Ecumenism

[Oliver John Strange]

Dear all,
I am new to this board as regards posting, although I have very much enjoyed reading other peoples' posts for quite a while now. I have many questions which I would like to ask and I hope you will forgive my choice for my first post, but much of what I have read about Orthodoxy on the net (I myself am not Orthodox) condemns ecumenism as a great threat to the True Church, but I think I am right in saying that the Russian Orthodox Church at least is part of the World Council of Churches.

What is your personal opinion on the ecumenical movement and indeed the idea of ecumenism in general?

[ronald j brotzman]

Dear Oliver: Ecuminism is held as a goal of most of the Orthodox Churches; however, as the Protestant dominated organization of the World Council of Churches becomes more liberal, less believing and in fact nutty, many of the Orthodox Churches are reconsidering their respective positions. I have always wondered how Orthodoxy being so rich in heritage and stubborn reliance upon traditions can meet face to face with the liberal German and English churches. Sadly, and I hope I do not step on toes, but the Anglican church for the most part in Europe has gone off the deed end; The German Lutheran State churches are not far behind; however, The Scandinavian churches take the cake for being screwy. How our great Orthodox churches can stomach them is beyond me. We will not change to their liberal ideas, nor will they return to the one true church. Where is the middle ground, where and what can we accomplish? Not much is my answer except social services to the poor and needy, which is a good goal.

I think that you will see that a new organization is forming which will include the Roman church. Once that happens maybe some normalcy will return, to what I see as a wasteland and a waste of time for the Orthodox churches.

[Oliver John Strange]

Dear Ronald
I thoroughly agree with your points: I find myself increasingly disillusioned with the Anglican church to which I belong. For example, the Archbishop of Wales, the man whose job is the spiritual guidance of the entirity of our country, is a liberal who among other things does not believe in absolute truth- everything is open to personal interpretation. I sympathise completely with the Orthodox churches for not wanting to sit down and talk when faced with such a dilution of faith.
It seems to me that the Anglican church takes no pride in being a Holy institution (when I say pride I do not mean arrogance but a certain self-respect). This is one of the many resaons that Orthodoxy is of such interest to me (although I won't go into detail about that now...)
I think the Protestant Church in general should not participate in ecumenical discussions until it affirms its adherence to the basics of the faith- even the Nicene Creed means very little to liberals.

So with that in mind, I would like to know if people would like to see discussions held between the Orthodox and 'conservative' (i.e. non-liberal) Protestants, and indeed Roman Catholics aswell (although that is a completely different matter I feel)...

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Ronald,
Can you tell us more about this new organization?
Thanks.
Mary Stavroula

[Andrew Cheevers]

The Monachos.net study page on the Christological Dispute contains a record of the commitment of Orthodox Churches to Ecumenism, which in my view is to be applauded. The work done on developing an agreed position on the nature/s of Christ, together with the recommendations on pastoral matters represents the crowning glory of the ecumenical movement to date. I also applaud the churchs' continuing work in this area, and the collective understanding that change is not something to be rushed.

The page Orthodox Unity (http://www.orthodoxunity.org) contains more information concerning this subject.

As I understand it, the World Council of Churches has consisted of Protestant and Orthodox churches throughout its existence. Prior to the last Assembly, however, the Bulgarian and Georgian Orthodox Churches disaffiliated, and other Orthodox churches expressed their concerns over a number of issues.

The 1998 Assembly decided to form a sub-committee to explore these concerns, which relate in part to ecclesiology, in part to topics raised and supported under the WCC banner, and in part to issues concerning membership. A search of "Orthodoxy" on the WCC Homepage (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/english.html) should bring up a large number of documents concerning this matter.

In my opinion, as a member of a post-reformed Protestant denomination, it would be a tragedy if the Orthodox Churches withdrew from the WCC. Their participation is to a large extent the one matter that allows the WCC to be truly ecumenical, rather than just another talk-fest for western protestants.

[Owen Jones]

The impetus behind the ideology of ecumenism stems in part from a natural and good human tendency to seek truth that is universal and not parochial and sectarian. If the Orthodox understanding of truth is limited to a parochial and sectarian sloganeering then that simply gives more impetus to a general desire among the foolish, no matter how motivated, toward more and more ecumenism. The Orthodox doctrine of truth needs to be understood, and understandable and explainable, not in parochial and sectarian terms, but in its ability to explain reality more adequately and fully in a universal way, and to demonstrate that reality in the way we live our lives. Orthodox truth cannot pertain only to believers. And believing it is not what makes it so. It must also be "scientific" in the classical sense of the term, insofar as it accurately and more completely describes structures and processes in reality, beginning with the psyche, and can point to demonstrable changes that occur when people follow that path. Unfortunately, the history of religion is more generally than not the history of internecine sectarianism. The temptation is to adopt a kind of secular nihilism as an alternative to sectarianism, rather than seeking to recover the true spirit of the Gospel. It's a kind of intellectual gnosticism, really, that posits an immanentized universal religion devoid of substance, designed to be that way for the purpose of avoiding any and all warring sectarianisms.

What is decidedly not an answer to ecumenism is to simply circle the wagons around a defense of Orthodoxy as an apriori fact. There is to be sure an intellectual defense of Orthodoxy, but only alongside its demonstration. And there is also the matter of adequately understanding and critiquing the intellectual currents which draw people away from the one true faith, in the same way that a physician will warn a patient away from unhealthy foods or drugs. A good physician, in so doing, is not going to condemn his patient but instead try get him interested in his own health, and build confidence and trust in his advice. The physician who is overtly dogmatic to the point of being overbearing, who simply argues that he is smart and right and expects the patient to follow his advice without question, will likely succeed only in turning off the patient who will then seek an opinion elsewhere.

[ronald j. brotzman]

Owen, as usual your use of the language bowls me over. I cannot compete on that level, I am mere user of the language and not a creator of prose. I say this with all respect. The Dr. that you alude to always wears gloves, a mask and washes after the surgery. I admit that we need to let our light shine, but be careful lest as your analogy goes, we get the mumps. To be merely part of an organization to make it define itself, ie. an ecumenical movement seems somewhat strained. The WCC always seems to be on the left of every issue, firmly anti-American, and ogten anti- Orthodox and Roman Catholic. It has burned its bridges in many regards on political correctness, while it should have been spending its time educating the world why we are not Muslim, and why we are Christian. The WCC should be out there evangelizing and helping the poor, not wasting its resources battling picky little points. Is the WCC part of the great commission or not? If not it is not worth the effort. I was a Lutheran who went to the Episcopal church for many years, it seemsed to me that everything went to a committee, nothing happened because it was talked to death. The WCC is a Byzantine organization if I might use that phrase without offending anyone. Talk, talk, talk and little action. I am trying to find my resource that said that the WCC or a successor would be admitiing the RC. I cannot seem to locate my reference but will find it. We must not be truely ecumenical, but more evangelical, we have the full deck of 52 cards in this simple faith of Orthodoxy, let us not let it get bogged down in the silliness of the many Protestant chures and their fuzy feel good, nowhere leading faith. I do not advocate leaving the WCC due to pride, but stay only if it helps Orhtodoxy establish or reestablish its deep roots within the Protestant west.

[Peter Alexander Papout]

Dear All:

I try to keep things as simple as possible when it comes to such issues as ecuminism. Christ went and preached among all the people, but he condemed what needed to be condemed, but he did it with Love. He did not stone the Harlot, but he did not ratify her immoral behavior. Christ said "Go and sin no more."
People in the ecumenical movement are good people, but they are not, it seems to me, moral people from a Christian point of view. We as the True Church do not need the ecumenical movement, but they do need the Gospel of Christ. Let us simply pearch the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and allow him to change people's heart. The question should not be whether the Orthodox should be part of the WCC, but that all people should be part of the One True Church, the Orthodox Church.
It is time that we stop casting our pearls before swine and preach the risen Lord to all people. Therefore, focus on Christ not on ecumenism. These are my thoughts, I could be wrong.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I just wanted to take a moment to express my extreme pleasure at the fact that a thread on ecumenism has now existed on the internet for more than 24 hours, without digressing into a fiery volley of angered exchanges. This only two days after the feast of Sts Peter and Paul, who surely must have something to do with it.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Kevin Teo]

Talking about the World Council of Churches, which denominations would be included within the organization itself? Even as a non-Orthodox, I myself have not however known much concerning the World Council of Churches, mainly because my church is an independent-autonomous church, despite close denominational links to the Presbyterian/Bible Presbyterian movement.

As far as I know, the recent justification used for ecumenism in the context of the WCC of late has been very much the recourse to our Lord's Prayer to the Father, "that they may be as one". But the ecumenism aside, which itself is meant to promote a non-sectarianism amongst various Christian churches, what I would suspect is the element of inter-religious activity that has been creeping in unaware. I saw the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran in front of an Imam of Iraq, prior to the whole beginning of the Iraq War, and right in the presence of many others like the Assyrian Patriarch of Iraq(Nestorian) and many other religious figures.
This turned out somewhat to be disturbing for me, because of the unnecessary amount of respect and veneration that Pope John Paul 2 pays to a sacred text of another faith.

[Kevin Teo]

Since ecumenism is in certain aspects a Biblical concept, one in which Jesus advocated a unity of purpose amongst His believers and disciples, how far has it developed from the original root word, "oikoumene"(basically meaning "all the world" or "all the inhabited world") from a patristic point of view?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Ronald,

I wouldn't say my characterization of the ecumenical movement as a form of gnostic nihilism is a ringing endorsement of the WCC!

The Gospel, on the other hand, is all things to all people. What does that mean? One can interpret that like a Rorschach test. Or one can try to fathom its deep meaning.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

I think from an Orthodox Patristic position the understanding of St. Cyprian of Carthage who concluded that the mysteries (sacraments) are in the Orthodox Church and will always remain there are the correctly adhered to understandings of today. We can conclude that he was quite strongly opposed to the recognition of the validity of the mysteries outside of the Orthodox faith. This is quite a different view from that which is expressed by Saint Augustine who put forth a lot of ideas including along the lines of the sacraments outside of the Church are valid.

John 17

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

For St. Cyprian of Carthage the scripture That they all may be one; excluded those outside of the Orthodox faith, namely those that had fallen into schism or held onto heretical beliefs.

For Saint Augustine the scripture That they all may be one; was quite broad and inclusive. Saint Augustine's position in Orthodoxy has been and remains a matter of debate.

Surely, bearing witness to the truth of the Orthodox Faith is good however what seems to happen is definitions are requested relative to the Orthodox understandings of those outside of the Orthodox faith. When these definitions are supplied they are considered to be offensive by the recipients, even if when they are rendered softly. As such the Orthodox can be perceived as non-loving or even much worse. I think Rome has asked for an official statement regarding the Orthodox position on the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course discussing matters of faith and participation in services with those who do not share the Orthodox profession of faith are different issues. Hence, the Ecumenical Patriarch will often participate in some services as in the recent feast day celebration of Saints Peter and Paul but only to a degree. It is the degree of involvement often fuels the ecumenical conflict. Recently, Moscow has banned the Jehovah Witnesses and perhaps others, I'm not sure. This action was not seen as embracing the ecumenical spirit as understood by some. It resulted in much criticism of the Moscow Patriarch from many, among them those that remain outside of the Orthodox Christian faith. As Orthodox Christians we are not free to believe whatever we want, that would be the antithesis of what we and other Apostolic Christian traditions believe. As such it is perplexing when these other traditions express disagreement with such an action. It appears to be a matter of understanding how one defines things in words and actions.

