Ecumenism - an ecclesiological heresy? [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Mark Harrison

25-07-2006, 05:04 AM

I'd like to share a few of my own thoughts here. Please remember that they are just that: my own. I am always leery of saying anything because, while I work at St Herman Seminary, I do not speak for anybody else, least of all the rector, who is my diocesan hierarch. He would be understandably irrate if I were to pretend to represent him, the diocese, or the seminary, in any way. What I offer are nothing but my own, hopefully reasonably informed opinions. I am always ready to be corrected if I have been misinformed or construe something incorrectly, or mis-represent anybody.

At this point in history, I believe that anybody who is trying to work through the issue of ecumenism as heresy, or possible heretical aspects of ecumenism, should thoroughly read materials from the negotiations between the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). I say this because this issue has historically been a major obstacle, along with 'Sergianism,' or the capitulation and enslavement of the Patriarchate to the Soviet regime. I can be absolutely certain, based on my personal familiarity with the senior priest on the ROCOR side, that the agreement is not a capitulation on ROCOR's part. This agreement is going to be a solid hashing out of the complex issues that will remain firm to ROCOR's and the MP's principles.

For those who do not know, perhaps one of the ROCOR clergy participating in this discussion can best give an account of the history of ROCOR's resistance to ecumenism. What I wish to emphasise here is that the present agreement is, as far as I can see, based on a sorting out of the various issues involved in particpation in the ecumenical movement. ROCOR has been satisfied with the MP's public statement (posted at www.mospat.ru) regarding its relations with heterodox. The key issue is that the Orthodox Church affirms herself to be uniquely the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 'There is one body and one Spirit…one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism… (Eph.4:4-6). This principle is core to the ecclesiology of the Church, central to Tradition, and therefore non-negotiable.

When Orthodox first started to participate in ecumenical discussions, it was made very clear that such participation by Orthodox could not be construed as a recognition of other bodies as 'church' except by a polite use of the term. It was until this basis of participation appeared to be eroding, and no doubt has eroded in some cases, that ROCOR objected. Where this fundamental principle is eroded, where heterodox bodies are identified as being equally 'parts' or 'branches' of the Church, of which the Orthodox Church is also only a 'branch'; that is where ecumenism becomes heretical. It should be noted, as Fr Thomas Hopko often did in class, that belief in the Church is a dogma set forth by nothing less than the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith! Subsequent Ecumenical and local Councils have re-affirmed the natural unity of the Church and their adherence to the faith of the fathers of that Church.

In one of the addresses given at ROCOR's 4th All-Diaspora Council this past May, the speaker noted a period under Metropolitan PHILARET in which ROCOR went into a protectionist mode. We could debate whether that was taken too far, but there really is no value in such a debate. Certainly the motive was the preservation of the fullness of the faith and the protection of the faithful. It was under those circumstances that the anathema against the branch theory was promulgated in 1984. At the same time, there was an suspicion, at least in some sectors of ROCOR, of anything that hinted of ecumenism. Even talking to heterodox was suspect in the eyes of many, at least. Frankly, I can't blame them any. At this point, however, ROCOR has seen the need to take a fresh look at the situation and distinguish between reasonable, charitable discussions with heterodox and heretical concessions to the branch theory.

The end result, as I understand it, is that ROCOR recognises that dialogue with heterodox is not in itself heretical; nor still less is coooperation in humanitarians endeavours. The last posting I saw on ROCOR's web-site gave me to believe that Metropolitan LAURUS, first hierarch of ROCOR, still has grave doubts about the usefulness of such dialogues. The resolution of the All-Diaspora Council that supported the reconcilation process, included a request to the MP to drop out of the Ecumenical Movement because of concerns about confusing the faithful. In the most recent meeting of the bi-lateral commissions, H.E. Metropolitan KIRILL answered questions about the MP's participation. It is my understanding that a revised draft of the Act on Canonical Communion was forwarded to the respective Synods, so I figure that His Eminence's responses were satisfactory to the ROCOR side.

