinion contrary to ones view or understanding, to an extent that one could not tolerate listening to the end of the sentence.

A question occurs in this respect : “If someone was speaking and another interrupted, would this be considered a wrong method?” To give an answer to this, we say that it is permissible to interrupt on condition that an opportunity is given for the speaker to continue with the speech once more. In other words: the aim of interruptions should not be to forbid the speech but just to propose an intervening notice. If someone has an observation, it could be said in the middle of another’s speech, however not in the forbidden-spirit which we want to be apart from.

What is forbidden, is that there may be someone who could not tolerate listening to the end of the another’s speech. The phrase “not being able to tolerate” means that one forbids the continuance of the speech and refuses to listen. We call this a parting-spirit. The parting-spirit is not having the intention to listen to another’s opinion. This is what we need to resist in our children. We want to implant in our children the endowment to listen to the opinions of others.

A Generation of Unique Opinion Opposes any New Thought

If we rear a generation, unable to listen to anything other than what they know and are convinced of, the day would come when they would oppose us, if it occurred that our understanding or our view to a certain situation was broadened. For instance, you could read some sayings of Saint Athanasius or Saint Cyril the Great and your understanding widens on a certain matter. If it occurs thereby, that you expose this new understanding to the youth that were brought up with certain understandings, they would oppose you, yourself. They would not only oppose other churches or sects, but because they were not adapted to listening to an opinion other than what they were formerly taught, they would oppose you also.


Second : Differentiating between the Theological Terminology and the Difference in Essence of Dogmatic Faith

In the days of Saint Athanasius the Greek word hypostasis was translated essence by some and person by others. Some said, that when you consider that the Trinity is three hypostasis, you believe in three essences in God which is Polytheism and you are accused of heresy and of believing in diversity of Gods. Others consider that whoever says that God is a one hypostasis are Sabilians who believe in one persona. This was a result of the different usages of the word hypostasis. One takes it to mean essence, the other considers it to mean person. This became a problem between two schools.

Saint Athanasius’ answer to this was as follows: “If someone wanted to take the word ‘hypostasis’ to mean ‘person’, then they are three hypostaseis. If another takes it to mean ‘essence’, then it is one hypostasis”. Saint Athanasius said that he might use the two expressions in one day. Saying this, Saint Athanasius gave us a great lesson in the way of searching for theological truth and not theological termonology. Many disputes and distinctions resulted from the differences and the interpretations of the theological terms.

Interpretation of Theological Terms

In our dialogue, as a non-Chalcedonian family, with the Chalcedonian Roman Orthodox Church we reached an agreement because each party offered a theological interpretation of the terms that they used, to avoid any mental ambiguity, and that no party would accuse the other of Eutachianism or Nestorianism. This is why, the theological interpretations of the terms are important.

During Christological dialogues that have taken place, we said that whoever proclaims two inseparable natures in Jesus Christ means the continual unity of the two natures. While those who proclaim one nature with no confusion, means that these two natures are diffused or separable. They would affirm that in the moment of incarnation, when this unity occurred, the two natures did not continue to be divided after they were united. The two natures entered into a state of unity in nature () or a unity of nature () or a real unity. This is why they proclaim of a one nature in which the two natures exist without mingling, but the two natures exist. Each nature keeps its attributes without mingling with the other nature, but both natures formed a real unity with one another. This unity is called the nature of the incarnation or the incarnate nature.

Those who speak of two inseparable natures after the unity means the continuity of having the two natures. Whereas, those who speak of a one unmingling nature speak of the state of being of the two natures but both parties deny the division and mingling of natures after unity. Moreover these two distinct expressions could increase the spirit of insight if they were put side by side. They explain the situation more clearly when put together.

In our Coptic Orthodox terminology we say “One Nature of Two” and if the other party accepts this expression and says that he believes in two inseparable natures, we know that his expression has nothing wrong in it at all, since he accepts my expression, and affirms at the same time, that by his expression he does not mean to cancel any of the two natures but that the two natures remain in existence after the unity. The different expressions supports and strengthens each other rather than wrestle and fight. This is one of many examples of how to differentiate between the difference in theological terminology and the essence of dogmatic faith.

The conclusion of this point is, that what we should implant in our youth is not to be fast in taking a decision against those who use different expressions. They should wait to know what the other party means, because he may conclude to the same truth in your heart but he expresses it in a different way. Try to listen and think in a calm, clear method and never pick up mistakes.


Third : Ecumenicalism is Openness and not Renunciation
Ecumenicalism is not renounciation of dogma to satisfy others or to be courteous to them, but it is an openness to listen to the opinions and have dialogues with others to reach meeting points.

During the Seventh General Assembly of the World Council of Churches which was held in Canberra, Australia we were surprised at the declarations issued, as we were attending as members in the Council (not as observers). We recognised that some spoke of Eucharistic Hospitality (this was the expression used) meaning that anyone who attends in any church should be able to partake of the Eucharist.

This is their own view and we admire it, but the point is that they attacked the church that does not do what they do. How are they sharing in an Ecumenical Council and they are attacking other churches? This attack means that they impose on others to do what they are doing or else we become retarded and self discriminate etc. in their point of view.

We would like to know others’ opinions and hear the interpretations of their case in papers that express their points of view. What the Eucharistic Hospitality believers did, is that they declared their opinion in general statements and not as a personal view. It was an accusation by the majority to the minority. (The Orthodox Churches form 25% of the Council and the total Protestant sects form 75%.) The Catholic Church did not join but only attended as observers in all areas except in Faith and Order in which they participated - in a limited membership that does not represent their true enumeration in the world).

Real ecumenicalism does not demand from anyone to renounce his dogmas to satisfy others. It is mutual understanding to the proposed affairs in order to reach solutions. The statements of declarations that the Eucharistic Hospitality group issued as a majority made the minority feel under pressure. This is not ecumenicalism. This is not openness.

The Role of the Other Party

What is the role of the other party? Here comes the importance of ecumenical rearing. It is not what is spread commonly amongst some mentalities in our days, that Ecumenicalism means renounciation of dogmas in order to satisfy others. If it was so, we would never reach real unity. They say that you are ecumenical if you do not stick to any thought and this is a new definition to ecumenicalism. Many sectors might accept this definition but many others won’t. Those who do not accept, want to reach unity by means of a dialogue, which leads to mutual understanding and unity of thought.



Fourth : Implanting the Idea of Unity Inside the Youth

Implanting the idea of unity in the hearts and minds of the youth, is a basic demand for the Christian life. Some churches, priests and pastors implant torn thoughts in people.

How do we teach the child from his early days in the church, to endeavor efforts in order to reach unity of the Church? Shall we reach it by making the child have communion in other churches? Of course not … What we mean, is to bring up the child prepared to befriend children of different sects; to have mutual understanding thoughts; calm dialogue and in a spirit of friendship and amity as their little minds enable them. We do not object that the child has a naive friendship with another child of other sects. The child should not look to others as his enemies. We should implant this spirit even if it is a little seed. The child should believe in the unity of the church. (We shall explain in point seven the basis of performing the unity of the Church).


Fifth : The Catholicity and the Conciliarity of the Church
The idea of Catholicity of the Church should be clear in the minds of the youth, as well as the idea of conciliarity of the Church.

The Catholicity of the Church

The Catholicity of the church is that the church becomes in unity and Holy Communion everywhere, all over the world through the Eucharist. Since we share the same heart; thought and Eucharist this is the Catholicity.

Saint Ignatius“Theophorus” wrote in his epistle to the people of Smyrna “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

The Conciliarity of the Church

When the Apostolic Church first originated, there were some disagreements, therefore no one acted by himself in any aspect whatsoever. When Saint Peter baptised Cornelius the Church refused to accept so “Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it happened” (Acts 11:3). As the Apostolic Church had the spirit of listening to others opinions, they accepted to listen to him and he explained the story from the beginning; how God accepted the Gentiles to faith and gave them the Holy Spirit. Saint Peter himself said “can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptised who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47).

At the beginning, Saint Peter used to think in the same way as the other apostles, but God revealed to him and He made actual steps that could not be opposed. Saint Peter was liable to renounce and apologise if the apostles’ opinion was, that what he did was wrong, but the Holy Spirit interfered and said to the eleven apostles that they should accept what was done through Saint Peter. Actually, they agreed to what was done through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was one in all of them. Saint Paul expressed it in what he said to his disciple Timothy “the good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us” (2 Timothy 1:14). He did not tell him “who dwells in you” because this is the faith that the Holy Spirit lives in the community and not in the person.

In another situation Saint Paul recognised Saint Peter’s hypocrisy with the brothers who came from Judea. Refusing to eat with the Gentiles who were baptised and already became Christians. Saint Paul said to him “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” (Galatians 2:14). He also said “But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).

Here, we recognise, that at one time Saint Peter was in line with the truth and the eleven apostles had not yet accepted, the same revelation from the Holy Spirit as he did - but they accepted it through the conciliarity of the meeting later. In the other situations Saint Peter was not in line with the truth and he was told through Saint Paul the Apostle who told him this in apostolic humility had previously said “I went up again to Jerusalem … by revelation and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. But privately to those who were of reputation (Peter, James and John)” (Gal. 2:1-2). “lest by any means I might run or had run in vain” (Gal. 2:2) He went to set before the Church, the gospel that he is preaching, after fourteen years of the beginning of his service, to ensure that he is not working on his own. They gave him the right hand of fellowship and blessed him, as a result he was able to continue preaching the gospel.

We should teach our children the meaning of the unity of the Church. Unity is not to bring a group of people together inside the church building; it is not the proselytism and it is not forming collections and increasing numbers. Unity is giving the opportunity for the Holy Spirit to work in me and in others, reconciling to one heart and one thought. Instead of exerting all my efforts in proselytising groups of people of other churches, my goal should be how to gain everyone not to my church’s authority but rather to be in reconciliation to form together the One Catholic Apostolic Church.

The conciliarity of the Church, is that one should not have an independent opinion but that he should live through the community and intellect of the fathers.

The Conciliarity is that one should not think that he is conducting the church himself, but should know that the others are mirrors that reveal the truth. When Saint Peter went to look through the mirror of the apostles they told him “then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance into life” (Acts 11:18). It is also said “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). In some translations it is said “the Idolaters are heirs and partakers of His promise”. The Idolater here means those who are not of the Jewish race. We do not mean that this is their religion or that they share the promise as they are of another religion.