Dear Owen,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Matthew (Panchisin):
Would you tell me what other churches St. Augustine would be referring to when you say his view toward other churches was quite broad and inclusive and "who put forth a lot of ideas including along the lines of the sacraments outside of the Church are valid." If you are speaking of St. Augustine of Hippo, he lived from 354-430 AD at a time when the church was united. I can't imagine why St. Augustine would enter into this discussion of ecumenism, regardless of his controversial reputation among Orthodox. I would appreciate any clarification you can give. Thank you.

In Christ,
Mary

[ronald j. brotzman]

First: Kevin: I did not see the Pope do that. I am not saying it did not happen but I did not see the news brief on it. I wonder if the reverse was true. if the Imam kissed the New Testament. That would have been a sight to see. I find that the word appeacement(sp?) comes to mind. (I do not think I have ever typed that word). Many of these Christian leaders seem to have the necessity to move too far too soon in order to keep things friendly. That is what I fear or Orthodox leaders do, they go too far to extend this olive branch. To educate the rest of Christianity in what we have is not pride, it is our duty. Bring Christ to all nations including Christians in error. Owen makes great points in that the WCC seems to be involved in a last gasp, desperate attempt to hold on to the values of Christianity, without Christ as the center. They seem like the secular holiday of Christmas. The idea is there but not the true spirit. I think that our church's money could be better spent in evangelizing our neighbor here in the US. I know of many Episcopalians, and now Presbyterians who are fed up with the political correctness, the heresy and disbelief of these once great organizations. Bring them those who want to come into our church. We are not a big tent, we are a castle with strong walls, that of the true faith and traditions that are part of the historial apostolic church. I ramble, good night

[Kevin Teo]

Dear Ronald, for the picture of the Pope kissing the Quran, see http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/popkoran.htm
As for the content though, I would advise reading such web sources with a grain of salt.

Dear Mary, as for the context of the period within which Augustine of Hippo lived, I would refer you to the Donatist schism that was ongoing during then. The Donatists upheld that a priest or minister of the Word who lapsed in faith or apostasized during the period of the Great Persecution prior to Constantine, and then returned to the faith(traditores) were not worthy to administer the sacraments. In that sense, the sacraments administered by these corrupt priests were invalid. I would not address that period as a period of unity(unfortunately) as I read from much of the research I came into contact with in the course of my MA thesis research on Augustine of Hippo's Rome and Carthage. At that point in time, Augustine first tried using persuasion and rhetoric to coax the Donatists to return to Catholic unity, because the Donatists insist that the relative "laxity" of the Catholic clergy towards those who lapsed and apostasized showed that the Catholic church was not the true church in that sense. Then, when such methods failed, he adopted a more inquisitorial method(something which controversially links him to the Spanish Inquisition as the "Father of the Inquisition"), with that famous phrase, "Compel them to come in".

Also, at that juncture of time in the 4th and 5th centuries which Augustine lived in, Carthage actually had a large Donatist presence(some even contended that the Donatist churches numbered more than the Catholic churches). Augustine was recognizing that in terms of doctrine, the Donatists actually shared much with them--the Catholics--as Trinitarians, but what divided them was the vital issue of church discipline which the Donatists in fact took an extremely strong and at times puritanical stand towards (with violence involved, of course, against the Catholics). And as such, part of what Augustine stated on the administering of the sacraments(in opposition to the Donatists') was that the validity of the sacraments were not dependent on man, but on God the Holy Spirit.

The schism between the Donatists and the Catholics in Carthage where Augustine lived predominantly for the latter half of his life lasted till the coming of the Arab conquerors which put an end to such quarrels.

[Kevin Teo]

Mary, just to add to what I said just now about the Donatist argument against the Catholics/Orthodx, what the Donatists contended was that the moral validity of the sacraments were dependent on the moral character of the priests administering them. But of course, Augustine recognized in line with the view of depravity that no man is morally pure. In that sense, the recognition that the sacraments were dependent on God was a recognition of His provision of grace, which the Donatists(as Augustine implied) did not take into consideration and in fact wrongheadedly even went about re-baptizing some Catholics by claiming that the sacraments administered by them were not valid!

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear in Christ Mary,

First let me state that I'm not an expert. I'm comfortable with being corrected in what I write, our dear friend Matthew Steenberg I hope is available if my understanding is incorrect . Actually I wrote him a few months back because I have a large amount of the Fathers to read. There is so much to read I didn't even know how to begin, hence the request for his guidance. As such if my conclusions are incorrect it is Matthew Steenberg's fault.

Just kidding, here is the best I can do from what I know so far. I say this because I realize that I haven't read everything yet and understanding the complete context of the subject matter can change ones perspective and related understanding.

So far it seems to me there was quite a bit of "balamoota" before St. Augustine of Hippo's birth in 354. If you ask a older Carpatho Russian what balamoota is they might tell you that it is a special word designated to describe beyond big trouble within the Church. It raises eyebrows and facial expressions of woe and concern. Then the questions.

The first ecumenical council in the history of the church was the council of Nicea in the year 325. It was within that council that the Orthodox Nicene Creed was formulated. The Nicene Creed was put forth to express what we believe as Orthodox Christians. This action was a response to Arianism and it's heretical understanding of the nature of the Trinity.

Saint Augustine of Hippo:

"that in the sacraments of sectarians, the Church is active; some she engenders of herself, others she engenders outside, of her maid–servant, and schismatic baptism is valid for this very reason, that it is performed by the Church."

"the Holy and Sanctifying Spirit still breathes in the sects, but in the stubbornness and powerlessness of schism healing is not accomplished."

Saint Cyprian of Carthage who writes in even at an early time, seems quite concerned about those that hold belief that are not in agreement with the Orthodox Faith. Hence we can read;

"Not only must we beware of what is open and manifest, but also what deceives by the craft of subtle fraud. And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy...to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious."

"For if they shall see that it is determined and decreed by our judgment and sentence, that the baptism wherewith they are there baptized is considered just and legitimately in possession of the Church also, and the other gifts of the Church; nor will there be any reason for their coming to us, when, as they have baptism, they seem also to have the rest. But further, when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside of the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church, our Mother, assured that they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first come to the Truth of the Church"

In conclusion, it seem to me there had been disagreements, schisms, sects and heretical ideas around very early in the history of the Church. As such I arranged the thoughts of others as well as my own and presented them for consideration, hopefully accurately.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Curtis Dunn]

A writer asked: What is your personal opinion on the ecumenical movement and indeed the idea of ecumenism in general?

Someone wrote: "Ecuminism is held as a goal of most of the Orthodox Churches;"

---------------
I would prefer that the questioner define what he belives or how he understands what is ecumenism?

However, I suspect any ecumenism being espoused by Orthodox Churches is more of a means than a goal. It appears to me that fear motivates many to embrace ecumenism, both at the practical level and at the idealogical level. I suppose, it can also be said that fear prevents others from engaging in activities which might be viewed as embracing ecumenism.

At the idealogical level, I suspect ecumenism to be an outgrowth of economic and political goals and agendas. At the private level, it arises out of emotionalism.

The single most ecumenical reality which all peoples, regardless of confession, ecclesiastical, or religious practices is "Death." We all share in that inevitable reality. Out of this reality, emotions can be and often are translated into practical ecumenism. Idealogical ecumenism is less about how group X sees and understands group Y; but is more about how X sees and understands itself.

There arises the differences which divide Orthodox Bishops from each other, and to speak of Orthodox Churches is to be speaking about the Bishop; since Orthodoxy has unanimously held that the Church and Bishop are one. When Ecumenism is defined as re-interpreting or evolving away from the Orthodox Confession that it is the Church of Christ and constitutes the whole and parts of the Church of Christ; that is unacceptable to Orthodoxy.

john dunn

[Mary Stavroula]

To Matthew and Kevin,
I thought Matthew was referring to Augustine's writing against the Donatist heresy which held that a bishop who had escaped martyrdom under the Diocletian persecution was a “traditor” (i.e., one who turns over sacred books and relics to the civil authorities during a persecution), and therefore was not able to validly ordain priests. St. Augustine's argument that the validity of the sacraments did not depend on the personal holiness of the priest or bishop was a strong factor in the condemnation of the schismatic sect. The question of baptismal validity had to do with priests who were ordained by bishops accused (and some were unjustly accused) of cooperating with the Roman state in order to escape martyrdom. St. Augustine correctly held, as you wrote in your last post, that the baptism was valid regardless of this accusation. Emperor Constantine upheld St. Augustine's view as did the Synod of Arles. The word "corrupt" which you used to characterize the priests may have been how the Donatists felt toward these priests, but gives the impression that they were behaving in an immoral fashion, which was not what they were accused of. But even today, when a priest sins personally, it does not change the validity of the baptisms or any other sacrament he performs. That is a valid doctrine that, as I said Constantine himself upheld, and has nothing to do with any "laxity" on the part of "Catholics" at that time. This argument sounds to me more of someone building a case against Roman Catholicism through St. Augustine rather than an objective historical analysis of the time.

It's true that the Donatists outnumbered the Catholics (and keep in mind that my use of the term, "Catholic" is not differentiating them from "Orthodox" since Christianity was united at that point, contending with heresies under the leadership of Constantine and his successors and the Eucumenical Councils of bishops) but their numbers are no indication of any truth that they may have held. The Arians outnumbered the Christians in places for a long time, as you probably know. In fact, the Visigoths were converts to Arian beliefs.

The Donatist attitude is similar in my mind to those who would say that because Orthodox Christians remained under Communist persecution that when their bishops ordained priests, they were not valid ordinations and therefore the baptisms were not valid. That was what the so-called corruption of priests extended to in the Donatist controversy. And again, I say that to bring in St. Augustine's theological support of a doctrine that was upheld by the Orthodox Emperor and the bishops at the Synod at Arles in anachronistic and confuses the issue of ecumenism in the 21st century.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mary,

I think from what I understand it is accurate for me to suggest that the general mode of thought of Saint Augustine is much more inclusive than Saint Cyprian of Carthage who from what I have learned thought along the lines that any form of schism was a departure of the Church, and salvation was only to be found within the canonical Church.

The reason that these different understandings are applicable to ecumenism in the 21st century is because I would think that it would be reasonable for them to be examined in regards to the issues that are present today as well. Glory be to God for once again, our Holy Orthodox Church draws from the well of Patristic thought and these understandings are not isolated to specific circumstance only and confined by the circumstance within history. If we firmly held on to things within the realm of human history nothing in time would be applicable to anything. We would be constantly vexed. Although I think that you are undoubtedly correct to reference the historical circumstance of the time. Perhaps I error much in that regard.