Even among those who favour participation in the Ecumenical Movement, there is recognition that such participation is becoming increasingly difficult and may (soon, I hope) have to be terminated. The WCC is becoming more and more syncretistic, and driven by agendas that are not only alien to Orthodoxy, but derogatory in some cases. So far, Orthodox have chosen to insist that they be able to give separate, dissenting positions. Furthermore, at a meeting of the primates of the autocephalous churches in 1998 in Thessaloniki, it was agreed to stop paritcipating in ecumenical prayer services. That was one of ROCOR's biggest complaints, because it was the clearest indication of an erosion of Orthodox ecclesiology. How can you pray with people who believe such different things? How can you add your 'Amen'?

Last Summer, the Antiochian Archdiocese in North America pulled out of the NCC. They saw their participation as fruitless. They did not, however, pull out of all individual dialogues. They took a reasonable approach of evaluating where their efforts were being rewarded and where they were not. Likewise, in 2003, the MP withdrew from dialogue with the Episcopal Church in the United States, after they 'consecrated' an avowed homosexual as 'bishop.' I personally hope this trend continues. My own prediction, though I'd not wish to be held to it, is that before too long Orthodox will be anathema in the WCC anyways. We are politically incorrect, backward, bigoted, and all sorts of other things in the eyes of the liberals who run those organisations. It is good for us to be in honest dialogues, where tolerance is understood to mean that each side agrees to disagree while speaking with complete candor. Political correctness, is not tolerance, it's forfeiting your own voice and it demeans everybody. Where political correctness is not the rule, where there can be candid dialogue, there is room for ecumenical discussion and cooperation. My impression is that, at present, our most positive dialogues are with the non-Chalcedonians and the Latins. We have a common frame of reference with each of them. We may see Tradition as saying something different, but we at least have that common point of reference.

I've posted a number of lengthy pieces today in a couple of different threads. I promise I won't always be so long-winded. Those interested in this topic, and who have found my thoughts worthwhile reading, might also look at the thread I started on Anglicanism, and my posts about the relations between the MP and ROCOR under Jurisdictions and Calendars.

I hope I haven't just sounded like an insufferable know-it-all or bored anyone to tears. I've wanted to dive in. These are issues that I think are relevant to the Church today. Some might consider them peripheral, but I believe they are at the heart of our mission to the world; how we preach the Gospel of the Kindgom will be largely predicated on how we understaand these underlying issues. In everything, I hope everyone will remember that anything I say is my own opinion. I do not wish anyone to take it that I am speaking for St Herman Seminary or anybody else associated with it. Thank you for bearing with me.

In Christ,

Subdeacon Mark Harrison

Kosta

25-07-2006, 09:48 AM

Scott Pierson

26-07-2006, 01:08 AM

heretics and schismatics in the sense that these canons spoke of, no longer exist today

I've heard people state that before. Isn’t one ignoring the writings of the saints who have on many occasions brought up the fact that the Protestant and Latin Churches are schismatic and or heretical **? I don’t think I've ever read any of the saints arguing against the fact that protestant and catholic communions are heretical and or schismatic. When I bring that up with people who think they are not heretical/schismatic they usually tell me "well the saints can be wrong too" but that seems like a rather weak argument. The idea that heretics and schismatics don’t exist any more seems rather silly anyway. How many Orthodox Councils and saints need to declare these "church’s" heretical/ schismatic before people start taking it seriously? The idea that the Latin’s are not schismatics seems to defy common sense. If the Latin’s at one time were in communion with the Church and then later broke off communion with the Church doesn’t that logically fit the definition of schismatic?

Are they maybe saying that the Catholic and protestant churches are heretical and or schismatic but they are different kinds of heretics so its ok to pray with them ? That might be a logical argument I guess I don’t know too much about the said cannons. I just think it doesn’t make sense when people try to claim that they are not schismatic/and or heretical ( a claim I read fairly often in books by Orthodox authors).