Many gospels and epistles were written, but what was accepted by the catholic Church was considered a Divine Inspired Bible and Holy Scripture : the breath of God. Only what the catholic Church accepted was considered Bible. The gospel is not holy unless it is accepted by the catholic Church as all the bible researches and theologians know.

Is all what Saint Peter said considered an inspiration of the Holy Spirit? No, the proof is what Saint Paul said “I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11). What he wrote and was accepted by the catholic Church, only this was considered a divine inspiration. Saint Peter could have written private notes or written what Saint Paul said about him, and this was not scripture. Only what the Church acknowledged was the Holy Bible. So, it is not a matter of private actions, as the Holy Spirit guides the communion of those in faith, and guides the Church to proclaim truth in it.

In the writings of Saint Peter, we find a clear witness to Saint Paul’s writings as Saint Peter said: “as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Saint Peter witnessed that all the letters of Saint Paul are similar to other books of the scripture and that if anyone distorted it, he is destructive. So Saint Paul’s letters are considered holy scripture by the catholic Church.

In Saint Peter’s witness we realize that he said “his epistles”, then he said “the wisdom given to him”, then he said “which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures”. He did not differentiate between distorting the Exodus, Matthew, or any of Saint Paul’s letters because all the book is an inspiration of God. These books were accepted through the Holy Spirit in the church.

This is the catholic Church when it lives in conciliarity. This Catholicity of the church can be fulfilled by the conciliarity of the church.

These are the understandings that should reach our children in one way or another.


Sixth : The Example in Teaching Children
When a priest has a meeting with the Church Council, do we find a spirit of conciliarity amongst them. Or is the priest a dictator in the Church. This is the example that the children will learn from.

In Sunday School does the teacher give an opportunity for children to share in the lesson? Is the lesson a dialogue or a monologue and mere dictating? If God himself had entered through dialogues with his servants, what should human beings do to each others. Unfortunately, in this point some men consider themselves superior to God.

We should review things with ourselves : do we intend to teach children the spirit of dialogue and sharing with others or are we teaching them superiority and dictating not giving an opportunity for others to share.


Seventh : Unity in Faith is the Basis of Performing the Unity of the Church

Unity should be performed on the basis of the unity in faith as Saint Paul said “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5) If God is One then the Faith should be one. This is the effective way that leads to the one baptism. Whoever has an enthusiastic spirit for the unity of the church should put his hand with ours to reach unity of faith and should not cling to sidewise things as: why don’t we share communion? Because it is more serious not to have one thought and one heart rather than not sharing communion. We should build unity on the correct basis.

One opinion says that mixed marriages are an effective way for performing unity in the Church; for the one house is going to unite two different churches. In this way unity between two churches is reached in the one house even if the church authorities did not unite. This is only a theory and we do not attack opinions but our view is different in this respect.

Do we perform the unity of the church on basis of human love or of spiritual love? Is the Kingdom of God reached by human love between a man and a woman and not reached through a real spiritual unity which the Holy Spirit itself leads inside the church?


Eight : Searching for the Truth
A true Christian is not fanatic to a certain idea, rather he always searches for truth in a spirit of prayer humility. In him comes true what Jesus Christ said; “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (John 18:37).

================================================== =================

--by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/ecumenieng/ecumrear.doc

+++

[Scott Pierson]

Dear Scott

St Paul didn't need a WCC to evangelise the world for two reasons: Firstly, the numbers of the faithful were smaller then, and secondly, the Church had not been divided by schism into thousands of denominations and splinter groups as is the case today. BTW, I also cannot see the point of a WCC as being beneficial to the Orthodox Church.

I dont think its theologicaly correct to say that the CHURCH is divided. People have simple seperated themselves from the Church. The Church itself is still one and will continue to be one. There have always been schismatic sects and heresy even in the early Church (the carpocrations, Valentinians, Simon Magus, etc) it may not have been as bad as it is now at the time of St Paul but it rapidly became (nearly) as bad and they never needed a WCC then.

[Peter Farrington]

I wonder Scott how you understand the divisions which exist within the Byzantine Church?

It seems to me that there has been a real division between ROCOR and the canonical Byzantine churches.

Or in the UK. There is a real division between the followers of +Basil and those adhering to the MP.

Or in breaches in communion with the EP which regularly occur.

Or the divisions between groups in the Ukraine or Bulgaria or in other places.

What are these if not divisions between Christians in the Byzantine Church.

And this is not even beginning to look at the schisms within the Chalcedonian Churches in the historical periods which lasted many decades and even in some circumstances for centuries.

Peter

[Olga]

The point must be made that many of these "splits" in the various Orthodox groups Peter mentioned are largely administrative/political, not doctrinal, and cannot be compared to a true schism as occurred between Rome and the East, or Rome and the Protestants.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Olga

Do you want me to list all of the splits between the Western and Byzantine Churches that were doctrinal and which lasted for decades and centuries?

I am also a little unclear as to the difference in Byzantine ecclesiology between a breach of communion for administrative reasons and one for doctrinal reasons. If there can only be one visible Church and any separation from it is to fall away from the Church then there can surely be no basis for any such divisions?

It seems to me that ROCOR separated from canonical Orthodoxy for entirely doctrinal reasons. Likewise all the Greek Old Calendarist groups. Are these Orthodox or not? If they are Orthodox then it is possible for the human face of the Church to be divided, even without introducing any sort of branch theory.

And what of monks who refuse to commemorate the EP? Are they within the Church? Their refusal is entirely doctrinal it seems to me. Which is the representative Byzantine viewpoint? Should the EP be commemorated or not? If not then how is he able to remain as the senior bishop of the Byzantine Church? If he should be then how are these monks not to be disciplined.

I would have to say that a distinction between schisms due to administrative issues and those due to doctrinal is useful for recognising the reasons for a schism but schism IS schism, separation IS separation, and division between Christians is division. It would seem to me to be a revisionist rewriting of history which pretends that everything in Orthodoxy is always rosy.

An ecclesiology that fails to take account of history and reality surely cannot be a complete one. There has often and always been division between Christians, but usually there has been reconciliation in time. To ignore history in support of a particular ecclesiology (that there have never been divisions within the Church) seems just plain wrong. Indeed as I started to move towards Orthodoxy I realised how much the modern presentation of Orthodoxy was not historical but reflected a particular view of what Orthodoxy 'should' be like.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

peterfarrington,

You make some interesting points. What exactly is your view on the Issue of Schism and the teaching that the Church is One, holy Catholic and Apostolic ? It should be noted though that ROCOR is in full communion with Moscow now . Is there a differnce between "walling off" and outright schism ( Ie is it possible to have a temproary lack of communion with other Orthodox (due to extenuating circumstances like the Communist influence of a Church) but still be part of the Church) ? Certainly (IMO at least ) its simple common sense to state that those sects that are not in communion with the Church , havent been for long periods of time, consider themselves to be the one holy catholic ... church and not the EO, teach other things, have been labeld heretics by various fathers/ councils (local and eccumenical) etc ( Prot. , Latins, OO, etc) have seperated themselves from the Church. With others like the Old Calenderists it is a more confusing issue.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Either according to your present ecclesiology there is only one physically visible Church which cannot be divided, or it is possible to still preserve the one Body of Christ even when human weakness leads to division between Christians.

It is you yourself, not me, who must say whether ROCOR, while being outside the visible ecclesial communion of the Eastern Orthodox Church, was still Orthodox or not. I don't quite see how time comes into it. Either ROCOR was always the Church but there was a human visible division between Eastern Orthodox Christians, or ROCOR was not Orthodox while it was outside the communion of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. :-) There are in fact many EO who have said that ROCOR is outside the Church, just as there are ROCOR/ROCIE folk who say that the MP and others are no longer the Church. There is a real division. Either that division is between Christians in the one Body of Christ, or one party is no longer within the Church.

The mistake with this ecclesiology is that it is rooted essentially in a human, imperial, organisational model. Things are more complex and more spiritual. Which is why it was possible for East and West to be out of communion for decades and centuries and then come back into communion without the necessity to prove that one or either had not been the Church all along. The model being described means that large numbers of completely nominal and unbelieving 'orthodox' are counted within the Body of Christ, while large numbers of devout and believing people are counted as being 'outside' the Church and therefore not being Christians at all. (The fudge that Eastern Orthodox do not judge those outside the Church is really just politeness. If you are not in the Church then you are not a Christian. I am sure there are polite and pleasant folk here who do not think I am a Christian). This does not bear much relation to reality spiritual or historical and therefore certainly needs modification.

One ancient example is that of the Georgian Church, which for 150 years after Chalcedon rejected that council and was anti-Chalcedonian, only accepting it in 607 under various outside pressures. I can find no evidence that the Georgian Church was treated as other than Orthodox when received into communion with the Byzantine Church. 150 years was obviously not long enough for it to be treated as beyond the pale.

Likewise when the majority of Churches in the West broke communion over their support for the Three Chapters some groups remained out of communion for 150 years, yet I can also find no evidence that they were treated in the way you are describing as necessary.

Of course my own Orthodox Church has canons and a rich Tradition which considers that your own Byzantine Church is heretical and outside of the 'True Church'. But it seems to me that what is required of me by God is that I honestly ask what you believe and deal with you on that basis, as I would wish to deal with all people on the basis of what they actually believe. This is also the view of my bishops and clergy. To insist that you must be a Nestorian heretic would be very easy. It would make life very simple. But I do not find that the Spirit of God gives me any peace to act in such a way. So I will continue to hold my fathers in the greatest respect and seek their prayers at all times, as I do, but I will also seek to find out what Byzantines believe and if it is substantially the same as I do then I will give thanks and continue to work for the reconciliation I believe that God desires and requires.

Even in the darkest times when the full force of the Byzantine empire was bent on a genocide of those who rejected Chalcedon it was still the case that a Chalcedonian Christian could become a member of the Orthodox Church simply by a right confession and an anathema of heresy, and after a year of probation a priest or bishop would be able to continue to exercise his ministry. Therefore it seems to me that from th every beginning the Oriental Orthodox have taken this view of wanting to find the grace of God in those who believe the same and who show by their rejection of error that they have the same faith. Unlike the Byzantine Church the Oriental Orthodox have never, as far as my studies show, baptised Byzantines when they became Orthodox.