As far as ecumenism is concerned from what I can tell if we listen to Saint Augustine's thinking we will end up with different notions than if we listen to Saint Cyprian of Carthage, of course the issue of interpreting what they mean and it's application today is significant.

Surely, the cases against Roman Catholicism have already been addressed throughout history. Saint Photios seemed to indicate that the writings of Augustine had been distorted in reference to the filoque while not rendering an opinion on the holiness of the Saint, and realizing that they are human beings as well and capable of human error. However it seems that Saint Photios did suggest to the Latin's that in short they should leave Ambrose and Augustine alone, anyone's writings can be distorted, in Saint Augustine's case particularly by the west. As such in the 21 century we end up with many different theological understandings. Irrespective of that fact, Saint Augustine is a Saint of the Orthodox Church as well, even though he may be understood and referenced differently.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Matthew,
I agree as a general principle that we should look to Patristic thought for guidance, but on the issue of the validity of the sacraments, Augustine and the church were in agreement that the Holy Spirit is the source of grace and not the administrator of the sacraments. This was the Church's point in rejecting Donatism, not an inclusiveness or exclusiveness of other communions such as Protestant or Catholic, as is the case today. Augustine and the church were affirming the action of God through the sacraments, not "playing fast and loose" so to speak with the acceptance of, let's say the Arians who did not have a true understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. As Kevin said, it was a matter of church discipline that upset the Donatists. The offending bishops and priests were not outside the church; they were inside the church. The Donatists were the heretics who were insisting that the baptisms were not valid, and the church in unison (with Augustine) rejected their assertion. Augustine was not acting in isolation on this issue. The Donatists separated themselves from orthodoxy.

Augustine and the filioque is another topic altogether. Of course, the filioque was not inserted into the creed until the 8th or 9th centuries, and therefore Augustine was not able to address that specific event. I studied the filioque question under John Meyendorff, and don't remember him raising St. Augustine's name, but that could be my bad memory. Did Augustine's contemporaries dispute with him on the topic of the double procession? Not as far as I know. Photius wrote in the middle of the 9th century, and so he dealt with Augustine and the filioque question 400 years after Augustine lived. It reminds me of the posthumous condemnation of Origen; the men aren't alive to defend themselves. But, as I said, this is another topic from ecumenism and so is Donatism. ;-) Sorry, Matthew, I think any discussion of history should place people and events in their proper context otherwise our thinking and understanding is muddy. I don't agree with Augustine on everything he taught, but I want to be clear on where and when that occurs. Please bear with me.

In Christ,
Mary

[Matthew Panchisin]

Pardon my spelling, I'm rather tired.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mary,

I didn’t not mean to convey that history should not place people and vents in their proper context.

As you can see I wrote although I think that you are undoubtedly correct to reference the historical circumstance of the time.

In the year 381 during the Council of Constantinople there had been numerous fathers Saint Basil of Caesaraea's undersatanding of the Holy Spirit played an important role. These venerable Fathers assembled and affirmed the faith of Nicea. Whether they would be defined as contempories or not is contingent upon a definition. However they did clearly say (and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.) I think it is safe to think that it assembled for a reason or multiple reasons. How much of or if it was at all a direct reaction to Augustine of Hippo’s 359 - 432 AD understanding which seemed to have had some Platonic influence I’m not sure of right now. Even somewhere around the year 380 Ambrose of Milan says that the Spirit proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son, without ever being separated from either. Tertullian in the 3rd century cocentrates on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power. However before or around the 6th century or so there is no percise understanding or historical account of when the Filoque was added to the Creed that was stated in 381. But we can deduce that Augustine’s understandings had a significant influence.

I don’t want to digress to much.

It seems to me that Saint Augustine and the other Church Fathers general understandings are significant points of reference relative to ecumenism, even if they are not directly addressing Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell the father of the Russellites in the year 1869 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania.

I have to go now, for I’ll be traveling for about a week. I hope that I haven’t offended you. If I’m wrong in my thoughts and conclusions they may be easily disregarded.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

It seems I need to be a bit more clear before I post anything.

Tertullian in the 3rd century concentrates on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power without ever being separated from either.

I should have added the importance of the three divine persons as God was a matter of concern and concentration while recognizing the Father alone as the source of God's eternal being. There doesn't seem to be a super amount of emphasis on the Holy Spirit's position of origin from what I understand.

I'm not sure what all of Augustine's contemporaries thought, I'll have to get back to you in few years or more depending on circumstances.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Curtis Dunn]

According to the WCC, its member churches:
- are called to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship;
- promote their common witness in work for mission and evangelism;
- engage in Christian service by serving human need, breaking down barriers between people, seeking justice and peace, and upholding the integrity of creation; and
- foster renewal in unity, worship, mission and service.
-------

Do these goals fit into Orthodoxy?

1. Are we called into one faith? Yes, however the question is which ONE? For the Orthodox Christian, how can there be any doubt?

2. Is there any common witness between Orthodoxy and other versions of Christianity?

3. It is true that we all share the same creation, therefore, we all can suffer from the same common adversities: i.e., aids can attack and destroy without regard to our confession of faith. What common responsibility can and should Orthodox Christains share and participate in in the prevention, assistance to those infected, and the growing spread of aids? Or should we Orthodox develop our own AND even independent programs? What role can an Orthodox Christian participate in with non-Orthodox in their nation's government in the war against aids? What affect will participation in these or other types of programs addressing man's common enviromental needs have on passing on the uniqueness of Orthodoxy in a world were dogmatical differences seem to be breaking down into common practical responses?

How can Orthodoxy foster unity in worship with other confessions of Christianity without compromising its own Orthodox Unity? Indeed, has not this very question become the root issue which divedes many Orthodox from even holding in Unity what would appear to be causes of unity, i.e., common liturgical rites?

How can Orthodoxy share in the mission of the WCC; when the WCC denies the very essence of what Orthodoxy is: THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

john dunn

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Poor Augustine would roll over in his shrine if he knew he were being called an ecumenist.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Matthew,

It appears that he is being called an ecumenist by the misguided. What did you do with his doctrine on grace?

Saint Augustine has written; “Heresies have arisen, and certain perverse views ensnaring souls and precipitating them into the abyss, only when the Scriptures, good in themselves, are not properly understood”.

How influential is Saint Augustine’s thinking in the west or east for that matter relative to ecumenism? Furthermore, did any of his writings give birth to any incorrect understandings or any schisms? In short, is it his fault?

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011117_kasper-prolusio_en.html

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Matthew Panchisin,
Could you clarify your thinking on something? Do you view all of St. Augustine's positions, whether on Donatism, the filioque, grace, original sin, etc. as being a marker of his ecumenism? I get the impression from your various posts that this is true, and it confuses me. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by ecumenism.

A colleague of mine, Prof. Demacopoulos, from Fordham University sent me this response to my query about St. Augustine, which I would agree with:
St. Augustine speaks about the Holy Spirit in a way that can lead to the filioque. It is not that he is to fault for it, per se. The way I see it, subsequent Western theologians (especially among the Franks) operated in something of a vacuum where Augustine became the sole authority and a specific way of interpreting Augustine became institutionalized. In other words, you can read St. Aug.'s comments in _De Trinitate_ as either fully or only partially endorsing the filioque. The real problem is that there was no counter balance by the 9th century because communication had broken down b/w East and West. What made matters worse, the Franks had plenty of reasons (political and economic) for exploiting the difference and even the Byzantines had reasons (not always justified) for a zealous critique of any western perspective. As for St. Photius, I think his treatise is quite impressive (it is generally disregarded by scholars as pure apologetic) and he doesn't so much criticize St. Augustine as he makes excuses for him.

My own take is that Augustine's role in the break down b/w East and West is more directly related to his creation of "original sin" and its consequences than his few over-played comments on filioque. Augustinian original sin produces a way of looking at the world and a soteriology that are alien to Orthodoxy, which create all kinds of problems down the road (e.g. purgatory, immaculate conception, etc.).

In Christ,
Mary Stavroula

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear in Christ Mary,

I do not view all of Saint Augustine's positions as being markers of ecumenism, I agree that they may have been expanded into what others have had in their minds. However, to be more specific the subject of grace is central to the issue which is vast and inclusive in every subject matter. Ecumenism is an issue that attempts to define the locations or degrees of grace. I don't know how a person can do that. Personally, it is a difficult and dangerous sea to swim in because such a determination can lead to judgmental thinking for individuals. I think collectively for Orthodoxy it is not a matter of judgment but rather discernment.

It is a divisive issue within Orthodoxy with very significant ramifications. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has been in discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, and it is a serious issue, insofar as Moscow is involved in the WCC. This involvement seems to be more of a political nature with only a limited amount of support and remains a matter of great concern.

Perhaps, your colleague or someone would be willing to render an opinion. Was Saint Augustine's doctrine on grace erroneous?

What is ecumenism? Can we participate in ecumenism if we love the heretic shun the heresy?

If you tell someone I love you, but you are a heretic or very wrong in your beliefs I have learned it does not go over to well. I had a friend who converted to Orthodoxy and used to have those discussion with his wife.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


P.S. It seems appropriate for me to mention that apparently Father Averky discussed the matter with Fr. Seraphim Rose a bit.

March 17/30, 1976
St. Patrick of Ireland

Dear Brother in Christ, Nicholas [Moreno],

Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ. I pray you are faring well in the Fast and will be prepared to meet the Holy Passion and Resurrection of our Saviour. This is spiritually a very rich part of the year for us, with the long services, the special Lenten tone of life, the readings from the Holy Fathers. I imagine all the readings there are in Russian, but I hope that somehow you are able to get benefit from this practice of readings during the services. Here we have been reading The Ladder, The Lausiac History, Abba Dorotheos, and the Life of the Fathers [Vita Patrum] of St. Gregory of Tours. Reading some of these books over again every year only puts them deeper into one's Orthodox consciousness, and there are always "new" things there no matter how often one has read them—which, of course, only shows how dense we are and how much we need such things.

I hope that in the midst of your learning (which we pray may be very fruitful!) you are also getting the feel for that which can't be directly taught—the tone of Orthodox life and thought which comes "between the lines" as it were, the respect for the older generation which is handing down the sacred treasure of Orthodoxy, the approach to the teaching of the Holy Fathers which should be not academic but practical, and should see beyond superficial "disputes" to the deeper meaning of the Patristic teaching. The Patristic "experts" of the newer school miss this, and this is a great temptation in our Church now also, since everyone is now affected to some degree or other by the soul-less academic air around us. Of late we have noticed how shallow has been the discussion of Blessed Augustine—a cold, calculating approach to him which would either condescendingly "accept" him or else "throw him out of the calendar" based solely on an abstract analysis of his teaching. But the true Orthodox perspective is, first of all, to distrust one's abstract "theological" outlook and ask: what do our elders think; what did the recent Fathers think? And taking these opinions respectfully, one then begins to put together the picture for oneself. But the "new theologians," when they hear that our recent fathers such as St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain or our own Archbishop John had great respect for Blessed Augustine, can only say with disdain—"they were under Western influence"—and throw out their weighty opinions with a quite "Western" lack of feeling and understanding. Anyone who has read Blessed Augustine's Confessions with sympathy will not readily want to "throw him out of the calendar"—for he will see in this book precisely that fiery zeal and love which is precisely what is so lacking in our Orthodox life today! Have you read this book, by the way?—you should. Archbishop Philaret of Chernigov, in his 19th-century Patrology, while setting forth clearly Blessed Augustine's mistakes rather overemphases—still highly praises this book for its warmth and piety. And perhaps Blessed Augustine's very "Westernness" makes him more relevant for us today who are submerged in the West and its way of thought; it is surely pride for us to think that we will read only the great "Eastern" and "mystical" books.