Maybe I'm wrong though. If so feel free to set me straight.

** I can give references and quotes if anyone wants ... Its easy to find on the web though.

Kosta

26-07-2006, 08:17 AM

Dear Scott,
You are 100 percent correct to claim they are schismatics and/or herertics. Although defending the protestants as non-heretics is easier since they never were in the Church to begin with.
Archbishop Damianos abott of the Sinai Monastery cited these canons when he refused to pray with the pope a few years ago, when that bishop went on a pilgrimage there. (See: New York Times, international section- Sunday February 27,2000.) The Jerusalem Patriarchate still observe these canons as well.
The E.P. unfortunately does not. He found a loophole, that loophole was the lifting of the excommunications and anathemas of 1054.
Those who claim they are not heretics or schismatics tend to be liberal theologians breaded in the diaspora and probably have many close contacts with the heterodox. I mentioned once the hotbed of ecumenism found in many of our seminaries (ST. Sergius of Paris and almost all except for St. Tikhons in america)
In fact there was one pan-orthodox congress which condemned as heretics certain churches without actually naming them (latins were whom they had in mind) I can look it up.

Mark Harrison

26-07-2006, 08:43 AM

Dear Scott,
I mentioned once the hotbed of ecumenism found in many of our seminaries (ST. Sergius of Paris and almost all except for St. Tikhons in america)
In fact there was one pan-orthodox congress which condemned as heretics certain churches without actually naming them (latins were whom they had in mind) I can look it up.

SVS certainly does NOT practise or advocate the practise of communing with heterodox! I have witnessed NUMEROUS cases in which heterodox were politely asked to not approach the chalice.

SHS does not promote ecumenism at all.

Mark Harrison

26-07-2006, 09:18 AM

As you have stated, the problem with the ecumenical movement is its evolution towards syncretism. When we read the canons and councils, we see that certain rules are in place to prevent this, unfortunately those rules are disregarded.

Praying with heretics.

The E.P. recognizing anglican orders in 1922.

The possibility of recieving heterodox communion in either anglican or RC churches in cases of emergency.

The WCC agreed upon statement for a common date for Pascha in a Aleppo Syria in 1997 etc, and countless other examples.

The most controversial of this century being the adoption of a revised gregorian calendar. A few pan-orthodox councils condemned the new calendar with anathemas, reading the statements of these councils, it is precisely to avoid syncretism. Yet the new calendar was adopted for this very reason!!! I am a new calendarist, but now the cat is out of the bag. The writings of the earliest bishops associated with the change confirm that it was adopted as a way of syncretism with the western churches not for astronomical accuracy (which of course by using the same equinox as established in 325a.d. makes it completely innaccurate).
Now its time to make things right. Will the laity stand up to their bishops to rectify the situation? Or will we remain silent while the hotbed of ecumenism found in most of our seminaries run rampant?

Common prayer at ecumenical gatherings stopped in 1998, or so I am told. It is one of the bases for ROCOR's willingness to work toward reconciliation with MP.

What ever was said on paper, and it was not a categorical recognition from my reading of the documents, the fact is that functionally no Orthodox have ever recognised Anglican Orders. No Anglican has ever been received in orders. One must remember that the context in which the issue came up with the Papal declaration of Anglican Orders as null and void. Orthodox views of Anglican Orders are not founded on Latin categories of 'validity.' My recollection of reading the documents is that it was recognised that the Anglicans had preserved the mechanical aspect of Apostolic Succession, therefore, there was something to work with. However until dogmatic unity is achieved, this piece of the puzzle is not sufficient. Now, some 80 years later, the chances of doctrinal unity ever being achieved are nil and even the mechanism of Apostolic Succession has been eroded (to be polite) among Anglicans by the ordination of women and those committed to immorality, and I don't mean just homosexuals, though they are the most blatant cases.