An ecclesiology that doesn't match the facts seems to me to be an obstacle to being the True Church not a means of furthering the will of God.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

It seems to me that ROCOR separated from canonical Orthodoxy for entirely doctrinal reasons.

Hi Peter,

I'm a little curious as to how you reached this conclusion. The separation of the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate was due to the stranglehold militant atheists had over the latter.

It was not a doctrinal separation at all as far as I'm aware.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

I wonder then what the heresy of Sergianism is then? Since this is what the MP has routinely been accused of over the last decades and even to the present.

A quick google on that term will probably show clearly that the MP has been accused of heresy by ROCOR/ROCIE/ROCA members. I have been on the internet since 1992 and regularly found the MP accused of heresy.

Peter

[Ty Pearson]

Dear All,
The problem with characterizing Protestants as standing in doctrinal opposition to the apostolic traditions is that while this is historically true it is not always the case regarding specific Protestant Christians. An ironic benefit of our historical amnesia is that no matter how often we espouse scriptura sola we end up leaning on the orthodox traditions in our doctrine (most Protestants embrace the idea of the Trinity, for example, or Christ's dual nature). Millions of us strive for orthodoxy in doctrine and many thousands have been martyred for our beliefs.

I realize the Orthodox tradition cannot acknowledge the Protestant churches to be part of the Church and I respect this, I see the logic there. Nevertheless, we did not leave the historic Church but were born outside of it and yet find ourselves in traditions that affirm the orthodox teachings of the Church as established in the seven Ecumenical Councils.

In the grief and confusion of this situation is seen the value of the WCC. Its existence (not necessarily avery affirmation associated with it) expresses an energy toward Christ's prayer for unity as well as the unifying energy of the Holy Spirit. I have been nourished by the documents coming from the WCC (which are suprisingly orthodox by the way) and what they represent: the fellowship and recognition of historically aware Protestants by Orthodox Churches. No, this has not caused me to turn to Orthodoxy, but it has influenced me to attend last years Pascha service at a small Antiochene Orthodox Church here in Tennessee, so there are fruits at the grass-roots level. I would ask your patience with the WCC or, if that venue to fellowship is one day not viable, your continued commitment to ecumenical conversation.

Peace in Christ,
Tyler

[Ty Pearson]

On that last post I was responding to post # 20 of this thread which reads:



The point must be made that many of these "splits" in the various Orthodox groups Peter mentioned are largely administrative/political, not doctrinal, and cannot be compared to a true schism as occurred between Rome and the East, or Rome and the Protestants.

The dialogue preceding this post led to my encouragement for patience with the WCC. Sorry about any confusion- Tyler

[Scott Pierson]

You have made some really thought provoking points again ... given me something to think about.

As I said above though If the Saints of my Church claim a certain sect is outside the pale of the Church I trust them. I'm sure you’re aware that many of the OO saints and fathers have labeled the EO church schismatic and heretical (and outside the Church) I would assume you adhere to their teaching ? Well, the Saints of my Church have done the same and I have no reason to disagree with them. I don’t see any reason to set myself up as a greater expert on the subject then the vast numbers of saints and fathers who have made their view on the subject very clear.

I will readily admit though that I don’t know all the complexities of Ecclesiology and there are some gray areas. That doesn’t however make every Church or sect , etc fall into some gray area. Some things are fairly obvious.

[Scott Pierson]

but it has influenced me to attend last years Pascha service at a small Antiochene Orthodox Church here in Tennessee, so there are fruits at the grass-roots level.

Their are other ways to influence people to attend Orthodox Churches that are much more effectual. With the amount of effort , time and money invested you would think the Church would have more of a "payoff" then a few people visiting Orthodox Churches now and then. Certainly if that visit causes you to grow spiritualy or whatnot it would be a wonderful thing ( I dont mean to minimize it) but I cant help but thinking there are better things to invest the Churches manpower in that will show more fruit then what the WCC has so far.

[Antonios]

error in post

[Antonios]

2nd error in post

[Antonios]

three times a charm!

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Scott

I would have to say, and this is a personal point only, that I would consider it almost cult-like to ignore the statements of present day EO and merely repeat mantra like 'the Melkites are heretics'.

I could easily do this, but it seems to me to be a response that has nothing to do with faithfulness to the tradition and even more is not a Christian response.

I am quite sure that the Fathers were able to distinguish an heretical idea and see the dangers of allowing it to flourish. This was after all why Chalcedon was so strenuously rejected. But we do not live then, and the faith of the EO is clearly not that of Chalcedonian period un-modified. Indeed it has had to be clarified several times to exclude errors which were still able to perservere and claim the authority of Chalcedon.

I find it rather disturbing that any person would ignore what another states they believe and insist that they must believe something else entirely. That can't be right surely under any circumstances unless it is assumed the person is lying. Do you doubt all of the things that I and others have posted about our faith? Do you think we are not speaking the truth?

The Fathers were clear about heretical ideas, generally speaking, but they were less clear about who actually accepted these heretical ideas. The heresy of Nestorius is rejected firmly by me, but it also seems clear that most EO do not accept this heresy. Should I therefore continue to insist that you are a Nestorian?

That is surely plain crazy and doesn't seem to me personally to be at all Christian. I would love to be able to take a polemical attitude towards the EO, since that is the one that I generally have to deal with, but I cannot. It would not be right, whatever the circumstances and decisions of my Fathers. They are not infallible and their decisions are not applicable for all time.

There seem to be only two understandings of your post, and both sadden me.

Either you think that I am not telling the truth in what I have said all along, and therefore I am entirely an heretic as you believe.

or

Even though you can see that I believe the same as you about the substance of the latter councils you would prefer to consider me a heretic because you believe this means you are faithful to Orthodoxy.

Peter

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Antonios,

It is very hard for a traditional EO/OO to let go of their fathers' condemnations and trust what has been found in recent scholarly writings, basically because of the mistrust the scholars may have sometimes been receiving for questioning "too much." But is this not the point for the search for truth? I mean if EO's themselves treat the Bible as infallible, but not inerrant, what makes the Councils any different?

You also mentioned an assumption that there were "some Monophysites" in Egypt. Like Peter said, you seem to have not read history or historical records available to disprove your claim. In fact, there was no room in Egypt for such dogma, and was so clearly condemned, especially since Ephesus 475, the one I mentioned to you, which we hold to as ecumenical status.

In a way, therefore, we also contend that there were indeed "some Nestorians" that upheld Chalcedon not only as a victory for their own Christology, but a clear cut condemnation against "Alexandrian/Cyrillian" Christology. How then brother are we to get anywhere if you uphold a mentality that many of us used to uphold (and many still do)? For sure, many would find faults, magnify it 100x, and show how much the EO's are "not Orthodox" for their non-rejection of a "Nestorian council" and a non-acceptance to Ephesus 449 and 475. It was also be expected thus, that by such close-minded methods that to be an Orthodox Christian, you would have to accept both those Ephesine councils.

Or, you can consider how much God saw to it that the Orthodox faith was truly preserved in both churches, regardless of human weaknesses. To me, it seems that EO's uphold to Councils and Chalcedonian fathers no differently than how Roman Catholics uphold the infallibility and Petrine supremacy of the Pope. For then if one bases the "rock of the Church" on a bunch of men (whether it be the Synods for the EO's or the Pope for the RC's), then truly Christ's promise that Satan shall not prevail against Her gates was not kept.

Unless then, you're willing to concede that either our Church or your Church is the One True Church under Her councils, to which I can share with you some of the polemical "offences" against Chalcedon, but to which I wish I cannot regress back to, and would seriously ask you to reconsider and do the research yourself.

I do not mean to be blunt or rude, but rather straightforward and clear, and I hope my clarity is not taken in a negative light.

I think if anything, maybe one should open a new thread to discuss the Orthodox of Ephesus 449, and see where we can go from there, as well as another thread to show the "issues" OO has (or had) on Chalcedon.

God bless.

Mina

[Scott Pierson]

If I have to choose between trusting modern "scholars" or the Fathers on an issue regarding faith, dogma, heresy, and things of that nature I will choose the fathers 100% of the time. The dogmas and teachings of the faith are not created via rational inquirery and scholarly investigation. If they were, they could be right or they could be wrong.. they would be nothing more then opinion and of a merely human nature. You don’t find spiritual truth through debate, logic, interfaith dialogue or philosophical investigation. The dogma, the ecumenical councils, liturgy and patristic consensus is of a divine origin and can not be subjected to rational critique. The fathers have an illumined mind and posses supra-rational gnosis I don’t know if I can say the same of those who are involved in the WCC dialogue who disagree with the views of the fathers.

[Scott Pierson]

Is there a point here I am not grasping?
I dimly discern two views through the fog of discourse:
- on the one hand a desire to hold the pearl of great price close to one's heart in order to prevent its pollution;
- on the other, a desire to show it to the world that people might begin to approach it and see what is missing in their own worship.

I wouldnt agree with that. I think both sides want to show the faith to the world and help people to approach it they just have differing ways of doing so. I simply want it to be expressed to the world in the manner the Church has traditionaly done so and not through the means of the WCC or modern eccuemenism. Some of the greatest Orthodox evangelists have been opposed to much of what takes place under the banner of eccumenism. The fact that one values the teachings of the fathers on the OO for example doesnt prevent one from shairing the faith with others.

[John Charmley]

There seem to be only two understandings of your post, and both sadden me.

Either you think that I am not telling the truth in what I have said all along, and therefore I am entirely an heretic as you believe.

or

Even though you can see that I believe the same as you about the substance of the latter councils you would prefer to consider me a heretic because you believe this means you are faithful to Orthodoxy.

Peter

Dear Peter,
You pose the question in its starkest form. Scott will answer for himself, but I don't discern in his posts a positive desire to take up either of the positions you mention; however, the question, as I understand it, is whether he is implicitly taking up such a position; is that so?

Reading the 'Orthodox Christian information center' I see that there are those who still take up the positions you mention. I was struck by this article:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx
and wondered what view our Eastern Orthodox bretheren take on these things?

I am particularly struck by the lines:

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There have certainly been echoes of this at times in the EO/OO thread, and perhaps those of us who are not EO need to be sensitive to this view? What do our EO brothers and sisters think? It would be good to hear from you on this one.