Well, I didn't really mean to digress so much on this subject. But at least you know that we are thinking of you and are very anxious for you to get the maximum from your seminary and monastery experience. Above all, keep your heart open and learn to be a little detached from the many intellectual arguments and currents that buzz about our Church. Let us know how you are doing. Pray for us—we have started to print the book on the Life of Blessed Paisius, which is an immense project for us....

With love in Christ,

Seraphim, Monk

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Matthew,
Your definition of ecumenism as "an issue that attempts to define the locations or degrees of grace" I don't understand enough to agree or disagree with it. I am even more confused by the quote from Fr. Seraphim who seems to be respectful of St. Augustine's sincerity at least. Prof. Democopoulos referred to the issues of original sin which led to doctrines and a world view that clash with the Orthodox. If you know something about his thinking on grace to be a problem, I would be happy to hear it. I don't know of any. But whatever the differences, we as Orthodox cannot convince anyone of the truth if we do not dialogue with them respectfully. It is difficult to hear the truth unless it is spoken confidently and in a language that they can understand. Dialogue does not mean acquiescence. I am not an expert on St. Augustine, and I appreciate this exchange because it has motivated me to read The Confessions and other things. I checked Meyendorff on the filioque, he does not mention Augustine. He does reference him in relation to original sin, however. This is one of the main reasons I converted to Orthodoxy from Catholicism. I am happy to explain to any Catholic what my reasons are for doing so. Is that ecumenism?
In Christ,
Mary

[Andrew Cheevers]

As an aside to this interesting exchange, when the Uniting Church in Australia came to consider the form of the Nicene Creed to put in its official prayer book, it decided to drop the filoque. I suspect this was in part a result of contact with the Orthodox Churches through the ecumenical movement.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mary,

I'm not sure why Meyendorff did not mention Saint Augustine on the filioque. Saint Augustine did write of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. Surely, in the west there is a tradition that relies on the theology of Saint Augustine which remains in place, it seems to me that the filioque is part of that theology.

What you have mentioned I don't think is ecumenism, it is a limited encounter of a non- institutional nature with less planning and potential conflicts. In reality it is not that simple because of the significant differences of opinion and doctrines relating to beliefs and history. On a larger scale it often produces conflicts. From what I've been told, during the theological dialogue with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church which took place in Baltimore in the year 2000 the Orthodox and Latin's could not even come to agreement on what word should be used or applied to refer to uniatism. Orthodox and other hands are shaken in disagreement while anticipating future meetings and the remaining same disagreements of many centuries. Perhaps, God willing there will be a return to the Orthodox faith one day.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mary,

I think there may be potential for concern regarding Saint Augustine's writings on created Grace, which is different than uncreated Grace. I'm not sure how such things are sorted out.

Having said that, Saint Augustine and the Church Fathers by the Grace of God had received much wisdom. Personally, much of what the Fathers say is overwhelming to me. I just attended the ordination of a dear friend to the Holy Priesthood at the Jordanville Monastery. His mother by the Grace of God gave birth to two men who are now Priests. As I mentioned before the subject of Grace is vast. I think John Dunn hit the nail on the head and is correct in saying "How can Orthodoxy share in the mission of the WCC; when the WCC denies the very essence of what Orthodoxy is: THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST?"

Here are some words on the Grace of Priesthood from Saint John Chrysostom, known as the golden mouth, are they applicable to the other Christian "Priests" in the body of the World Council of Churches or are they applicable to the Orthodox Priesthood which appears to be exclusive. What does the Orthodox Priesthood have to do with the unity sought in the World Council of Churches? Perhaps I've digressed and look at it in a narrow sense.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


Saint John Chrysostom has written; "4. For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for neither man, nor angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, but the Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels. Wherefore the consecrated priest ought to be as pure as if he were standing in the heavens themselves in the midst of those powers. Fearful, indeed, and of most awful import, were the things which were used before the dispensation of grace, as the bells, the pomegranates, the stones on the breastplate and on the ephod, the girdle, the mitre, the long robe, the plate of gold, the holy of holies, the deep silence within. But if any one should examine the things which belong to the dispensation of grace, he will find that, small as they are, yet are they fearful and full of awe, and that what was spoken concerning the law is true in this case also, that "what has been made glorious hath no glory in this respect by reason of the glory which excelleth."2 For when thou seest the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar,3 and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood,4 canst thou then think that thou art still amongst men, and standing upon the earth? Art thou not, on the contrary, straightway translated to Heaven, and casting out every carnal thought from the soul, dost thou not with disembodied spirit and pure reason contemplate the things which are in Heaven? Oh! what a marvel! what love of God to man! He who sitteth on high with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all,5 and gives Himself to those who are willing to embrace and grasp Him. And this all do through the eyes of faith!6 Do these things seem to you fit to be despised, or such as to make it possible for any one to be uplifted against them?

Would you also learn from another miracle the exceeding sanctity of this office? Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice:-these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication,7 not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire. Who can despise this most awful mystery, unless he is stark mad and senseless? Or do you not know that no human soul could have endured that fire in the sacrifice, but all would have been utterly consumed, had not the assistance of God's grace been great.

5. For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."8 They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, "Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?"9 What authority could be greater than this? "The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?"10 But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son. For they have been conducted to this dignity as if they were already translated to Heaven, and had transcended human nature, and were released from the passions to which we are liable. Moreover, if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?"

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

I was just emailed this recent article. It seems to me that the commitment to act does not included renouncing that which is unacceptable to Orthodoxy or unequivocally embracing the Orthodox faith. I could understand ecumenism if we saw a significant move to accepting the Orthodox faith entirely, but that isn't what is happening. I don't think the common goal is to accept Orthodoxy. As such, if that is not the common goal what is the purpose of any Orthodox involvement? Surely, we can't say that the goal of the Orthodox is to accept things that are not orthodox. To me the question remains since notions of this sort are expressed, is participation in ecumenism orthodox? I don't think ecumenism is just dialog as indicated in the below article; "Australia's Catholic ecumenical leader, Townsville Bishop Michael Putney, said: "It's not rhetoric or pious talk. It's a commitment to act."

Since it is not the goal of all of the participants in the ecumenical movement to return to the Holy Orthodox faith then we should not participate in it. I understand that the argument of participating in it to change the goals of others could be advanced as well, then we would be ecumenical movement goal changers and seen as advancing our own agenda.

Here is the complete article.

Churches sing from the same hymn sheet
By Barney Zwartz
July 26, 2004

Fifteen Australian churches have signed a historic "covenant of co-operation" under which they will recognise each other's baptism and ministries - and even share their clergy. Some will share church buildings, different congregations filling the same pews but in separate services.

The Uniting Church of Australia's president, Dean Drayton, called it "a really dramatic statement of intent and hope" that could not have happened anywhere else in the world.

Australia's Catholic ecumenical leader, Townsville Bishop Michael Putney, said: "It's not rhetoric or pious talk. It's a commitment to act. This is a very significant ecumenical event in Australian church history."

The churches are members of the National Council of Churches in Australia. They comprise the Catholic, Anglican, Uniting, Lutheran and Congregationalist churches, the Churches of Christ, Quakers, Salvation Army and seven Orthodox churches.

The council's general secretary, John Henderson, said not every church had signed every section of the covenant, such as intercommunion. Communion is still the biggest challenge: the Catholics and Orthodox churches do not allow people not baptised into their churches to take the sacrament. Few of the 15 churches have signed that. But the churches have committed themselves to recognising each other's baptism and ministries, sometimes sharing property and clergy, and developing closer relations.

"We are trying to tease out what churches mean by common faith and common cause," Mr Henderson said. He said the public would notice when churches started sharing property and clergy, which was already happening. "I recently visited a church near Perth that had both Catholic and Uniting Church signs out front, and which share equally."

All but four Orthodox churches agreed to share physical resources, such as church buildings, and eight churches agreed to pursue common mission and ministry. Anglicans agreed to share ordained ministers with the Lutheran and Uniting churches, and the Uniting Church with the Churches of Christ and Lutherans.

All 15 churches agreed to join in common prayer, and to seek a more visible expression of unity.

Dr Drayton said it was an enormous step for all the national churches to say they want to work towards union in the future.

"It's distant, but the intention is there," he said. "I don't think this could have happened in any other country in the world.

"Since the [16th century] Reformation, churches have more commonly kept on dividing and dividing again. But here are representatives of the church saying let's work towards a common goal. That's a really dramatic statement of intent and hope."

The conservative leadership of the Anglican church in Sydney is likely to ignore the move towards unity taken by its colleagues around the country.

The conservative Baptist, Presbyterian and Pentecostal churches are not among the National Council of Churches.

But Bishop Putney, chairman of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference ecumenism committee, said the covenant was "a serious commitment we make to each other to acknowledge where we have reached and commit ourselves to go further". Recognising each other's baptism was the foundation for everything else.

[James H.]

That last article that Matthew posted was bothersome. I honestly have no problem with Ecumenism and in fact I think it is a duty of the Church because of the divisions that we have caused over the centuries. But I have always understood Ecumenism as dialogue.

It seems to be that Orthodoxy in the "West" (Australia included) doesn't know how to respond to the charge that we are close minded and even arrogant. It's difficult in the Politically Correct Western climate to find that balance between not compromising what we believe to be Truth and openning up common and honest dialogue with others. I could be wrong, but perhaps this latest series of concessions made on behalf of some Orthodox Churches in Australia (not heretical, but just wierd) is attempt to prove to others that the orthodox can be just as PC and "openminded" as the next Church. But who are we trying to fool? We ARENT (or at least we shouldn't be) willing to compromise that which we feel we have no right to compromise. As Orthodox we believe that we are the Church, but we also are aware that the Church is not ours. It is not ours to cut corners with, to change for PC reasons... She is the Body of Christ and we have no right to mess with that. Other Churches (especially protestants) have a completely different view on the nature of the Church that we simply cannot share. It is not arrogance, it's just what Orthodoxy is. If we keep trying to fool ourselves and keep to "playing house" with Ecumenism as perhaps is being done in the example frm Australia, we run the risk of having finding ourselves in limbo, similar to where the RCC has found itself since Vatican II.