The advice to Orthodox to seek Anglican or RC 'ministrations' in emergencies was indeed ill-advised, but it was not as widespread as some like to make it out and it has not continued. St Raphael (Hawaweeny) never advised his flock to commune in Anglican parishes, and only two years after he reluctantly allowed his flock to seek non-sacramental Anglican ministrations, he rescinded that blessing as well, and expressed clearly his feelings of being deceived by the Episcopalians. If you've never read his letter, look for it on-line under his name.

The agreement on the common date of Pascha is not such a simple issue. First of all, and most important, the documents I saw made it very clear that while the Orthodox delegation saw the proposal as acceptable in principle, they were not attempting to committ anybody to it, and advised the non-Orthodox participants that it would not be accepted at present. They made it very clear that they were not willing to risk further alienation among Orthodox, especially in light of the existing calendar issues, no matter how much sense the proposal made. I'd say they acted wisely.

The proposal itself must be viewed on its own merits, not just condemned because of its ecumenist context. The questions must be: would this make sense within the internal framework of the Orthodox Church? Could we do this, independent of ecumenical motives? The proposal calls for the Orthodox understanding of the canons to be followed, applying it to modern astronomical observations, which would be taken from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. If it were not for the distaste that so many of us rightly have for ecumenism, if it had come up in a purely Orthodox context, this proposal would make perfect sense. We might not adopt it, but it would be something we could discuss. That is the context in which we need to evaluate the proposal. Just because an issue is raised in the context of ecumenism, it does not follow that it must be from the devil. Each issue must be evaluated on its own merits.

The adoption of the Gregorian, or more accurately, the Revised Julian Calendar is certainly controversial and has been anathematised by some. In Constantinople in the 1700's a local council rejected the Papal Calendar and said that astronomy was not a legitimate issue. That, however, was a local council and not binding on the entire Church for all time.

There are a lot of pros and cons in the calendar issue. The biggest problem I have with the New Calendar is that it has been a source of division. That should not have been allowed. The biggest problem I have with the Old Calendar is that too many people play games with it, celebrating two Christmases. The Old Calendar is divorced from their real lives. When the Julian Calendar was the civil calendar, it guided the life of all of society. When reading about the life of St Innocent, it struck me that only one date was given for any given event. Russia was still using the Julian Calendar as its civil calendar. It was functional. The dichotomy between every day life and 'church' life is a problem, even if it should not be. This issue and the aforementioned issue of the division caused by the adoption of the New Calendar, are important. The Church as a whole needs to work this out, taking such issues into account. Only then, can the calendar issue - and any proposed revision of the Paschalion - be put to rest.

I don't wish to deny that there have never been any heretical motives in any of these issues. I am sure that some, motivated by Masonic principles, had their fingers in the pie and spoilt it for the rest. Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis was reputed to have been a Mason. I can't absolutely verify that, but I have no reason to doubt it either. His motives are suspect in the calendar issue and other issues. He certainly is not a hierarch of 'thrice-blessed memory.' This does not change anything I said above. Every issue must be evaluated on its own merits. If masonry can be shown to be a factor in any issue, then it is one of the factors that must be weighed in a sound evaluation, but it would be a mere exercise in prejudice, contrary reason, and counterproductive, to simply say that so and so was a Mason (especially if that has not be proven), and therefore this whole matter (whatever the issue is), must be a Masonic plot.

Scott Pierson

27-07-2006, 12:33 AM

You are 100 percent correct to claim they are schismatics and/or herertics. Although defending the protestants as non-heretics is easier since they never were in the Church to begin with.