Perhaps 'Ecumenism' is so shot through with implications of diluting the Faith through some form of syncretism that for some people it raises more hackles than hopes.

Is there a point here I am not grasping?
I dimly discern two views through the fog of discourse:
- on the one hand a desire to hold the pearl of great price close to one's heart in order to prevent its pollution;
- on the other, a desire to show it to the world that people might begin to approach it and see what is missing in their own worship.

Is there anything in this?

Permeated as I no doubt am with decades of Anglicanism, it makes me sad to see Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians still divided. I have more or less given up hope that I will find an understanding of what Matthew calls the 'hard doctrinal differences' that still remain, but if ecumenism provides a forum for doing that, and then trying to move forward, it won't be all bad.

As it happens, I have as little time for some of the activities of the WCC as some others on this site, but away from the syncretic ambitions, it may do some good.

I should be interested to hear if anyone can enlighten me on some of the issues in this post; I get there, but too slowly!

In Christ,

John

[Antonios]

There seem to be only two understandings of your post, and both sadden me.

Either you think that I am not telling the truth in what I have said all along, and therefore I am entirely an heretic as you believe.

or

Even though you can see that I believe the same as you about the substance of the latter councils you would prefer to consider me a heretic because you believe this means you are faithful to Orthodoxy.


Although this may be your understanding, Peter, and yours, John, I don't think it is so black and white.

I think we can all agree you think you are telling the truth as you see it. No one is doubting your steadfast belief. You have demonstrated it often in this forum.

What makes you un-Orthodox (from the EO standpoint), is that you do not accept the councils. These councils define the faith of the Church. It is an oxymoron to say that you accept the substance of the councils but not the councils. It is the faith of the councils which one should accept or not. If you do not accept the faith of the councils, than you do not accept the councils. In turn, if you accept the faith of the councils, than you accept the councils. I think, fundamentally, this is the stumbling block between re-union. I dont think the EO Church would expect anything less than acceptance of the councils. Plain and simple. Is it pride? I don't know. The EO would say it is defense of the truth. I think, in my opinion, it is creates more of a stumbling block to sit there and say 'we accept the substance' but refuse to accept the council, knowing the weight such councils hold in the EO Church.

While semantics may have played a role in the schism, I think it is foolish to suggest that was the only difference, that, in fact, there were no hard-core Monophysites in Egypt and elsewhere at the time. Can you really believe the Church would be divided so easily over semantics? We, as EO, submit in humilty to the Councils and the God-bearing Fathers of the Church who defended the truth during Christianity's first schism with the Monophysites. And, still, we submit to the councils. This, my friend, is Orthodoxy, and is similar to how your own Church submits to its own councils.

[John Charmley]

What makes you un-Orthodox (from the EO standpoint), is that you do not accept the councils. These councils define the faith of the Church. It is an oxymoron to say that you accept the substance of the councils but not the councils. It is the faith of the councils which one should accept or not. If you do not accept the faith of the councils, than you do not accept the councils. In turn, if you accept the faith of the councils, than you accept the councils. I think, fundamentally, this is the stumbling block between re-union. I dont think the EO Church would expect anything less than acceptance of the councils. Plain and simple. Is it pride? I don't know. The EO would say it is defense of the truth. I think, in my opinion, it is creates more of a stumbling block to sit there and say 'we accept the substance' but refuse to accept the council, knowing the weight such councils hold in the EO Church.

While semantics may have played a role in the schism, I think it is foolish to suggest that was the only difference, that, in fact, there were no hard-core Monophysites in Egypt and elsewhere at the time. Can you really believe the Church would be divided so easily over semantics? We, as EO, submit in humilty to the Councils and the God-bearing Fathers of the Church who defended the truth during Christianity's first schism with the Monophysites. And, still, we submit to the councils. This, my friend, is Orthodoxy, and is similar to how your own Church submits to its own councils.

Dear Antonios,

No doubt Peter will answer these points in his own way, but as my last post on this theme suggested, I remain a trifle puzzled.

How many of these Councils would one be required to accept? It seems to me that some Orthodox say 7 and others have a higher figure. Have I misunderstood this? If I haven't, then how many of these Councils are ecumenical?

I am sure that at the time of Chalcedon there were hard-core Monophysites and hard-core Nestorians on both sides of the divide, as well as just about every position possible in between. It seems equally likely that there were real misunderstandings on both sides. I am unsure whether going over Chalcedon and its aftermath once more will be a fruitful excercise - unless, that is, it leads to you or another of our EO brothers telling us what the
genuine issues of true doctrinal divisionactually are.

My previous post suggested that we were not, perhaps, quite understanding where you might be coming from, and it would be helpful if you, or another, can guide us on this. I really am anxious to know what those 'genuine issues' are.

Here you say it is the issue of acceptance of the Councils. Well, Peter has posed the question of what it means to 'accept' the Councils, and that could still use a bit of teasing out. He seems to me to have shown in his posts that there is nothing in the substance of the teaching of the Councils which is unacceptable to the Coptic teaching.

This brings us back to that old vexed question of what constitutes an Ecumenical Council? I have no doubt Peter will have views on that one.

But here I shall confine myself to reiterating the questions I asked in my last post, in the hope that enlightenment will follow.

As an Anglican, I have even more Councils, and the RCs have yet a superabundance of the same, which they think the EO ought to accept before they can come out of Schism. Of course, no one who anyone else thinks is in schism agrees, because if they do, they convert.

There are times it all seems a little sad. I am reminded of something St. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians:

Stand firm, (Eph. 6:14) then, in these things and follow the example of the Lord, strong in the faith and immovable, affectionate to the brotherhood, devoted to one another, united in the truth, serving one another with the gentleness of the Lord, despising no man. When you can do good, do not delay, 'because alms deliver from death' (tob. 4:11). 'All of you be subject to one another' (1 Pet. 5:5), 'maintaining your conduct among the Gentiles irreproachable' (1 Pet. 2:12), so that by your good works you may receive praise, and the Lord may also not be blasphemed because of you. But woe to him through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed. Therefore teach all men the sobriety in which you also walk.

Sound fellow, St. Polycarp, not sure I keep up with him, but he helps me remain anchored where I should be. I wonder whether our conduct is 'irreproachable' in the eyes of the 'Gentiles', or whether they can say: 'See, how they love each other'?

In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

If you do not accept the faith of the councils, than you do not accept the councils. In turn, if you accept the faith of the councils, than you accept the councils.

Hi Antonios

This is the point I am trying to make, and have been for some days and even weeks.

I have described here extensively what I believe in relation to the points covered by the latter councils. I will do so again if required.

I will ask you since you are being helpful...

In what way is the faith I have described as my own and that of my Orthodox Church different to the 'faith of the Councils'?

You have said very clearly, and I thank you, that if the faith is accepted then this is the same as accepting the councils and if the faith is rejected this is the same as rejecting the councils.

So please point out in which points the faith I have described can be considered to reject the faith of the latter councils.

I will indicate briefly again what our Orthodox Faith is:

i. Christ is perfect God and perfect man.
ii. His humanity is complete and is consubstantial with out humanity save sin.
iii. His humanity has natural will and energy.
iv. The union of humanity and divinity has diminished or changed neither.
v. The union takes place without division , separation, confusion or mixture.
vi. The Three Chapters are rejected as heretical.
vii. As I have indicated, the humanity of Christ has natural will and energy and the union is as described in the Definition of the 6th council.
viii. The use of icons in education of the faithful and as a means of venerating those depicted is entirely Orthodox and indicates that Christ is truly God incarnate.

As far as I can see this does cover the issues raised in all the latter councils.

Now you very clearly state that to accept the faith of the councils is to be considered as 'accepting the council' so please point out where any of these points are defective or where I have missed some important point out.

Otherwise it seems to me that I do 'accept the faith of the councils' and therefore by your own argument 'accept the councils'.

As to the issue of monophysites in Egypt. I do not expect you to have studied as much as I on this topic but it is very clear that there were very few and these were excommunicated whenever and wherever they identified themselves. I have plenty of documentary evidence from the first years after Chalcedon to show that monophysitism was not accepted as an Orthodox teaching. Neither was Eutyches ever an Orthodox Father, indeed once it was clear that he had made a rather feigned confession of Orthodoxy he was entirely repudiated.

I do thank you for clarifying what 'accepting the councils' means and look forward to your comments on my description of our Orthodox Faith which seems to me to entirely be an 'acceptance of the faith of the councils'.

Best wishes

Peter

[Antonios]

(This is a duplicate of a post I wrote earlier which was added in out of order. Sorry about the repetition. I just want to ensure my OO friends they recieve the post)

Dear Peter and John,

I think I must first give my own personal opinion, for whatever it's worth (most likely, not much!). I would have all Christians united. If it were up to me, which of course it isn't, I would that all people would come to the Truth, as our Lord said. I would love all of us to be united under the same roof, singing praises to our God, and sharing from the same Cup of Life. In fact, I, in my insignificant understanding compared to the Wisdom of God, hope all are saved in the end, the devil included with all his demons! Yes, this has been deemed to be heresy, and I submit to those much more enlightened than me to correct me in such false hope. I must accept my limitations and bow to the mysteries of God.

I pray the EO and the OO fulfill the charge to be 'one Church'. I agree with you that we believe in the same Trinity, the same Jesus Christ, and I am in awe of the Providence of God which has seen to it that it is this way.

I think you understand, as a fellow Orthodox Christian, how much we value councils as part of the life of the Church. They define our beliefs. They defend our faith. They steer the children of God into the Truth. The EO has seven of the councils which are regarded as the basis of our faith. These act as pillars to the entire structure of the Church. It has been this way for centuries.

In the instance where the OO state they have the same beliefs (which I think you and your Church have demonstrated), and you state that you accept the faith of the councils, than we are very much in agreement on the most important and fundamental issues. The last issue that remains is the acceptance of the council, itself, which has recognized that same faith. I think we all sometimes underestimate what a turbulent time it must have been for Christendom during many of those councils, including Chaldean. They were councils of saintly men who were all sinners like us, but by the grace of the Holy Spirit and Divine Providence, the Truth always overcame such imperfections and inadequacies. Thus, even Chaldean, with its various controversies and weaknesses held true to who Christ is. This is the proof of the authority of these councils in the eyes of the EO. This is also what we hope our fellow brothers in Christ, the OO, also understand. That the authority of the council is the faith that it teaches. The council without the faith is meaningless. But the faith without the council is uncertain.