Don't get me wrong. As I said earlier, Ecumenism is important for the Church for a few reasons. One is because we can never deny the fact that most all mainstream protestants (and especially Catholics) are our Borthers and Sisters in Christ and so for that matter long, dialogue should always be open. Plus, through this dialogue we can perhaps convuince them of where we are coming from and perhaps (as Protestant Churches are constantly changing their doctrine) they will come closer to an Orthodox understanding of things. Let us not forget that Ecumenism can be humbling as well. The Church may be correct on matters of doctrine and dogma, but we could learn (especially form Catholics) how to better operate in the Western Culture that is so foreign to orthodoxy (not theologically or liturgically, but in how we cooperate with the world around us).

Sorry if none of that made sense. In the end, ecumenism is for understanding... even if it never leads to unity on here on earth.

God bless everyone, and thank you for you patience with my ramblings.

James

[Isaac David]

In the two years that I have been in the Orthodox Church, I have read and thought a great deal as well as talked and listened to other Orthodox. I have probably very much 'read between the lines' as Fr Seraphim puts it, because I have slowly arrived at the conclusion that Orthodoxy is very different from non-Orthodoxy. The whole ethos of Orthodoxy is different.

Ecumenism doesn't make any sense to me since it seems to imply that there is something missing in Orthodoxy which can be restored through dialogue with those outside. By all means let us continue to witness to the Truth to all those who will hear it, and let us recognise that there are many non-Orthodox who shame us by their lives, but I don't see how we can improve by adopting their doctrines or practices. Better to deepen our own commitment, surely?

[Andrew Cheevers]

I read that article in today's paper.

With respect, it seems to me that many people participating in this discussion like to stress how different orthodoxy is to other versions of Christianity. That's fine. We're different. Paul said something about that, I suspect.

What the ecumenical movement is about is Christians working out where they are similar: where we can work together with integrity. The leaders of Orthodoxy have recognised the value of this since the inception of the movement.

I haven't yet seen the text of the NCC Agreement referred to in the Article. However, it seems obvious from it that the Orthodox churches involved have put in place appropriate caveats to protect the integrity of the tradition.

Surely you don't think that the Australian branches of the Orthodox churches involved would act without appropriate endorsement of the NCC Agreement from the relevant international authorities?

[Owen Jones]

Here are some practical problems with "ecumenical dialogue." With Rome, they have lost the theological language with which to find common ground and are dealing in the realm of a kind of neo-Thomism that combines medieval categories with contemporary being babble. So it is extremely difficult to know what it is they are even talking about. And in the U.S. probably 60% plus of their bishops are heretics, and I don't mean heretics in the sense that, say, even Arius was a heretic. AT least Arius believed in Christ's divinity!

With the mainstream protestants there is another problem. They lie outrageously. They view theological language as a social construct, not revelatory. It is something that is manipulated for power purposes and actually has no inherent meaning to it. But they will use theological language in ecumenical dialogue as a means of convincing you that they believe it does have meaning. So they will sound like devout trinitarians while not believing in God at all. And of course our closest brothers in spirit, who would be the Pentacostals and fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals do not engage in any ecumenical dialogue. It's like Orthodoxy and Judaism. The group that we would have the most affinity with, the Orthodox Jews, are the most insular and the least ecumenical.

In my opinion, Orthodox representatives should cut off all ecumenical dialogue with Rome and with mainline protestantism until certain demands to clarify or change certain positions are met. That is not to say we should not meet and discuss and have dialogue, but not with the pre-supposition behind it that union is the goal. And Orthodox representatives should make a sincere effort to introduce Orthodoxy to evangelical protestants in the U.S. and around the world, and those remaining Anglicans who are "orthodox," particularly in Africa. And there is much to be discussing regarding cultural issues as well. But my impression is that the Orthodox hierarchy is so anxious to be accepted and approved of, as if we are prodigal sons of the faith, that you will not see any such boldness any time soon.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Having just returned home I don't want to add any comments that would merely be repetitive of what has already been adequately stated. Instead let me offer some comments from my own personal experience about ecumenism.
When I first became Orthodox in 1979 I entered a jurisdiction then strongly commited to ecumenism. I also was ecumenist before I even knew what the word meant. To me the idea that there was only One True Church would have been repugnant. And at that time my beliefs were strongly reflected within the type of Orthodoxy I had beome part of.
At that time it was extremely popular for well-known bishops & priests to give talks to the non-Orthodox demonstrating how we were mystical and had something to offer the rest of Christianity and how accessible and well-meaning we were. Besides attendance at Ecumenical Conferences it was extremely likely that at any social gathering the local cardinal or pastor would be present. I think I accurately reflect the spirit of that time when I say that at that time it would have been extremely rare to hear it said openly (except in some documents few of us cared about) that there is One True Church and it is identical to the Orthodox Church.
Looking back at this time I think that partly at least this was a reflection of the times- this was the period after the War, the hey-day of Liberalism. There was an idealism to that time difficult to convey to those who did not live through it- on the one hand I think this did have a positive if subtle effect on those who came to the Church at that time. But there was also an idea of over-all unity as the highest ideal that also affected us. Remember that this was the period after the War. It was felt that only humanitarian tolerance could triumph over the evils of fanaticism which had caused the War. This whole interpretation of events can now be seen as naive (Nazism like Communism is a far greater evil than a mere 'infringement of human rights') but that is how it was seen at the time-and so it was that the belief in One True Church was also seen as fanatical, almost anti-human.
A second aspect of that time was that we wanted to be accepted. In many of the public talks it was implied that although we were distinct we were also a part of 'the brotherhood of mankind.' Forgive me if I offend anyone by saying this but at that time I do believe that many wanted Orthodoxy to become what I call 'eastern-rite normal'.
For myself I only began to question any of this when I read St Cyprian of Carthage. Then there was my trip to Mt Athos & later on in the late 1980s a general drift away from the hey-day to a more nuanced version of ecumenism. Nowadays there is still disagreement on this subject so fundamental to us. But now one can openly speak of the One True Church and warn about ecumenism. As long as there is a 'modern' world this vital topic will always be at the center of our considerations. And as the world becomes progressively more worldly and broken we will have to face the delicate task of responding to the world while not succumbing to its temptations.
In Christ-Fr Raphael

[James H.]

Fr Raphael, thank you for your insight into this topic. And thank you also to Owen. I also found many or your insights helpful in sorting out what I think about ecumenism and how I define it. I disagree with you sweeping generalization of protestants and I've learned over the years that in almost all circumstances you cannot group them together because they vary so much.

Onto another point, but still regarding ecumenism. I was in the Basilica of Sacré Coeur the other day in Paris (amazing!) and was thinking about how much we have in common. I honestly think that doctrinally there isn't too much that seperates us and that (despite what others may think) the RCC has made honest attempts towards unification with the Orthodox Church (I mean, honestly, we CANNOT expect Rome to say one day, "OK, no Filioque!", and alienate an entire people that has said the Creed with the Filioque for years. They learned their lesson, I hope, with Vatican II that abrupt and unnatural changes do not work). God bless Pope John Paul II, he will forever be a saint in my book. But then I went to Orthodox Divine Liturgy this weekend and I realized that how we view worship is completely foreign to 70% of all Catholics in the US. And while much of the liturgical craziness that we see in US Roman Catholic Churches is done to the ignorance of the Vatican, a lot of it (perhaps most of it) is not and some of the craziness (like turning around the altar) was even forced on its followers by Rome! So I realized that we are a long ways away from unification... not so much because of dogmatic and doctrinal issues, but because of our evermore differing perspectives on that which is central to the Orthodox life: Worship. How can I tell my children, "Yes, we are one with that Church" referring to a parish that celebrates the mass with Campfire songs and a clown for the kids? Yet that happens even under the knowing eye of the Vatican. I think that is what most separates us from Rome. Vatican II, while it did some good things, only divided East and West all the more and that's so sad because some of my closest friends in Christ are Catholic (and they also see the problem with Vatican II) and I would so love to attend a respectable Mass with them one day and partake with them.... but that will never happen in my lifetime.

Well, if that's not a pick-you-up, I don't know what is. Please, I am interested in what others have to say regarding Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, especially if they think I was being to pessemistic (sp?) or overly harsh on the RCC. That is entirely possible.

God bless!

James

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Andrew,

There is a very strong traditional connection between Monasticism and Orthodox spirituality. I would venture to say that Mount Athos (The Holy Mountain) is collectively opposed to Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement. It is true that there are Orthodox Hierarchs that have embraced the ecumenical movement, like many other Christians with love and sincerity. There are also those that see it differently. There is nothing wrong with dialog, but that is not the singular goal of ecumenism. If we Orthodox enter into dialog with the Orthodox Jews shouldn't the purpose of Orthodox Christian dialog ultimately be to hear; Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one, Father, Son and Holy Spirit the Trinity one in essence consubstantial and undivided. If the Unitarians enter into dialog with the Orthodox Jews they will not have the same things in mind as we the Orthodox do. I’m not sure what the Orthodox churches in Australia are doing.

Here is the understanding of the Ecumenical movement by Archbishop Averky as he saw it in 1968.

True Orthodoxy
by +ARCHBISHOP AVERKY
of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery

Few people today know that the Orthodox Church is nothing less than that Church which has preserved untainted the genuine teachings of Jesus Christ, the very teachings delivered to every subsequent generation of believers. These teachings came down the centuries. from the Holy Apostles, explicated and carefully interpreted by their legitimate successors (their disciples and the holy Fathers), traditioned and conserved unaltered by our Eastern Church which is alone able to prove her right to be called "the Orthodox Church."
The divine Founder of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, said clearly, "I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her" (St. Matt xvi, 18). To the Church, He sent the Holy Spirit. The Spirit descended upon the Apostles, the Spirit of Truth (St. John xv, 16f) Who "manifests all things" to Her and guides Her (St. John xvi, 13), protecting Her from error. Indeed, it was to declare this Truth to men that the Lord came into the cosmos, according to His own words (St. John xviii, 31). And Saint Paul confirms this fact in his letter to his pupil, the bishop Timothy, saying that, "the Church of the living God is the ground and pillar of the Truth" (I Tim iii, 15).
Because She is "the ground and pillar of the Truth," "the gates of Hell cannot prevail against Her." It follows, then, that the true Christian Church—palpably unique since Christ established but one Church—has always existed on earth and will exist to the end of time. She has received the promise of Christ, "I will be with you even unto the end of the age." Can there be the slightest doubt that the Lord refers here to the Church? Any honest and sane judgment, any act of good conscience, anyone familiar with the history of the Christian Church, the pure and unaltered moral and theological teachings of the Christian religion, must confess that there was but one true Church founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ, and that She has preserved His Truth holy and unchanged. History reveals, moreover, a traceable link of grace from the holy Apostles to their successors and to the holy Fathers. In contrast to what others have done, the Orthodox Church has never introduced novelties into Her teachings in order to "keep up with the times", to be "progressive", "not to be left at the side of the road," or to accommodate current exigencies and fashions which are always suffused with evil. The Church never conforms to the world.
Indeed not, for the Lord has said to his disciples at the Last Supper, "You are not of this world." We must hold to these words if we are to remain faithful to true Christianity—the true Church of Christ has always been, is and will always be a stranger to this world. Separated from it, she is able to transmit the divine teachings of the Lord unchanged, because that separation has kept Her unchanged, that is, like the immutable God Himself. That which the learned call "conservativism" is a principal and, perhaps, most characteristic index of the true Church.
Since the TRUTH is given to us once and for all, our task is to assimilate rather than to discover it. We are commanded to confirm ourselves and others in the Truth and thereby bring everyone to the true Faith, Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, there have appeared in the very bosom of the Church, even among the hierarchy, opinions expressed by well-known individuals which are detrimental to Her. The desire to "march with the times" makes them fear that they will not be recognized as "cultured", "liberal" and "progressive." These modern apostates to Orthodoxy are "ashamed" to confess that our Orthodox church is precisely the Church which was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church to which appertains the great promise that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her," and to which He confided the plenum of divine Truth. By their deceit and false humility, by their blasphemy against the Lord, these false shepherds and those with them have been estranged from the true Church. They have given tacit expression to the idea that "the gates of Hell" have "prevailed" against the Church. In other words, these apostates say that our holy Orthodox Church is equally "at fault" for the "division of the churches" and ought now to "repent" her sins and enter into union with other "Christian churches" by means of certain concessions to them, the result being a new, indivisible church of Christ.
This is the ideology of the religious movement which has become so fashionable in our times: "The ecumenical movement" among whose number one may count Orthodox, even our clergy. For a long time, we have heard that they belong to this movement in order "to witness to the peoples of other confessions the truth of holy Orthodoxy," but it is difficult for us to believe that this statement is anything more than "throwing powder in our eyes." Their frequent theological declarations in the international press can lead us to no other conclusion than that they are traitors to the holy Truth.
As a matter of historical fact, the "ecumenical movement"—of which the WCC is the supreme organ—is an organization. of purely Protestant origin. Nearly all the Orthodox Churches have joined, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia being the most notable exception. Even those churches behind the "iron curtain" have joined. For some time the Russian Patriarchate resisted, flattering herself with the purity of her Orthodoxy and quite naturally viewing this movement as hostile to Orthodoxy. She has since become a member.
The Russian Synod almost stands alone in her opposition to the "ecumenical movement." How can we explain her isolation from the rest of "global Orthodoxy"? We must understand the situation in terms of the words that "this Must take place" (St. Luke xxi, 9), that is, the "great apostasy" clearly predicted by the Lord (Sol ii, 3-12). "it is permitted by God," as [St.] Ignatius Brianchaninoff said almost a century ago. (Another spiritual father, Theophan the Recluse, announced with grief that the horrendous apostasy would begin within Russia.) [St.] Ignatius wrote: "We are helpless to arrest this apostasy. Impotent hands will have no power against it and nothing more will be required than the attempt to withold it. The spirit of the age will reveal the apostasy. Study it, if you wish to avoid it, if you wish to escape this age and the temptation of its spirits. One can suppose, too, that the institution of the Church which has been tottering for so long will fall terribly and suddenly. Indeed, no one is able to stop or prevent it. The present means to sustain the institutional Church are borrowed from the elements of the world, things inimical to the Church, and the consequence will be only to accelerate its fall. Nevertheless, the Lord protects the elect and their limited number will be filled."
The Enemy of humanity makes every effort and uses all means to confound it. Aid comes to him through the total co-operation of all the secret and invisible heterodox, especially those priests and bishops who betray their high calling and oath, the true faith and the true Church.
Repudiation of and preservation from the apostasy which has made such enormous progress demands that we stand apart from the spirit of the age (which bears the seeds of its own destruction). If we expect to withstand the world, it is first necessary to understand it and keep sensitively in mind that in this present age all that which carries the most holy and dear name of Orthodoxy is not in fact Orthodox. Rather, it is often "A fraudulent and usurped Orthodoxy" which we must fear and eschew as if it were fire. Unlike this spurious faith, true Orthodoxy was given and must be received without novelty and nothing must be accepted as a teaching or practice of the Church which is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and the dogma of the Universal Church. True Orthodoxy thinks only to serve god and to save souls and is not preoccupied with the secular and ephemeral welfare of men. True Orthodoxy is spiritual and not physical or psychological or earthly. In order to protect ourselves from "the spirit of the age" and preserve our fidelity to the true Orthodoxy, we ought firstly and with all our strength live blamelessly: A total and rigorous commitment to Christ, without deviation from the commandments of God or the laws of His holy Church. At the same time, we must have no common prayer or spiritual liaison with the modern apostasy or with anything which "soils" our holy Faith, even those dissidents who call themselves "Orthodox." They will go their way and we will go ours. We must be honorable and tenacious, following the right way, never deviating in order to please men or from fear that we might lose some personal advantage.
The sure path to perdition is indifference and the lack of principles which is euphemistically called "the larger view." In opposition to this "larger view" we put the "rigor of ideas" which, in modernity, it is fashionable to label "narrow" and "fanatical." To be sure, if one adopts the "modern mentality," one must consider the holy martyrs—whose blood is "the cement of the Church"—and the Church Fathers—who struggled all their lives against heretics—as nothing less than "narrow" and "fanatical." In truth, there is little difference between "the broad way" against which the Lord warned and the modem "larger view." He condemned the "broad way" as the way to "gehenna."
Of course, the idea of "gehenna" holds no fear for those "liberals" and avant-garde theologians. They may smugly "theologize" about it, but in rashly and wantonly discussing "the new ways of Orthodox theology" and acquiring a number of disciples, they give evidence that they no longer believe in the existence of Hell. This new breed of "Orthodox" are really no more than modem "scholastics."
In other words, the way of these "progressivists" is not our way. Their way is deceptive, and it is unfortunate that it is not evident to everyone. The "broader" or "larger view" alienates us from the Lord and His true Church. It is the road away from Orthodoxy. This view is sinister, maliciously invented by the Devil in order to deny us salvation. For us, however, we accept no innovations, but choose the ancient, proven way, the way in which true Christians have chosen to serve God for 2,000 years.
We choose the way of fidelity to the true Faith and not the "modern way." We choose faithfulness to the true Church with all Her canons and dogmas which have been received and confirmed by the local and universal Councils. We choose the holy customs and traditions, the spiritual riches of that faith transmitted complete and entire to us from the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers of the Church, and the Christian heritage of our venerable ancestors. This alone is the faith of the true Orthodox, distinct from the counterfeit "orthodoxy" invented by the Adversary. We receive only the Apostolic Faith, the Faith of the Fathers, the Orthodox Faith.

Dear James,

If you read just a small amount of what Apostolos Makrakis has written regarding the Roman Catholic Church you will quickly come to the conclusion that you are not being overly harsh or pessimistic.

The current Bishop of Rome is very conservative by todays RC standards, and look what has happened. What will happen if a more liberal bishop of Rome emerges? The issue and the progress of ecumenism between the Orthodox (us) and the Latin's is really a matter of gathering the personalities that can work together so that Rome returns to the Orthodox Faith. There is hope for Rome if they still have the ability to look at what is happening, however it is a common for us the Orthodox to pray for those that are blinded by pernicous heresies.

I have many friends that are Roman Catholic and most Roman Catholics that I speak with don't really accept Papal infallibility and many other understandings that are not accepted by us. Actually when I've discussed some of the matters with them, I've never had anyone of them say as Roman Catholics we couldn't accept that, however they have said the Vatican won’t go for that. I think in general the laity are not caught up in or look at it just in a learned Roman Catholic dogmatic sense. If they are conservative and reasonable they are usually of a very good pragmatic mind set. Most think that celibacy should be removed especially with the problems they have suffered with in recent times. The problem is that they don't have any real say in the matter. Rome say's that is the way it is and will remain even if there are serious problems that reduce the confidence of the faithful. As such if there is a pervasive problem, the problems remain and no real solution is considered. The utimate goal for Rome is always to be in communion with Rome. Hence, nowadays we hear that the Orthodox are 90% correct, the divisive 10% is what is considered to be heretical by both sides.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear Owen,
I am very interested to know your source for 60% of Roman Catholic bishops not believeing in the divinity of Christ. I worked inside the Catholic church for 20 years, and even the most liberal of Catholic bishops were never accused of that. Possibly you are thinking of the Anglican survey in England where many clergy said they did not believe in certain dogmas, possibly the divinity of Christ. Any bishop in the Catholic church who breathed such a thing would not only not be a bishop any more, but would be defrocked. Bishop Spong who publicly writes about not believing in the fundamental non-negotiable doctrines of Christianity is still called a bishop of the Anglican church. That would not happen in the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II is the one who appoints bishops, and he is not a liberal.

And, by the way, Arius believed that Jesus Christ was a created being and not part of the true Godhead. He did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

From the point of view of a former Catholic for over 50 years, I was always taught respect and, indeed, love for the Orthodox tradition as true part of the one, true church going back 2000 years, regardless of the history of discord, (political and theological), which Protestants may have difficulty understanding because of the anti-Catholicism that is often built into their theology. In my entire life in the Catholic Church, I never heard a sermon condemning Protestants, but in the years I attended Protestant churches, I often heard anti-Catholic statements from the pulpit. When I hear it from Orthodox constantly, it makes me wonder what Orthodox are afraid of. If the truth resides there, then why such defensiveness and fear? We may not know where respectful and honest dialogue with other Christian churches may lead, but no dialogue leads nowhere. As I posted before, dialogue does not mean syncretism or relinquishing one's own beliefs.

However, I have enough work to do focusing on my own repentance to preoccupy myself with contamination from other churches. I have contaminated myself with my own sins. But, since Jesus came for sinners and not the righteous, I am in good hands.

[John Curtis Dunn]

The current Bishop of Rome is very conservative by todays RC standards, and look what has happened.

-----------

I sometimes hear this being stated by Orthodox Christians, but is it really true and compared to what?

In my reading, the Pope is quite progressive and continues to press the tenants of Vatican II as being inspired by the Holy Spirit.

john dunn

[John Curtis Dunn]

As Christianity converted the minds of men in the Roman Empire; apologist for Paganism united themselves against Christianity around Plato. But even before this, there was a controversy between the various Philosophical schools attempting to find a uniting philosophy which was common to all the gods.

john dunn

[James H.]

Dear Mary,

Thank you so much for you post! I agree with every point you made and appreciated the points that I had not yet thought about (being that I have never been Catholic). I especially like what you said about "We may not know where respectful and honest dialogue with other Christian churches may lead, but no dialogue leads nowhere. As I posted before, dialogue does not mean syncretism or relinquishing one's own beliefs."

I hope what I said about the RCC in my last post did not offend you or any other former Catholics (or those who are presently Catholic). I truly said everything in sincerity and with true concern for the RCC that I love dearly and the recent path it has taken in the US.

John Dunn, there is a lot that can be said to criticize certain actions of the current Pope of Rome. But I think we should be all the more concerned with our own Bishops. Are they perfect? His holiness Patriarch Bartholemew (sorry if the title is wrong) has done a lot to be criticized as well as, I believe, the Patriarch of Moscow. So many times, when our Bishops should have been examples of ultimate forgiveness, they have only driven further the resentment still felt from the Sack of Constantinople. I wish our attitudes would reflect more often than not that of the Romanian monk on Mt Athos who said was so happy when he heard that Rome asked for forgiveness for the Sack and he said that we should be fully ready and overjoyed to forgive and love our seperated brethern. This is from "Mountain of Silence" an excellent book on Orthodox Spirituality that everyone should read. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif But instead, so many orthodox are distrustful of the Popes apology and act like it wasn't enough. It was. We are to forgive unconditionally as Crist taught us. This is perhaps the greatest challenge given to us as Christians. Resentment is understandable in many circomstances... but never justifiable.