I can see that It would be eaiser to logicaly make that argument... But I have seen more then a few of our saints call them heretics and thats good enough for me (especially considering the fact that I have yet to see a saint who claims "no there not heretics at all".). If a "Church" calls itself Christian and teaches something other then the real Church then the said "church" is heretical in my view. The followers of the "Church" may not be heretics in the same way Arius was (a person who was given the truth, rejected it and preached something differnt anyway.) but in that the "church" teaches something other then the real Church then its a heretical "church" IMO.

Kosta

27-07-2006, 09:33 AM

The so called Orthodox congress of 1923 under Patriarch Meletios certainly was under a heretical disguise.
One step to heal the calendar divisions is to recognize this and condemn this patriarch.

Patriarch Meletios was a mason. Greek publications of famous freemasons lists him as one. In fact many in the GOAA who are aware of the situation not only openly confirm it, but also privately admit that others since, who have occupied that throne are as well. Its no longer a secret and if im not mistaken there are also photographs of Meletios with other masons in their official meetings.

Its also known that besides Patriarch Meletios the highest honorary cleric in that 1923 "congress" was an anglican bishop. In that council a resolution was approved to abolish all fasts. Also resolutions approved: marriages for bishops and second marriages for priests. Rumor has it (but im not sure on this) this angered the Constantinopolitan flock and this is why he stepped down. Unfortunately, he was also elected (uncanonically) to the See of Alexandria. Here is where we see the attempt to synchronize with the anglicans. Even though the largest church in egypt are the Copts who still follow the julian calendar, Meletios decides the unity of the calendar with the west was more important than the unity of the calendar found within the local egyptian churches. So in the name of ecumenism he created an additional division with a church (copts) which are almost identical to us, to become closer with a church foreign to us, and has (anglicans) no precense in Egypt. Ironically union with anglicanism is pretty much dead now, but re-union with the non chalcedon are in our reach.

Keep in mind that i am an ethnic greek in the GOAA and i see the severity of these actions which no one wants to speak out about.

As far as the paschalion common date formula concieved at Aleppo, i would disagree with it even if it was in an orthodox setting. It should not be calculated in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchre. Each Patriarchate recieved certain priveleges. The privelege of calculating Pascha is given to the Alexandrian Patriarch. This was done because the most scientifically accurate information was located in Alexandria, it was the intellectual capital of the Roman empire. Even though it no longer is, that is no excuse (Jerusalem is not an intelectual or center of astronomical studies neither nor is Constantinople the center of the now defunct roman empire yet he is still the first among equals).

The significance of retaining Alexandria as the place to calculate pascha, is that it proved in the past, proves in the present and future generations, that patriarchates have NOT recieved their priveleges thru divine right (as rome claims for herself) and each patriarchate recieved priveleges unique to her which another does not possess. This demonstrates that apologetical arguments over the superiority of one See over another, due to its special priveleges is false. They are all equal in dignity, all were granted special priveleges, and this guards against papal claims (and of the e.p. as well) of claims that they alone have a unique poisition as patriarchates over the other.

Kosta

29-07-2006, 07:53 AM

SVS certainly does NOT practise or advocate the practise of communing with heterodox! I have witnessed NUMEROUS cases in which heterodox were politely asked to not approach the chalice.

SHS does not promote ecumenism at all.

No, No thats not what i meant at all. SVS is more into the scholastic approach which unfortunately leads to ecumenist tendencies. On the other hand St Tikhon's is the opposite. An OCA priest and monk that i know who spent 5 years at SVS is adamant that it is a hot bed of ecumenism and a seminarian at St Tikhons told me that its definately "less" ecumenist than SVS.
This would be logical since St Tikhon's seminary is part of a monastery and monks tend to use traditional approaches to faith. i'm not familiar with St Herman's but i would love more information on it, does it have a web site?

Anthony

29-07-2006, 02:02 PM

Subdeacon Mark,

This is getting off topic a bit, but I am very envious of you being at St Herman's. I good friend of mine lived in Alaska for years and told me a lot about Orthodoxy there. For a long time I had dreams of spending some time there too.