I guess, in conclusion, I plea and pray that the OO do accept the Seven Ecumenical councils fully, as authoratative and orthodox in the truest sense of the word, as we EO do and hold so dear to our hearts. I think this would make the greatest stride forward towards true unification and communion.

[John Charmley]

Dear Antonios,

There is much wisdom in what you say, and also much enlightenment. I'm glad you reposted this. The opinion of someone who thinks and writes as you do is always worth much.

Your statement

I pray the EO and the OO fulfill the charge to be 'one Church'. I agree with you that we believe in the same Trinity, the same Jesus Christ, and I am in awe of the Providence of God which has seen to it that it is this way.

expresses what I am sure many of us believe and hope for. How this will happen we can leave to the workings of the Holy Ghost - we must just try not to be obstacles! I think this thread, as with the others on this theme, show how far we have come.

I hope that much mutual enlightenment has come, and will come, this way.

God bless you.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

I pray the EO and the OO fulfill the charge to be 'one Church'. I agree with you that we believe in the same Trinity, the same Jesus Christ, and I am in awe of the Providence of God which has seen to it that it is this way.

I may be misunderstanding the meaning of this but it seems to imply that the Church can be one Church (if it fulfills the charge of Christ) or the Church can be split into two, three , or more "parts" or "branchs". If so wouldnt that imply a belief in the "Branch Theory " ? A theory the Orthodox involved in the WCC are constantly denying they adheare to but a theory their statements often support none the less.

[Scott Pierson]

The issue of the number of councils is an interesting one. Some EO state that their are 7 and others 9. All EO hold to the teachings of the 8th and 9th but there is debate on the issue of those councils being Eccumenical or merely local. This is what Orthodoxwiki says on the subject:


As far as some Orthodox are concerned, since the Seventh Ecumenical Council there has been no synod or council of the same scope as any of the Ecumenical councils. Local meetings of hierarchs have been called "pan-Orthodox," but these have invariably been simply meetings of local hierarchs of whatever Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions are party to a specific local matter. From this point of view, there has been no fully "pan-Orthodox" (Ecumenical) council since 787. Unfortunately, the use of the term "pan-Orthodox" is confusing to those not within Eastern Orthodoxy, and it leads to mistaken impressions that these are ersatz ecumenical councils rather than purely local councils to which nearby Orthodox hierarchs, regardless of jurisdiction, are invited.

Others, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils"), Fr. George Dragas, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (which refers explicitly to the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three), regard other synods beyond the Seventh Ecumenical Council as being ecumenical. Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia, part of the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy."**

** It would make sense that the latins would be less then happy with St Palamas and his teachings and would want to keep EO from holding the council that proclaimed the truth of his teaching as eccumenical.

[Mina Soliman]

If I have to choose between trusting modern "scholars" or the Fathers on an issue regarding faith, dogma, heresy, and things of that nature I will choose the fathers 100% of the time. The dogmas and teachings of the faith are not created via rational inquirery and scholarly investigation. If they were, they could be right or they could be wrong.. they would be nothing more then opinion and of a merely human nature. You don’t find spiritual truth through debate, logic, interfaith dialogue or philosophical investigation. The dogma, the ecumenical councils, liturgy and patristic consensus is of a divine origin and can not be subjected to rational critique. The fathers have an illumined mind and posses supra-rational gnosis I don’t know if I can say the same of those who are involved in the WCC dialogue who disagree with the views of the fathers.

Dear Scott,

If I believe that my own fathers have some amazing Gnosis that I cannot attain and they believe that your fathers were Nestorians, would you start to say that our fathers were wrong? But how can I trust you, a Nestorian, over my own Orthodox fathers?

God bless.

Mina

[Mina Soliman]

I may be misunderstanding the meaning of this but it seems to imply that the Church can be one Church (if it fulfills the charge of Christ) or the Church can be split into two, three , or more "parts" or "branchs". If so wouldnt that imply a belief in the "Branch Theory " ? A theory the Orthodox involved in the WCC are constantly denying they adheare to but a theory their statements often support none the less.

If you think that a Church united based on faith, but not on men a "Branch Theory," then this is no different than a Roman Catholic uniting based on the faith of a Petrine Papalist.

I totally contend that the WCC has NOTHING to do with the EO/OO talks, and how both found out about one another as speaking no difference in the essence of faith. I urge you, if not believing the scholars themselves, to believe the writings of our own fathers themselves.

God bless.

Mina

[Scott Pierson]

If I believe that my own fathers have some amazing Gnosis that I cannot attain and they believe that your fathers were Nestorians, would you start to say that our fathers were wrong? But how can I trust you, a Nestorian, over my own Orthodox fathers?

Yes I would claim that they are wrong. I have faith in the mind of the Church as expressed in the consensus of the fathers. I consider this faith to be well placed for a varity of reasons ( including the power of Orthodoxy to change lives, my own spiritual intutution, the sanctity of the EO fathers, etc...) Just as I have faith that God exists for example. No amount of "rational" debate or "proof" will change my mind on that. In other words I believe my religion and what it teaches from the mind of the Church as expressed by the fathers . Am i wrong for that? Your certainly free to think so but If I'm going to be Orthodox I might as well adhere to orthodoxy. Maybe having faith is just silly ?

I'm not saying its impossible for you (or anyone else for that matter )to attain to the same gnosis. I just have good reason to believe that the fathers have attained to it, and I have no reason to assume that others have if they dont produce the same fruits of sanctity, right doctrine, etc . With the saints we have assurance, with others it takes discernment to tell if they really "have it " . The vast majority of men do not attain to that level this side of the grave.

When we start to critique the teachings of the fathers (of which we have over a thousand years of consesus on the issue of the OO** ) we start to descend into protestantism. Nothing is firm and write in stone, everything is up for debate and each person considers themselves worthy to formulate their own unique teachings and reject what the Church has previously taught.

** I have yet to find an example of a saint who stated something to the effect of " people who call the OO outside the Church , schismatic or heretical are guilty of showing improper love and.... etc " . You would think, that given the prevelence of the view (that they are heretical )held by saints, bishops , lay man and monks for such a long period of time and the needless suffering the schism would have caused that at least a few of the saints would have questioned or challenged it if it was really wrong.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Scott

I must admit to finding your view point rather problematic since you are saying that it does not matter at all what I believe you will always consider me to believe what your Fathers say I believe.

So when I say that I believe that Christ is fully God and fully man you will actually ignore that and say that I believe that the humanity in Christ is not real?

I am really surprised that you cannot see the difficulties in such a viewpoint, just from the basic level of Christian living. This isn't a matter of abstruse theory, you seem to be actually saying that you will not listen to what I/we believe you will go with what someone else says I/we believe.

If that is required of Eastern Orthodox then that is hugely problematic for me. Even when I discuss with Assyrians I absolutely want to know what they really believe. When I talk with Roman Catholics I want to know what they believe. Anything else is surely less than Christian? To impose a belief structure on someone against their absolute objection? That is just counter to any sort of logic.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

Its certainly possible that some current OO do not believe the same way as their fathers and saints and therefore do have a view that is the same as the Church. If so they can join the EO Church via the normal means if they want to be in communion with it.. I dont think however that EO should claim that error has entered into the mind of the Church. I dont think we should change our ecclesiology to allow for "branchs" or the idea that the Church isnt one. Thats all. And the fact that a religious body merely posses proper belief doesnt make it the Church. There are all sorts of strange churches that use the title "Orthodox" and teach orthodox doctrine but were started by (for example) lay men who promoted themselves to bishop, or people who fled the discipline of EO hiearchs** , etc.. in other words its possible to be in schism while having correct beliefs and even if some of the current OO have changed and are now orthodox in belief that doesnt make the OO "part" of the Church.

Heck if the OO ever state as a body " We officaly accept and place ourselves under the authority of all the Eccumenical councils held by the EO" then I will have no problem with the idea that the OO are possible orthodox in belief as a body ( of course that wont make them the Church ).

** Yes I know those specific examples are not what happend with OO I'm just proving a point as to belief not being the only requirment for being the Church.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

Well its not 'some current OO' it is the Holy Synods of all the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and their bishops and priests and people.

In fact I have spent 12 years studying the OO tradition and can find no evidence whatsoever that what I am taught now by my bishops is any different to what has always been taught. Were that the case I would in fact be holding my bishops to account.

You refer again to the councils. Can you answer the question I posed elsewhere about the 5th Council. This council condemned the Three Chapters which had already been condemned in 449. There is no possibility at all of the Three Chapters ever being received by the Oriental Orthodox. Indeed for 100 years after Chalcedon, while Chalcedonians were accepting the Three Chapters as Orthodox the anti-Chalcedonians were still rejecting them as heretical.

In what way could any honest and objective person say that the position of the 5th council is rejected by the OO? We took this position 100 years before the Byzantine Church did after all! Do you consider that the OO reject the teaching of the 5th council?

I am proud to believe the same as all of my Fathers. Have you found anything in my regular explanations of my faith which you dispute? I would be pleased to clarify anything that is ambiguous.

Could you also clarify, am I now a schismatic but not a heretic? If I am a heretic then again could you point out where my faith is wrong? If I am a schismatic then are you agreeing that you can find nothing in my faith which is un-Orthodox.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I am proud to believe the same as all of my Fathers. Have you found anything in my regular explanations of my faith which you dispute? I would be pleased to clarify anything that is ambiguous.[/QUOTE

For one your fathers taught that the OO Church was the one holy catholic and apostolic Church and that the EO was a heretical and schismatic sect. Something I dont see you as upholding I may be wrong though.

[QUOTE]Could you also clarify, am I now a schismatic but not a heretic? If I am a heretic then again could you point out where my faith is wrong? If I am a schismatic then are you agreeing that you can find nothing in my faith which is un-Orthodox.

I'm not sure if you personally are a heretic. I'm not making that claim. I do know what the God bearing fathers have said about the OO Church and the OO saints have stated about the EO Church though and I consider the EO fathers to be not only rational and loving people but also possesed of a God illumined mind. I also think the OO fathers were smart enough to know if someone else was disagreeing with them or not or if an issue was purely a matter of cultural differnces or such. If this current view is correct (that we have believed the same all along) then that doesnt really reflect well on the fathers or our respective churches.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

You haven's answered my question about the 5th council. Will you have a go.