Sure, there is a lot to criticize when it comes to the Pope, but if we can learn anything from him, it is the virtue of humility.

I got off the topic a little, but I think Mary made an excellent point when she questioned why we feel it so necessary to criticize Catholics if we are so sure that Orthodoxy holds the truth. Critiicism is good when it comes out of genuine concern but I so often find myself criticizing so that I feel more "right" or justified.

Thank you again Mary for your post.

James

[John Curtis Dunn]

I wrote nothing criticizing the Pope, he is free [meaning he does not have to answer to me] to do whatever he thinks is right and correct. My comment simply was a brief commentary on a perception of Pope John Paul II as "very conservative;" a thought sometimes expressed by Orthodox Chritians.---

john dunn

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All
In the vrey early days of investigting Orthodoxy I corresponded briefly with -the now reposed- Prof. Charles Ashanin. I the book Essays on Orthodox Christianity and Church History, this was written in the Introduction by Ronald E. Osborn, Prof. Emeritus of American Church History; School of Theology at Claremont

Ecumenis used as a noun to designate a person of ecumenical experience and vision who has personally appropriated the spiritual and theological riches of semingly diverse and sometimes hostile traditions is , so far as I know, a word of my own devising...Used as an adjective, ecumenic or ecumenical means universal, especially when applied to the church; it refers to activities and organizations intended to advance the movement toward unity among separated Christians and to realize the oneness of the Chruch. But the noun ecumenist, however noble in intent, has an institutional ring...But my word ecumenic used as a noun -if indeed it is mine; I cannot find it in my unabridged dictionary- has a deeper reference. By ecumenic I mean a Christian who has appropriated in his or her own life the reality of the universal Church and the spiritual insights of understanding where, instead of warring with one another, they uphold and enrich one another. Having integrated these elements from various streams into one's own theology and spirituality, the ecumenic is at home with fellow Christians, capable of speaking their language and feeling the pull of their deepest commitments. In this sense -not anti-institutional but penetrating below the level of institutionalism- Charles Ashanin is an ecumenic.

I know it's a long quote, but I thought it might shed some light, or at least be informative, in view of the topic of this thread. Prior to reading the above my own viewpoint of the term ecumenical was wholly the institutional type.

[James H.]

John,

After re-reading what you wrote, it really wasn't much of a criticism at all. I think mixed what you wrote with some other things I just read beforehand. Forgive me for flying off the handle there http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

James

[Mary Stavroula]

Thank you James, for your post regarding the Catholic church and Pope John Paul II's apology for the Crusade's horrible sack of Constantinople.

Many issues have been raised under the thread of Ecumenism, which has caused me some confusion. I have spent much time trying to understand all the various strands. My response in the last post on Catholicism was to try to introduce another view that some may simply not be aware of because of their experience. Sometimes we hear things and assume they are correct without substantiation. To me, this was not about ecumenism, but accuracy of fact.

I think I understand now that some feel that if a church may hold to doctrines that are not yours, dialoging with them is wrong. So, to prove them incorrect is sufficient to prove that ecumenism is wrong. This is something new for me, so I have been slow to comprehend that position.

The use of the terms conservative and liberal can cause confusion because people tend to not be one or the other across the spectrum of their being. If one speaks of the issues of women's ordination, abortion, blending Marxist thought with theology, birth control, teaching theology that is consistent with the church's doctrine, the pope is perceived as conservative by many. He is also against capital punishment under the view at all life is sacred, and therefore some may view him as liberal. He has visited and forgiven the man who almost killed him, what does that make him? I'm not sure. He is presently pushing to roll back some of the liturgical practices and eliminate the weird ones that were a result of Vatican II. He has allowed parishes to have Latin masses. I don't know what John Dunn was referring to in his assessment of the pope as not conservative since he did not mention specifics, but only referred to him favoring the changes of Vatican II. Not everything that came out of Vatican II was wrong, but some view it as one piece of evil. I don't agree. I learned to go to confession face to face for the first time as a result of Vatican II as Orthodox do. The fact that Catholics hardly go to confession at all is the result of many other historical and cultural factors, and that eventuality is tragic.

I agree with you that to not accept the apology of the pope for Constantinople is not in the spirit of Christ since Christ admonished us to forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven times. If the pope can physically embrace the man who shot him and forgive him, can we not forgive the RC Church when he asks for forgiveness? Does being the true church allow us to ignore Christ's command? Of course, we all know the answer to that one, and we know that the veracity of the Orthodox church will be strengthened by it, not weakened.
In Christ who loves us all,
Mary Stavroula

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At this point there seems to be a consensus among us that there is One True Church identical to the Orthodox Church. All seem to indicate that participation in the ecumenical movement should not involve any compromise in matters of the Faith.
So perhaps at this point we could discuss the possible usefulness or harm in participating in such meetings.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Moses Anthony]

Fr. R.
As I see it the usefulness is in knowing just what the other side is thinking. This cuts down on mis-interpretations, and, when the time does come, can lead to a more constructive meeeting. The down side is as it has always been; someone will construe it as a "sellout", and all the other negative connatations which go with it.
This is my third post today, I've really got to pace myself.

an unworthy sinner

[Anastasia Theodoridis]

> The first point to be made, on which we will all agree, is that > unforgiveness is poisonous to the soul, unchristian, and inexcusable. > We Orthodox needed to have forgiven the popes all along, for centuries > now, and to keep on forgiving. Period. > > But just to set the record straight, the pope never asked our > forgiveness. His prayer carefully specified it was *not OUR > forgiveness* that was being sought. He said: > > "For the occasions past and present, when sons and daughters of the > Catholic Church have sinned by action or omission against their > Orthodox brothers and sisters, may *the Lord* grant us the forgiveness > we beg *of Him*." We're asking God. It's between Him and us, not you. > > Whoever heard of any sincerely repentant person asking only God's > forgiveness, and not also craving the forgiveness of the wronged party? > > Did you catch how he also worked in a subtle assertion of supremacy > over us in the process? He refers to Catholics as "sons and daughters > of the Catholic Church" and us as their "brothers and sisters", making > us his sons and daughters as well. That's surely ill-calculated to > conciliate the Orthodox. > > Also, there was no mention of returning the identifiable loot. (It's > in places like the Vatican Museum and St. Mark's Cathedral in > Venice.) Not that we demand it and certainly we ought not to care > about the material objects, but how can one apologize for looting and > then not offer to return the stolen goods? How sincere can that be? > > The Greeks present at that meeting applauded heartily but according to > the New York Times account, the Roman prelates with the Pope applauded > very slowly; in fact, silently. How do they intend for us to interpret > that? > > Most of all, the Pope's words were far too vague to be able to tell > whether he intends actually to stop his political maneuvering at the > (great!) expense of the Orthodox and others. We can't afford to bet on > it. (Think Kosovo; think Rwanda.) > > So to me it seems quite clear that the Pope's words were a clever > political gesture only. So while we must forgive, unconditionally, > wholeheartedly, no question about it, at the same time we must not be > naive about the pope and his intentions. > > > Anastasia >

[M. Rallis]

“So perhaps at this point we could discuss the possible usefulness or harm in participating in such meetings.”

If I were a Protestant, Roman Catholic, or really, just a human being in search of God’s mercy, in search of the true use of my time in this life, in search of truly living, how could I not be benefitted by a witness from Orthodoxy. Indeed, in finding my way to the Orthodox Church and, within her, living the life in Christ, I would find the only real object of my search. The true end of the search for unity in the Ecumenical Movement, is to live Orthodoxy.

As for possible harm, if we reject the premise that somehow we need to re-establish the mystical unity in Christ of His Church, but rather witness to the fact that this unity has to this day persevered, just as He promised....who would be harmed? I guess the potential for harm, in a spiritual sense, is if one were to witness to something other than what Orthodox Christianity really is.

Now a further question is, is it productive to use the Ecumenical Movement as an opportunity for witness? And I suppose that to answer this question depends on whether there are any of our neighbors to be encountered in this movement who are truly seeking Communion.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Now a further question is, is it productive to use the Ecumenical Movement as an opportunity for witness? And I suppose that to answer this question depends on whether there are any of our neighbors to be encountered in this movement who are truly seeking Communion.

Fr. Justin Popovich of blessed memory asked that very same question. His answer at the time was concern that an authentic Orthodox witness was NOT being preserved by participants in the WCC, and that those neighbors were indeed less than sincere.

In more recent times, I have seen some movement by the Russians and Serbs towards a more responsible and faithful witness at the WCC, they seem to have taken Fr. Justin's admonitions to heart. However, as Bishop Tikhon (OCA) is wont to point out from time to time, there is a small cadre of "professional" Orthodox "ecumenists" who seem to enjoy the champagne brunches and get-togethers and see this whole process as an opportunity to socialize rather than proselytize.

FWIW

Disclaimer The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of sarcasm, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Michael Rallis wrote; "Now a further question is, is it productive to use the Ecumenical Movement as an opportunity for witness? And I suppose that to answer this question depends on whether there are any of our neighbors to be encountered in this movement who are truly seeking Communion."
What is the avowed purpose and aim of the Ecumenical Movement?
What does the Orthodox Church mean by "the union of all" as we pray in the Great Litany?
I think how we answer these two questions will characterise our involvement or not in the Ecumenical Movement.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James H.]

Anastasia,

I think it is possible that you are reading too much into the Pope's very sincere prayer. If he asked forgiveness from God for having offended us then it is necessarily implied that he is asking our forgiveness. Perhaps to a non-Christian this is not understood, but as Christians you and I know what forgiveness and repentance is and I think the Pope has properly demonstrated these virtues over the past 25 years.

As far as the holy objects go, one must understand that the Vatican is has a lot of political baggage (as do our Patriarchates... but the Vatican is much more powerful and responsible for a lot more, so it deals with a lot more politics). With that said, I would think that the Pope is often forced to play a game of politics. He has to try to please everyone. I could be wrong on this but it seeems to be, from things that the Pope has said and as well as people close to him, that he is even willing to concede Universal Jurisdiction for reconciliation! (and he would just hold Universal jurisdiction over the Western Rite Churches... seems logical and reasonable to me) But to what end? If he did this all of sudden, half or more of the Catholic Church would split off into tiny sects and claim their own Pope causing even more divisions. There would be a true crisis of Faith in the West. Reconciliation has to be done very carefully and sensitively to all sides. I honestly think that if the Pope acted as a dictator, and exercised all his powers as Pope, reconciliation would be around the corner (assuming we were humble enough to reconcile as well). But he can't do that and expect the West to remain in tact. I may be called a heretic for this, but does anyone truely believe that God's Grace suddenly left the the RCC at 1054 AD? The Sacraments are very real there and I have found little in Orthodox literature to dispute this. Because of this, I believe that the integrity of the Catholic Church must be preserved and therefore the Pope (and future Popes) must make changes and concessions very carefully, thoughtfully and without haste.