A while ago St Herman's had some very good web pages about the Alaskan saints, but they seem to have taken them down when they reorganized the web site. Do you know if there are any plans to put them back again?

Anthony

Father David Moser

29-07-2006, 06:02 PM

SVS is more into the scholastic approach which unfortunately leads to ecumenist tendencies. ... An OCA priest and monk that i know who spent 5 years at SVS is adamant that it is a hot bed of ecumenism

The seminary experience is what you make it. Just because St Vladimir's takes a "scholastic approach" does not necessarily mean that the result will always be "ecumenist tendencies". I know of at least one ROCOR hierarch who is an SVS graduate and he could not really be described as "ecumenist" in any way.

Fr David Moser

Mark Harrison

30-07-2006, 09:48 AM

The seminary experience is what you make it. Just because St Vladimir's takes a "scholastic approach" does not necessarily mean that the result will always be "ecumenist tendencies". I know of at least one ROCOR hierarch who is an SVS graduate and he could not really be described as "ecumenist" in any way.

Fr David Moser

I absolutely concur, Fr David. I attended SVS for five years myself. In all of my years there, and that was a big lesson I learned early on. There were those who complained about the lack of spirituality there, but if one seeking it, spiritual life is to be found at SVS. Fr Thomas Hopko is probably the best spiritual father I have ever had - at least for me. He is very reality-based; that is, his focus is on accepting the reality of one's life. Fr Thomas would certainly have blessed me to follow a path of monasticism if we had jointly seen that as the reality that my life pointed to, and at one point that possibility was certainly a consideration, but in the end, it did not work out that way, and he blessed the path I did take. While some may object to how liturgics are done at SVS (and I don't agree with every little thing), I have never met a person more attuned to the inner logic of the Typikon as Fr Paul Lazor, or a priest so 'anchored' in his office as liturgical celebrant. In my personal opinion, he is even more attuned than Fr Alexander Schmemann was to the pastoral implications of our liturgical life. Like I said a moment ago, this doesn't mean I agree with all of the practises, but I am convinced that there is much more there than some are willing to admit, because they see 'aberrations' from the usual practise. An excellent example in my opinion was the way in which Fr Thomas incorporated the kathisma into Mattins. It was simply impossible to chant the entire kathsima(ta) appointed each morning, but Fr Thomas felt it was important to have some psalm reading apart from the Six Psalms. He directed that we read a relatively short selection each morning, in course. That is, begin with Psalm 1 on the first day of the semester and go on from there, omitting the psalms that would be heard at other times as part of the fixed psalmody. This would have us hear as much of the psalter as possible over the course of a semester or year. Is this what the Typikon prescribes? No. It does, however, conform to the inner logic of the Typikon, which is plainly evident if one considers how it works out in monastic life. Perhaps others will disagree, but I found it to be an ingenious solution - one that was well-suited to, and manageable in, our real life circumstances.

I cannot tell you how many times I'd be caught in some little temptation and run into Fr Thomas or Fr Paul and through them God would rescue me from that temptation. It never ceased to amaze me how Fr Paul could take a very private conversation and turn it into a topic for public discussion at breakfast without the slightest risk of betraying one's confident; or how he could preach an impromptu homily at Compline that would somehow summarise an important aspect of events in the life of the community. Truly, it is a gift.

As for SVS being a hotbed of ecumenism, this seems to me to be an interpretation of data. Is the faculty as SVS in favour of Orthodox participation in the WCC as a whole? Yes, and many of them are adamant about it. This does not mean that they are blind to the problems, or that they deny them. I never made any bones about the fact that I felt that our participation in ecumenism had the potential to send wrong messages, whatever Orthodox intents might be, and that the 'benefits' hardly match, not to mention outweigh the problems. Only one person ever took any offence, and it never became an issue. Throughout my career there, I took the same position I do now, that discussion and mutual co-operation with heterodox is fine, but not mutual prayer or the branch-theory. One professor, at least, agreed that I had a good point in my thoughts on Anglicanism (see the separate thread I started on that topic). Fr Thomas Hopko, as I believe I stated earlier, clearly and unambiguously taught in Dogmatic Theology the proper Orthodox teaching about the Church and observed that this is a dogma stated in the Symbol of Faith itself. I remain convinced that, while SVS will draw the line differently than I would in terms of practical applications of the principles, the ecclesiology taught at SVS is no less Orthodox than what is taught at Holy Trinity in Jordanville.