Since the OO have always rejected the Three Chapters and there is no possible situation in which they would ever accept them, and since the Chalcedonians considered them as Orthodox for 100 years, in what sense do the OO reject the 5th council?

The Fathers of the OO did not think in terms of the EO being required to submit to the OO, they thought, as far as all the primary documentation I have shows, only in terms of wishing unity in the truth. This is why they made it easy for Chalcedonians to become Orthodox. They only had to reject heresy by a confession of faith. Even clergy were received in their orders and allowed to minister after a period of probation.

The Chalcedonians were considered to have allowed Nestorianism in by the back door, and the fact the half the Chalcedonian community supported the Three Chapters for over 100 years is telling in that regard, but they also understood that in general the Chalcedonians were Orthodox.

Some of the harsher comments were due to the fact that the Chalcedonians did try to wipe the anti-Chalcedonians off the face of the earth by force. Perhaps a hundred thousand bishops, priests, laity, men, women and children were killed by the Chalcedonian forces because they rejected Chalcedon as having let Nestorianism into the Church.

If you read the comments in that context they are understandable I guess. But the measured opinion of the Fathers is that which I express, that the EO was Orthodox but in error in some regards and needed to free itself of that error.

Some of our great Fathers, writing from difficult imprisonment by the Chalcedonian forces far away from home and likely to be killed at any time still speak eirenically and for 1500 years the Church has always received converts from the Chalcedonians by confession.

Personally I think that you are unwilling to be reflective about your own communion and confuse such reflection with being disloyal to your Fathers and your Church. For myself I do not believe that any of our Fathers, if they are saints, are wishing anything other than that this scandal be repaired. We did not live in the past, we cannot easily put ourselves into the past, to think critically is not to condemn. But we are responsible for the now. And if you say that you believe the same as I do about Christ and I curse you with an anathema then shame on me. Christ Himself can work out who is in His Church and who is not, but a plain confession of the truth about Christ cannot be ignored.

The past may not reflect well on our Fathers, but the present is in our hands. To perpetuate division between those who believe the same, even if it is, as you describe it, 'mere belief', seems to me to be a grave sin against the Holy Spirit. I think, as a nobody in the Church, that I would rather stand before the judgement having tried all I could to bring about the reconciliation of all those who believe the same about Christ, and yet have myself made mistakes, than not try at all and remain certain that any division between those who believe the same is entirely every one else's fault.

Peter

[John Charmley]

the fact that a religious body merely posses proper belief doesnt make it the Church.

What does it make it then?

Of course, if one starts and finishes from the position that the EO is the Church and unless you are in the EO, even if you possess 'proper belief' you are not in the EO, that would be logical; it would also preclude dialogue.

There are those who don't want to talk to anyone else, and don't much want to think about what anyone else says, because they are convinced that they are THE Church. I know Roman Catholics like this; I know Baptists like this; I know Plymouth Bretheren like this. Most of these good people were born into their faith, and most of them believe they are being true to the teachings of their Fathers and their traditions, just as Scott does. They are all, as I am sure Scott is, God-fearing, good men and women who do a great deal of good in the world. Unlike Scott, they have not been exposed to Orthodoxy, so they do not possess 'proper belief'; but clearly, by Scott's dictum, even if they did, they would not belong to the Church, would not be Orthodox, and if there is no salvation outside the Church, then they might not be saved.

I am glad that we are told that God is love, and that His compassion is infinite, and that He desires not the death of sinners, but that they should repent and be saved. It would, after all, be rather terrible for one in Scott's position if it turned out that his 'proper belief' was not enough because it transpired that Chalcedon was Nestorian, and therefore the EO were not 'the' Church. Then he too would be grateful that Our Lord shows more compassion and more understanding than some of His creation.

Of course Scott profoundly and deeply holds to his faith, so do my friends, so where does that leave us in this fractured world? If we follow Scott's logic, not talking to each other and, rather pridefully, I fear, waiting for everyone to realise and admit that the EO are the Church - even when the EO does nothing to reach out to them, and even when some of its people reject possible converts because of their ethnicity? Doesn't sound much like the work of the Holy Ghost to me.

None of this is to argue for syncretism, but it is to say that it is only by recognising the fragments of 'proper belief' in other Christian demoninations, and then working with them in dialogue, that the fragments will be gathered together. It will be the work of ages, but it won't even get to first base if any Christian refuses to accept the bona fides of those who also confess the name of Christ.

Obvioulsy that isn't enough by itself, but if we don't recognise it is a start, and that those who are Orthodox can work with it to bring those who are not to a realisation of the fulness of the Christian life in Orthodoxy, then are we not failing in the commission we were given by Our Founder?

I respect and admire the depth of Scott's faith - but his methodology is one that, literally, preaches to the converted. I am glad St. Paul did not take that view.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

What does it make it then?

Having a certain belief does not make one a member of the Church by itself because Christianity is more then a belief. Satan believes in the Holy Trinity for example. There is also the matters of obediance to the Church (the EO Church of course), being baptised into the EO Church, being in communion with the Church etc....

I'm not saying that its impossible for those in other communions to have any relationship with God or to go to heaven when the die. I'm simply saying that their communions are not "The Church".

Yes I have (in this thread) taken as a presuposition that the EO Church is the true church but thats because this is an EO message board and I'm trying to comunicate with other EO my view that certain things that take place under the banner of eccumenism are not right.

If I'm preaching to those outside the Church with the idea in mind of bringing them into the EO Church I rarely ever even mention eccumenism or bring up the things i have here. I just tell them about the glories of the Church, her spirituality, artwork, worship, etc. I usually dont even mention other religions at all.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Scott

I think that you have a mistaken view of the word 'believe' and therefore of faith if you think that Satan believes in the Holy Trinity.

In Orthodoxy the nature of belief is much more than an academic assent to the reality of some proposition but has to do with putting one's trust in the object of belief.

When we believe in the Holy Trinity we do not merely agree with a philosophical argument or proposition, but we put our trust in the Holy Spirit. And when we have faith in Christ we do not merely accept that He exists and may have become man, but we trust Him for our life and salvation.

Satan 'knows' that God exists but He does not 'know' God in the way that even the weakest of sinners knows God and is known by Him.

Therefore I think that your concept of 'merely believing' is false because you are making it a matter of merely agreeing with some propositions or facts. This is not Christian belief nor is it Christian faith. What your argument proposes is that those who have a living and vital faith in Christ and believe in God in the fullest sense, and describe their experience of God entirely in terms which we would call Orthodox, are in fact not formally Christian at all and certainly not members of the Church of Christ which is His body.

I am glad that you allow that it is not impossible that some of these people might find their way to heaven, but I think that I would always want to take a more joyful, positive and hopeful view of God's work in His world. I have to say that in fact your own description of your world view does have more in common with the Plymouth Brethren background I was glad to leave than it does with the Orthodoxy I have embraced.

If our faith is truly a matter of believing the right propositions then I can understand the sense of tension which seems to be present in these threads, but for me my faith is in the Persons of the Holy Trinity, not my understanding of the Holy Trinity, and I think this gives me a certain freedom to be more positive towards those of other communions who show by their lives a living faith in Christ.

Best wishes

Peter

[John Charmley]

Yes I have (in this thread) taken as a presuposition that the EO Church is the true church but thats because this is an EO message board and I'm trying to comunicate with other EO my view that certain things that take place under the banner of eccumenism are not right.

If I'm preaching to those outside the Church with the idea in mind of bringing them into the EO Church I rarely ever even mention eccumenism or bring up the things i have here. I just tell them about the glories of the Church, her spirituality, artwork, worship, etc. I usually dont even mention other religions at all.

Dear Scott,
Of course, and as I hope my last post indicated, no one could possibly argue that someone who was not an EO was; it is the presumption that the EO constitutes the sole repository of Christianity that is likely to be off-putting when talking to other Christians. The RC has the most wonderful artwork, spirituality, and once Pope Benedict has let the old Tridentine Mass back, it will again have a splendid liturgy; many RCs, indeed even some Anglicans, would probably agree that much of what passes for ecumenism is thinly-disguised syncretism, and as such disapprove of it as much as you do.

They can sit in their corner, you can sit in your corner, the Plymouth Bretheren can sit in yet another part of God's creation, and you can all rest assured that, according to the readings of your respective authorities and traditions, you are the sole pure repository of faith; no one would be able to argue any of you out of it, indeed, probably no one would much want to. In the meantime, the fractured and disordered world you have written so eloquently about elsewhere, remains as it is. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the powerful (and it is so powerful) pessimism you have expressed about this world?

When Peter writes:

If our faith is truly a matter of believing the right propositions then I can understand the sense of tension which seems to be present in these threads, but for me my faith is in the Persons of the Holy Trinity, not my understanding of the Holy Trinity, and I think this gives me a certain freedom to be more positive towards those of other communions who show by their lives a living faith in Christ

he has a powerful tool of evangelism. None of us can cast the first stone. We can know that Orthodoxy as we have received it and as we live it has provided us with a way of being in this world that gives us what we see as the fulness of the Faith. We cannot know exactly what being in another Christian denomination gives others, or how much (or how little) of the Orthodox teachings they have preserved; my own lot, for example, had preserved quite a lot - not enough as it stood, but enough for me to move towards a fuller experience of Orthodoxy. Simply to have said to a sinner such as myself, 'you must come to the Greek service, and you must accept that the Greek Orthodox have the fulness of the truth', before adding that, 'and by the way, since you aren't Greek, I suggest you go away', would have been neither helpful, nor charitable - and not particularly Christian, if I might say that.

If we accept that we are all made in the image of God, then it is up to us to find ways of working with other Christians in a way that convinces them, through the way we live and act, that the fulness of the Christian life is found in Orthodoxy.

Why must those of us who are uncomfortable with the WCC always be so defensive? Do we lack the faith to believe that through dialogue others may follow the path we are on? Why do we imagine that dialogue will result in Orthodoxy being sullied and diluted? The Ottomans didn't manage it; the Arab conquest of Egypt and the Middle East did not eliminate Orthodoxy; even the savage persecution of the Godless Communists did not achieve it. I don't see the WCC succeeding where that lot failed, although I am open to the argument that the 'softly softly' approach is quite as pernicious as active persecution - how could an exiting Anglican not be?