Please understand that I am not tying to downplay the gravity of what happened in Constantinople, but I get the impression that this needs no convincing here. In English we have a saying (for those who aren't English speakers) to not look a gifthorse in the mouth. Perhaps the Pope's apology wasn't "perfect" (I think it was, but that's me) but it was certainly a humble and exemplairy (sp?) step in the right direction.

God bless,

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear James,
You wrote in post #36: "I may be called a heretic for this, but does anyone truely believe that God's Grace suddenly left the the RCC at 1054 AD? The Sacraments are very real there and I have found little in Orthodox literature to dispute this. Because of this, I believe that the integrity of the Catholic Church must be preserved and therefore the Pope (and future Popes) must make changes and concessions very carefully, thoughtfully and without haste."
There is only One Church since Christ is only One. There cannot be many 'churches' which all contradict each other on fundamental points of doctrine & piety. For the same reason that the Church is One we know that only where the Church is are there sacraments; if there are sacraments elsewhere then that also must be the Church (read St Cyprian of Carthage).
I think our confusion comes about partly because of the question of grace and where it is found. We think that if there is the grace of Christ there must be the Church. But this is not so. God may respond to anyone who calls upon Him. At the even more basic level God's grace sustains all of creation. This manner of grace however is not identical to the Church.
The Church is the objective & mystical Body of Christ held together by Orthodox faith & piety. It is the Divine/human Life of the Incarnate Christ wherein those who graft themselves into His Life find sanctification & deification. The Mother of God & saints in this sense are witnesses as to the reality of the Church.
Outside of the Church we may find those who serve Christ & call upon Him in the way they know best. We would not say that Christ does not respond to them. But outside of the Church something will always be missing. As the great Russian elder & confessor of the Faith, Fr Arseny said, "outside of the Church I have never seen anyone complete." This indeed gets to the heart of the matter for in the Church is where we find the completeness of salvation as fullness of life in Christ. And this is why the Church is called Orthodox.
Grace is Personal, ie Christ amidst us and taking Him unto Himself. At times we make the mistake of talking about grace as if it was an impersonal energy. So we think: "what is the difference between grace here and grace there? It's all the same." Perhaps an analogy to understand this would be that of a father or mother to children- it is only insofar as the relationship is understood by the children that the relationship is complete. The relationship is not complete just because it is a relationship of some sort. So much the more within the Church which is literally His Life-giving Body. Of course we often turn away from Him or misunderstand Him. But this does not deny the reality of what He offers.
What then of the non-Orthodox? Many of us have family & loved ones dear to us who are not Orthodox. Many still feel the good in the path they were on previous to the Church. The fact is that in Christ we come to recognise good or good impulses wherever they may be. Likewise we come to recognise what was harmful or incomplete. That is why I do not agree that, "the integrity of the Catholic Church must be preserved." We pray that the living & even the departed may find salvation (ie may go from glory to glory). All need to find fullness in Christ within His Church- is that not the most essential ecumenical prayer?
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

PS: a correction or addition to my last post #237. I wrote: "it is only insofar as the relationship is understood by the children that the relationship is complete."
It would be better to say, "it is only insofar as the relationship is accepted, grown into & then understood that the relationship is complete." It is wrong to imply that the relationship depends on the mental faculties of an adult- children are baptised after all and receive the Eucharist.
PS: perhaps this is another way of explaining why we baptise infants.
Fr Raphael

[M. Rallis]

Here is a portion of something I came across in doing a web-search on the Ecumenical Movement:

"The Oberlin Statement: Christian Unity As Viewed by the Orthodox Church"

Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church in USA
at the North American Faith and Order Study Conference,

Oberlin, Ohio, September 3-10, 1957

"As delegates to the North American Faith and Order Study Conference, appointed by His Eminence, Archbishop Michael, to represent the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, we want to make the following preliminary statements.

We are glad to take part in a study-conference, devoted to such a basic need of the Christian World as Unity. All Christians should seek Unity. On the other hand, we feel that the whole program of the forthcoming discussion has been framed from a point of view which we cannot conscientiously admit. "The Unity we seek" is for us a given Unity which has never been lost, and, as a Divine gift and an essential mark of Christian existence, could not have been lost. This unity in the Church of Christ is for us a Unity in the Historical Church, in the fullness of faith, in the fullness of continuous sacramental life. For us, this Unity is embodied in the Orthodox Church, which kept, catholikos and anelleipos, both the integrity of the Apostolic Faith and the integrity of the Apostolic Order.

Our share in the study of Christian Unity is determined by our firm conviction that this Unity can be found only in the fellowship of the Historical Church, preserving faithfully the catholic tradition, both in doctrine and in order. We cannot commit ourselves to any discussion of these basic assumptions, as if they were but hypothetical or problematic. We begin with a clear conception of the Church’s Unity, which we believe has been embodied and realized in the age-long history of the Orthodox Church, without any change or break since the times when the visible Unity of Christendom was an obvious fact and was attested and witnessed to by an ecumenical unanimity, in the age of the Ecumenical Councils.

We admit, of course, that the Unity of Christendom has been disrupted, that the unity of faith and the integrity of order have been sorely broken. But we do not admit that the Unity of the Church, and precisely of the "visible" and historical Church, has ever been broken or lost, so as to now be a problem of search and discovery. The problem of Unity is for us, therefore, the problem of the return to the fullness of Faith and Order, in full faithfulness to the message of Scripture and Tradition and in the obedience to the will of God: "that all may be one".

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/oberlin.aspx

[Mary Stavroula]

Dear all,
In reference to the concept of "witnessing", please consider that I would not ever have become Orthodox if I did not become friends with an Orthodox person. I had studied Orthodox theology, but until I encountered someone who was willing to take me to an Orthodox church which opened the door to further exposure to writings like Bishop Kallistos, I would not have been presented with the theology and spiritual wisdom of Othodoxy at a time in my life when I was open to hearing it. If I had not discovered that Albert Raboteau had converted, and had he not been proactive in inviting me to the liturgy and talking to me about it, I would not have taken the step. I wasn't looking but I found it. No one knows how witness will bear fruit, whether socializing or discussion or even liturgy itself which has amazing power to convert. (Bear in mind that all of Russia may not have been Orthodox if the non-Christian emissaries had been barred from the liturgy, an incongruous practice that some monasteries practice today.) Our loving presence, our patient explanation, our firm belief in the truth that makes someone think about their life, we never know how or when it will have effect. Don't underestimate God's power to break through to someone if we shine our light instead of hiding it under a bushel.

A grateful convert,
Mary Stavroula

[James H.]

Thank you very much for your thoughts Mary. They are truly appreciated and well recieved.

James

[M. Rallis]

Dear all:

Here is a link to a paper presented at a recent Orthodox conference on ecumenism held in Thessaloniki, Greece just last month. Here is a part from just one paragraph:

"It has been said that there is more, true ecumenism taking place in America, ecumenism of a type which all Orthodox, I would think, might applaud, outside of, rather than inside, the institutionalized ecumenical organizations and bureaucracies. [4] In fact, those with whom we seem to have the most in common in terms of faith and morals in the United States are those of the faith communities NOT associated with the NCC or WCC, such as conservative Protestants and some Roman Catholic groups."


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/ReevesEcumenicism.shtml

The author presents strong critique of continuing Orthodox involvement in the WCC.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Michael,

It seems to me that Fr. John Reeves is reflecting on the relationship of Grace and Truth. Where there is Grace there is Truth and Truth is Grace etc. Furthermore the God given free will of the heterodox can accept the aforementioned, attempt to distort and misrepresent it, and the Jews who are not Orthodox Christians in the WCC reject it.

“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I have referenced the above scriptures because the distortions that many of the participants in the WCC continue irrespective of the opinions rendered by the Orthodox who choose to participate in the WCC. This is a continued rejection of the what the Orthodox Church believes and teaches as well as the fullness of Truth. We have not witnessed a large conversion to or the acceptance of the Truth of Holy Orthodox Christianity by means of Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical movement.

Colossians 4:6
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

What is salt?

http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org

I found this strange link and can only speculate how these people interpret Orthodoxy and how the came up with some of their ideas. You may look at the clergy photos link on the page some have beards and some don't, what's the difference?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Olga]

It's not the presence of or lack of beards that's the problem for me - it's their warped interpretation of that "orthodoxy" is! Look at the paragraph on Holy Union for a start (it's just below the paragraph on Marriage), and look at the closing comments. The language and sentiments sound like another outfit who call themselves Spiritis Church, "the one true original Church" (their words, not mine.) Try www.spiritis.com (http://www.spiritis.com). and spot the similarities. Spiritis's take on Apostolic Succession is intriguing.

[Olga]

Firstly, let me correct an error in my post no. 29: it should read 'of what "orthodoxy" is'. Secondly, there is definitely a connection between the OCCA and Spiritis - they share a "bishop", one Christopher J Hegarty, who has recently consecrated Spiritis's newest bishop, a woman, no less. Interesting.

[Alec Lowly]

Father Matthew Kirby, an Anglo-Catholic priest (traditional Anglican), has written a compelling article that advances a new paradigm for ecumenical dialogue among Orthodox, RCatholics, Anglo Catholics and the Oriental churches. The argument steers well clear of branch theory while exploring in some historical depth the question of divisions within and between particular churches which yet remained clearly within the one Church.

To access the article:

[Link] (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=127&id=2435)

Three excerpts:

"Since the (East-West) schism was grown into in such a gradual, haphazard and (in the end) unreflective or non-binding manner, it seems permissible to view it as never definitive. In that case, there is no need for either side to exclude the other from its identification of the One Church. Instead, they should start from the premise that they at least might never have been truly or fully divided, and approach doctrinal dialogue from that hopeful perspective. (Let’s not forget that both East and West have basically disowned the mutual excommunications of 1054, so one must assume they accept that, whatever happened afterwards, the state of schism existing at that time did not really mean one side or the other was outside the Church.)"

" ... if it can be successfully argued that the division between the RCC and the EOC has never been absolute or definitive and that it was initiated by unjustified excommunications and prolonged by mutual misunderstanding and pride, then the division can be characterised as incomplete, such that neither Church is outside “the Church”.Therefore, if it can be successfully argued that the division between the RCC and the EOC has never been absolute or definitive and that it was initiated by unjustified excommunications and prolonged by mutual misunderstanding and pride, then the division can be characterised as incomplete, such that neither Church is outside “the Church”."

"Indeed, before the fall of much of Anglicanism into destructive innovations, it was not uncommon for EO to be admitted to Anglican altars to receive Communion with the permission of their bishops if they were unable to get to their own Church. And this was only possible because of the previous multiple decisions by EO churches to recognise the validity of Anglican Orders. So, sacramental communion between Anglican Catholics and EO, even if under the limited aegis of “economy”, did exist to some extent in the Twentieth Century."

end

Alec Lowly
(Orthodox)

(Message edited by admin on 28 January, 2006)