It is not my place to speak for my colleagues at SHS, and even less to even give the impression that I am speaking for my bishop, who is the rector, even if I am sure that I would represent them well; I shall therefore simply say I have never heard anyone advocate participation in the ecumenical movement. If you look at our catalogue, a public document, you will find no classes on ecumenism. You will find a course on Comparative Theology which, in the past, I have personally taught. I made it a seminar class in which the students had to research the core doctrines of various heterodox groups found in Alaska. The purpose of the course is to equip the students to meet the challenges raised by these groups. I'll not be teaching that course this year, but I have every confidence that it will coninue in the same vain.

The SHS website is now http://www.sthermanseminary.org. I am not sure about the pictures you mentioned, Anthony, although I might be able to find something out. If there are particular photos you are interested in, I MIGHT be able help out - NO PROMISES.

Sdn Mark

Mark Harrison

30-07-2006, 10:39 AM

I can see that It would be eaiser to logicaly make that argument... But I have seen more then a few of our saints call them heretics and thats good enough for me (especially considering the fact that I have yet to see a saint who claims "no there not heretics at all".). If a "Church" calls itself Christian and teaches something other then the real Church then the said "church" is heretical in my view. The followers of the "Church" may not be heretics in the same way Arius was (a person who was given the truth, rejected it and preached something differnt anyway.) but in that the "church" teaches something other then the real Church then its a heretical "church" IMO.

St Justin of Chelije certain regarded ecumenism (the branch theory and variations thereof) to be not only heresy, but pan-heresy. It is ironic that some ecumenists like to jump on that term, calling it hype. I hardly think so. As I understand it, St Justin's point is that in the West you find all of the heresies that were ever condemned, so that if one equates the Orthodox Church with the Western sects, one is tacitly embracing all ('pan') of those heresies.

It doesn't take an historical scholar to recognise numerous formally condemned heresies among the Protestant sects. The most obvious are Mesallianism and Ikonoclasm. The next would be the rejection of the teachings of St Gregory Palamas in favour of those those of the Latin scholastics, like Thomas Aquinas, not to mention the aberrant Latin teachings on original sin and the nature of the authority of the Church. Even if Protestants take a categorically opposite view on authority on the surface, they are still embracing the same basic principle of individuality. Even if they attribute original sin to broken covenant (like the Calvinists) instead of sexual intercourse, the end result is the same, and they remain caught in the same scholastic categories as the Latins. These three issues (original sin, scholasticism and authority) I have long identified as core, underlying differences which, if not addressed, will keep Orthodoxy and Western Christianity forever apart. Any reunion that does not deal with these issues is doomed from the beginning to be a false union, no matter what concessions the West may make on filioque, and other matters that attract more attention.

It has always seemed to me to be a poor ecumenist excuse to say claim that the Protestants and Roman Catholics have never been formally condemned. I was somewhat amused, even, when I noticed that the anathemata prescribed for the Sunday of Orthodoxy include a condemnation of any who uphold any innovation, including any future innovation not yet known. If this catch all doesn't embrace the Westerners, at least, I don't know what does.