In Christ,


John

[Scott Pierson]

I think that you have a mistaken view of the word 'believe' and therefore of faith if you think that Satan believes in the Holy Trinity.

I know what your saying , that the word "believe" can go beyond its typical use in the english language now. I dont consider faith and believe to be exactly the same thing in general ussage though. In eccumenical dialogue people try to find out if people hold the same things as being true (ie believe). I dont think the eccumenist try to go beyond that and discover the hidden things of the heart ( ie the possesion of an illumined mind , gnosis , etc) they just want people to state things in a way that could logicaly be construed as the same to allow for uniting churches. So l was using the more limited definition of the word.

[Scott Pierson]

oops. My last post on "believe" wasnt really 100% correct. I think your criticism of that specific point has merit its just hard to admit when I'm wrong at times. I love to debate and be right its a problem i have.

[Scott Pierson]

They can sit in their corner, you can sit in your corner,

I dont advocate EO sitting in their corner and keeping their faith to themselves. I think EO should spread the faith to the whole world. Lack of support for eccumenism doesnt imply lack of support for evangelism.

[Peter Farrington]

I know what your saying , that the word "believe" can go beyond its typical use in the english language now. I dont consider faith and believe to be exactly the same thing in general usage though.

Hi Scott

I understand what you mean, and I sometimes drive past a Baptist Church that has a poster which says something like,

"Believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will be saved".

That seems to me to be the wrong sort of believing. But it is not universal by any means. When I was a Plymouth Brother I did not 'believe things about Jesus', I 'believed in Jesus' which meant I had a relationship of faith and trust with Him.

My devout and orthodox catholic (small letters) Anglican priest contacts and friends do not 'believe things about Jesus' they also 'believe in Jesus'.

I think that your point is valid but unfairly directed at anyone who is not Eastern Orthodox.

In fact I have found over the last 12 years that by far the greatest number of people I have corresponded with who take the view of 'believing about things' are Eastern Orthodox. I have met countless EO who insist I 'accept the 7 councils' while not having a clue what they teach. The scholastic and merely linguistic approach seems to me to be alive and well in the EO I have known.

Indeed the phrase 'accept the 7 councils' seems to me in practice and in my experience, so you may have a different view, to be exactly the same as 'accept the Lord Jesus' and often just as empty of real spiritual meaning.

If the EO really wanted to go beyond what you condemn as the failings of ecumenists, I mean the focus only on words, then there would be a real desire to find the inner meaning and value of various terminologies. I don't find this widely present in EOxy. Rather I find that the idea that if only the words 'I accept the 7 councils' is used then all would be well. This is the same as 'praying a little prayer' at the end of a Gospel service. It doesn't necessarily guarantee anything at all.

I am glad to have found real faith nearly everywhere I have looked. (And this is while agreeing that there are those who are not Christian at all who use that name). Once again I am afraid I don't recognise the more negative picture you paint. The faith may be defective but I have met it in too many places to believe it is a matter of words only.

I was sitting with Anglicans and Roman Catholics a few weeks ago at an RC-OO conference. The fellowship we had was a real one in Christ, and the faith that was being lived out and expressed was a real one, not in words and concepts, but in Christ

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

The faith may be defective but I have met it in too many places to believe it is a matter of words only.


I apologize if what I said implied that "its only a matter of words" outside the Church. I know that isnt true. I myself have sincerly had faith in a varity of things prior to becoming Orthodox so I know its untrue from personal experience. Many non Orthodox are perfectly sincere in their views. I was just trying to point out that (often at least) I see the eccumenists as focusing only on words with the intent of pacifiying the more traditional orthodox by saying "see they say the same words as us so their church must also be the one (?!) holy catholic and apostolic Church." or "a branch / part of the one...." (all the while claiming they dont adheare to the branch theory.).

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Scott

It did come over a bit like that, though there is no need to apologise, your clarification is more important.

I would like to know who these 'ecumenists' are that you keep posting about however.

I do not believe that any of those involved in the dialogue between the EO and OO are 'ecumenists' in the sense you are implying. Nor did the RC and Anglicans I met with a while ago seem to be 'ecumenists'. Nor indeed all of the EO bishops, priests and lay folk I met with last year in Sweden at an EO-OO conference.

All have seemed to be folk who have a genuine faith in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ and find the same faith in others and are working and praying to see how reconciliation of those who love the same Lord might be possible.

I do of course know that there are liberal modernist ecumenists who don't believe about the same things as I do and quite possible might not believe in the same Christ that I do. But I have never been in a position of substantial dialogue with any of those,a nd I believe it to be a complete straw man to suggest that any substantive dialogue is being undertaken by any Orthodox with such folk.

Indeed dialogue is impossible with such folk, just as they would say that dialogue was impossible with Orthodox.

So I am a little confused why you keep speaking about 'ecumenists'?

My own bishop is, I am sure, willing to talk about the faith with any serious body, as long as it is useful. But that does not make him an ecumenist. I am willing to talk with you, that does not make me an ecumenist.

So I don't really see what you are getting it. It seems, to be honest, to be a straw man argument and even a vague term of abuse that can be mentioned like a bogey-man.

I don't adhere to the 'branch theory'. I don't think that the EO is a branch of the Church. But let me follow your argument for a moment.

I would have to say...

It sounds like you believe the Orthodox Faith, but you obviously don't. You obviously believe in two Sons. You are obviously a heretic and your hierarchy has no grace. I will in fact need to warn everyone I meet that despite the fact that you say you reject Nestorius you really venerate him. Indeed you are all the more dangerous because you look like the Church but really you are not any part of the Church at all.

This is the logic of your argument.

And the part I find most difficult is that if I DO say that in fact it is a thing to be grateful to God for that in fact you have preserved the same faith then you would want to accuse me of the 'branch theory', another vague heresy that can be dropped into conversations like 'ecumenist'.

So I cannot even be glad to discover that you have preserved the faith. Not only must I ignore the evidence of my eyes and accuse you of heresy, I must also repudiate the grace of God which has preserved the faith among you.

I'm sorry. I don't want to be like that. I don't believe it is Orthodox or even Christian.

I may be an 'ecumenist', and even a 'branch theoretician' in your eyes, but I will not deny what is obvious of the EO and refuse to give thanks for the preservation of Orthodoxy among the EO. If your ecclesiology prevents you doing the same then I am bound to the personal opinion that it is your ecclesiology which is defective and leaves no room at all for the activity of God.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I would like to know who these 'ecumenists' are that you keep posting about however.

I guess at times I have used the word in differnt manners. generally it can mean those who are involved in and support interfaith dialogue with other communions with the intent of joining the two together into a single communion. That in and of itself I dont necesarily have any problems with if they go about it in a way that makes plain and obvious that the EO Church is the one true Church and that those bodies not in communion with it are not. For example if while talking to another communion they state "we are the true Church and we wish you to end your schism (and/ or heresy whatever the case may be) and come back home.. etc..." . I wouldnt have any problem with that. But when they act as if both sides have equal right to claim the title "The Church" or act as if other denominations are on the same level and that we need to question and reject certain of our own teachings then I say forget it.

[Mina Soliman]

I guess at times I have used the word in differnt manners. generally it can mean those who are involved in and support interfaith dialogue with other communions with the intent of joining the two together into a single communion. That in and of itself I dont necesarily have any problems with if they go about it in a way that makes plain and obvious that the EO Church is the one true Church and that those bodies not in communion with it are not. For example if while talking to another communion they state "we are the true Church and we wish you to end your schism (and/ or heresy whatever the case may be) and come back home.. etc..." . I wouldnt have any problem with that. But when they act as if both sides have equal right to claim the title "The Church" or act as if other denominations are on the same level and that we need to question and reject certain of our own teachings then I say forget it.

Well, Scott, here's the crazy part. It did start out that way. No one wanted to believe that the other was Orthodox. It's like a Protestant who never thought that the Apostles prayed liturgically, until they read the verb "litourgia." So, ya, they did EACH say "We believe that we are the One True Church" and then ended up saying "Well, that's weird. So Dioscorus and Leo was Orthodox after all; and Ephesus 449 was indeed Orthodox after all; and that Ephesus 475, that's the first time I heard of that one; and gee wiz, that Severus...he's sounds Chalcedonian to me, but I thought we condemned him...hmmmmm"

God bless.

Mina

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

This thread, which is about 'Orthodox approaches to ecumenism' in a broad sense, seems to be alternating between that general topic, and the more specific question of ecumenical relations between the Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox communions. It hasn't 'settled' on either -- as I say, it is alternating back and forth between the two.

I would encourage all conversation on the latter topic to be carried on in the Eastern Orthodoxy / Oriental Orthodoxy area (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=365), reserving the present thread for conversation on Orthodox approaches to ecumenism as a broad issue. Not that the two matters don't overlap; but they are distinct. And part of the reason for having a dedicated EO/OO area is so that such discussion doesn't become the backdrop of threads all across the forum.

Many thanks to all.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

A point well made, and I am sure, taken.

However, perhaps the direction taken by this thread has something of a message for us if we will read it.

On one level there is a more or less general dislike of something called 'ecumenism', which is represented by the WCC and is seen to represent syncretic trends which are thought to be inimical to Orthodoxy. The argument being made from this position appears to be that the Orthodox should have little or nothing to do with such an organization on the 'who touches pitch is defiled' line of thought.

At another level the argument came to focus on whether the wider phenomenon of ecumenism, or even its narrower institutionalized setting, was quite the bad thing it was made out to be. It was from this source that the discussion began to focus on EO/OO, with the argument being that ecumenism had helped create a climate in which EO and OO could discuss things rather than hurl anathemata.

One interesting thing to come out of this last theme is that many of us seem to think there is a qualitative difference here in so far as the EO and OO have more in common than other Christians; in particular a belief in Orthodoxy as a transforming way of life that must be experienced, as well as comprehended, as well as a very considerable desposit of what both see as Orthodox. Those who think this see, in that event, a good coming out of this wider definition of ecumenism.

It seems fairly plain that to some types of diaspora mentality ecumenism is seen as a major threat, but I wonder whether this serves as part of a wider fear about the ways in which modern secularism is antithetical to the very mind and spirit-set of Orthodoxy? The question I ponder, getting back to the wider focus, is whether there is a balance between opportunities and threats here? Why should Orthodoxy not be willing to talk in various fora with other Christians? No one is going to force anyone who is Orthodox to change their beliefs (not on the WCC anyway), so should we not see such bodies as the chance to do what seems to have been happening here between the EO and OO - that is to talk and understand each other better? Are any of us so unsure of Orthodoxy that we fear for its fate in such discussions?

I have a sense that, in this wider focus, there is something important that I am not grasping; enlightenment, as ever, is welcome.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

Are any of us so unsure of Orthodoxy that we fear for its fate in such discussions?


Its not the concept of discussion or learning more about other communions that bothers me really. Its the "baggage" that is often involved when people participate in ecumenical dialogue. Like I said if the EO participants made it clear that the EO Church is the one and only true Church and that the other communion/s in question need to reject their schisms or heresies and join the EO if they wish to be in communion with it, then I would have no problem with it. Or if the discussion took place so that we could better understand other communions (and thereby learn to tailor our apologetics and evangelism skills to better evangelize those of the said communions) then that’s fine too. Or even if the talks take place to coordinate certain charitable endeavors that would be ok.

Its only when people start saying that error has entered into the mind of the Church, that the fathers were wrong and we know better then they that group x is and has been a part or branch of the Church all along , that it starts to bother me. Or when we throw out our traditional eccelsiology to make dialogue more simple or ignore the cannons.

[Mina Soliman]

Its only when people start saying that error has entered into the mind of the Church, that the fathers were wrong and we know better then they that group x is and has been a part or branch of the Church all along , that it starts to bother me. Or when we throw out our traditional eccelsiology to make dialogue more simple or ignore the cannons.

Well, this goes back to what I said earlier. I sure did hope that I would not know better than my own fathers, but guess what, your fathers weren't Nestorian, or so you say. And you had no problem saying my fathers were wrong.

At the same time, I read my own fathers' writings. I know what they believed. When you sit there and tell me that your fathers believed my fathers were Monophysites, I can easily say your fathers were 100% wrong, not because I know better than them, but because it is clear from my own fathers' writings that your fathers were wrong. And I never wanted to presume to be better than my own fathers, cause chances are, if they're Orthodox in faith (believing both in the full humanity and divinity of Christ without confusion or separation, preserving all properties of the natures, including will and energy), then they might be right about the Nestorianism of Chalcedon, right?

You still however never answered my question, "How can I trust you a Nestorian that you're telling me the truth?" I know I'm not a Monophysite, neither was Dioscorus. All I could know is that, without reading Leo's writings, you're trying to trick me into thinking you're Orthodox, while I'm trusting my fathers who had "true gnosis." What if you're the one that has to repent? For condemning my fathers who believed in the humanity and divinity without separation, division, confusion, or alteration might mean that you're also condemning their Orthodoxy, right?

While that is after all what you thought they did not believe, I KNOW VERY WELL they believed it, and I have my proof and counterproof against what you present. I did not know your fathers believed in the same thing, but you presume to know very well they believed thus, and you have proof and counterproof against what I present. How can we solve this predicament?

That's where the dialogue took that interesting turn to listen to one another's fathers rather than blindly accepting what was popular thought among themselves because frankly, that would just lead to two monologues. This is where one tests the grounds of ecclesiology, and studies them, and studies both histories to try to get a better understanding of these churches.

Now I agree that dialogues with RC's and Protestants that end up in compromising positions presents problems, and Subdeacon Peter Farrington here wrote a lengthy paper concerning the wrong ecumenisms of many of the churches around looking for minimal agreements to find unity, totally different from the EO/OO approach. That is why sometimes I find many of the EO defences against OO dialogues as a result of "ecumenist heretical attempts" as an empty cop-out, and a poor excuse to run away and hide from the truth of these dialogues. Islam does this in a more physical way, threatening people to death if one questions the Koran or the prophet Mohammed. It shuts the door to everything that was accomplished, and regresses us back to an unfortunate ignorance and hardened heart.

If one trusts in his/her Orthodoxy, there's nothing to hide from when reading the about the other perspective and the other preserved (and neglected) ancient writings.

After this, you can then understand why some hold to an ecclesiology that did not necessarily change, but only included those who professed that same Orthodox faith that was neglected ages ago.

I also question why this should be separated from the original post. It may be distinct, but it surely overlaps and has a lot to do with the OP. People are questioning "ecumenism" and adding the OO dialogues into this. I think this is an insult to the seriousness of the EO/OO dialogues, and it shows how much no one here knows anything about them, which is why EO/OO issues are involved. Perhaps, if they haven't mentioned this, there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion on OO issues in the "wrong" thread. They could mention the RC dialogues in question, or the WCC, but when it comes to the EO/OO dialogues, I am making the case that these have NOTHING to do with how WCC ran things or decided on things. In fact, there is a ROCOR member in OC.net who mentioned how much he admires the Copts for standing firm not influenced by the ecumenist liberalities that other Orthodox churches may be suffering from. I still have not grasped the full meaning of his words, but for a ROCOR to say such, that speaks volumes about the reality of the EO/OO dialogues, and the present Coptic views of the EO as opposed to 50 or 60 years ago, and it surely SHOULD give consideration to separate EO/OO dialogues from all other ecumenist activities that many here seem to confuse.

And if anything, I am also here to make a suggestion that the EO/OO dialogues are the IDEAL and ORTHODOX approach to ecumenism.

God bless.

Mina

[John Charmley]

Now I agree that dialogues with RC's and Protestants that end up in compromising positions presents problems, and Subdeacon Peter Farrington here wrote a lengthy paper concerning the wrong ecumenisms of many of the churches around looking for minimal agreements to find unity, totally different from the EO/OO approach. That is why sometimes I find many of the EO defences against OO dialogues as a result of "ecumenist heretical attempts" as an empty cop-out, and a poor excuse to run away and hide from the truth of these dialogues. Islam does this in a more physical way, threatening people to death if one questions the Koran or the prophet Mohammed. It shuts the door to everything that was accomplished, and regresses us back to an unfortunate ignorance and hardened heart.

If one trusts in his/her Orthodoxy, there's nothing to hide from when reading the about the other perspective and the other preserved (and neglected) ancient writings.


Dear Mina,
There is much in what you write here, and I especially liked this passage.

I feel that we are getting somewhere here. The OO position is now, I think, very clear, and I am better informed as to the EO one. Yes, I guess there may be a certain defensiveness at times in one or two of the EO posts, but since this is an EO website, that isn't altogether surprising. Most EO people will have been exposed to a certain view of the OO, and vice-versa, so getting this far is an achievement in itself.

Of course aspects of this discussion are bound to look as though someone somewhere thinks they know better than the Fathers, but the fact that the EO are happy to cite St. Isaac so freely and with such approval suggests that even the definition of Fathers might be taken in a wider sense than some seem to indicate.

I hope that we take on board your admonitions about 'wrong ecumenisms', and practice 'good ecumenisms' here. That, after a millennium and a half apart, the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians should still hold so much of the Orthodox Faith in common ought to tell us something - if we will only be still for long enough to hear it.

So thank you for this Mina, and for reminding us of things we ought to ponder.


In Christ,

John

[Vasily]

Glory to Jesus Christ,
Union with all the Orthodox Churches should come first, so that peace and love will exist amongst the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Let's clean up our own back yard. Seriously take on missionary work, and properly confront the jurisdictional chaos that exists in North America, Western Europe, and else where. Then let's contemplate union with the other confessions, and only if they sincerely desire to embrace Orthodox Dogmas and Traditions. Are we to accept the "common ground" philosophy with the heterodox, or stress the richness in Orthodox theology? On the other hand we compromise the traditions, water things down, attempt to "fit' in, and persist in dialogue with the heterodox. If we claim that we, the Orthodox, represent the true faith, then what message are we sending to our youth and to those who desire to become converts?

The Traditions of the Church and the examples of the Holy Fathers teach us that the Church hold no dialogue with those who have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participant to attain an agreement. Any compromise is foreign to the Church. That being said, why does the Orthodox persist in this dialogue with the Catholics, which has been going on for years, with absolutely no results? Papism is a heresy and the source of many heresies that trouble the world today. Can one seriously think that the Vatican will change? When will the Vatican positively rectify the Eastern Rite dilemma?

[John Konstantin]

The Anglican Church in the UK was and is in ecumenical talks with the Roman Church. Where has it got it. Precisely nowhere. And we now have a situation where Anglicans are becoming Romans through the recently established Ordinariate. Rome has announced this as a great victory of ecumenism and part of the reunion of Christianity. It isn't. They have simply been received on Rome's terms. Most of ecumenism is nothing more than an excuse for a good lunch.

And who within Orthodoxy is going to broker reunion with Rome? The EP? And what if he does and the remaining jurisdictions to not want to go? Further fraction within Orthodoxy?

The best thing we can do is carry on being Orthodox, continue you to enjoy the good lunches and if Rome wants to join us....they know what they have to do. (Well I can dream, can't I? :) )

[Vasily]

Christ is Risen!

Union with all the Orthodox Churches should come first, so that peace and love will exist amongst the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Then let's contemplate union with the other confessions, and only if they sincerely desire to embrace Orthodox Dogmas and Traditions. Are we to accept the 'common ground" philosophy with the heterodox, or stress the richness in Orthodox Theology? On one hand, we compromise the traditions, water things down, persist in dialogue with the heterodox. What message are we sending to our youth and to those who desire to become converts to the Orthodox Faith?

The spirit of dialogue or even the understanding of some other confession of faith is important as long as the Orthodox participant fully realizes that he or she confesses the true faith, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The mission of the Church has always been to teach the True Word of God. We as, Orthodox Christians, must take this responsibility seriously. Anything else is foreign to this mission and nature of the Church.

The Traditions of the Church and examples of the Holy Father's teach us that the Church holds no dialogue with those that have separated themselves from Orthodoxy. The Church addresses to them a monologue inviting them to return to its fold through rejection of any dissenting doctrines. A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a possibility of persuading the participant to attain an agreement. Any compromise is foreign to the Church.

[Bryan J. Maloney]

And who within Orthodoxy is going to broker reunion with Rome? The EP?

I have a feeling that it would be representatives acceptable to the autocephalous Orthodox jurisdictions by unanimous consent. After all, if something as relatively less weighty as the instillation of canonical governance in the Americas requires unanimous consent, bringing Rome back into the fold would need nothing less.