Having said this, I think there needs to be some nuance brought into this subject. Is the average Protestant in his comfy pew, holding his leather-bound Bible, and speaking with a Southern accent a culpable heretic, whom God will hold accountable for his heresy on the Last Day? Of that, I am far from certain. What his 'church' teaches is certainly heresy, but being so separated from the truth, can he (or she) be held accountable? There is that old Russian saying, 'Bog milostiv,' 'God is merciful' and whatever is right , true, and just in a person's life, any person's life, that is what God will do. Is this not an Orthodox principle? God will know whether Bible-believing Baptist Billy Bob is a culpable heretic or not and will treat him accordingly, no? Certainly some are evidently culpable - like the heresiarchs in the Anglican Communion who claim to have apostolic succession and to be in continuity with the Church Fathers, while preaching that Christ didn't rise from the dead and that He was born as a result of intercourse between Mary and Joseph. Such heresy cannot be explained away or mitigated. It is self-evident. Even the use of the term filioque might possibly be understood in an Orthodox sense (meaning temporal mission, not eternal procession tanquam ex uno principio), though I'd be the first to suspect any attempts to do so. Only rationalisation, a dangerous mental construct even from a purely secular psychological perspective, can twist the witness of the Gospels to deny the virgin birth or resurrection of the Saviour.

The Latins, from my contacts with educated individuals, are desirous of working out the issues that separate us. Whether the goal is realistic, remains to be seen, but they are willing to at least qualify some of their previously firmly held positions. They do also share 1,054 years of common history. Even if they distort the content of Sacred Tradition, they still uphold the principle; they also maintain the sacred offices, and the sacramental life. Even if these are all only present among them in a formal sense, in which the content is seriously distorted, we still have more basis for discussion with them than we do with Protestants. To their credit, they never became full members of the WCC! We are certainly at least decades away from reunion; more like centuries I think. The dichotomy between the official teaching of the Vatican and the beliefs of the average Catholic is amazing and that issue alone needs to be addresed. Too many aberrations have become institutionalised, even if they are not the 'official' teaching of the Vatican, which in many cases (e.g. the Dormition of the Theotokos) is far more orthodox than the popular belief among Roman Catholics.

These nuances are what lead me to believe that ROCOR's present practise of receiving Western converts by Baptism as the norm is the wise and most realistic approach. I don't believe that we should be throwing the word 'heretic' in the faces of Protestants. Culturally, it brings up images of the Spanish Inquisition. I think we need to discern carefully in each case, and distinguish between heretical teachings, which we must not fear to identify as heresy, and individual people who have no context in which to understand why those teachings are heretical. Some may not even hold those teachings, even if their 'church' does. Others have blindly accepted what their denomination teaches, not really having had any reason to challenge those beliefs. Our culture, insofar as there still exist any Christian elements in it, is a Protestant culture; therefore, it reinforces Protestant ideas, giving them credence and reducing the opportunities for the average Protestant to challenge his or her beliefs. 'Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.' When Christ said that of the Jews just before He died on the Cross, He did not trivialise or dismiss the sin, nor should we trivialise or dismiss heretical teaching; but we must believe that God will act according to His infinite mercy, and His knowledge of the heart, in every case.

Scott Pierson

30-07-2006, 08:43 PM

A person can be joined to the Holy Orthodox Church but can “churches”? People often talk as if the Latin hierarchy gave up its heresies and submitted to certain thing’s.. then the pope and their hierarchy would become part of the Orthodox Church (even worse that we would honor the pope as first among equals). My view is that if a Latin (Including the Pope) wants to be in communion with the Orthodox Church, he leaves the Latin’s, renounces his heresy and becomes Orthodox. The whole idea of heretical ecclesial bodies making changes over time and eventually “becoming Orthodox” and uniting with the Church doesn’t make sense. We should work to convert people to the Orthodox faith not work to help reform the various heretical sects. Reforming “churches” by making them more Orthodox or getting them to agree with certain things we hold as true is pointless…. The Church already exists all we need to do is direct people to it. Father Hopko once said (voicing the opinion of many others I‘m sure )“ we cant expect Catholics to become Orthodox”. No offense to Fr Hopko but I find that view rather defeatist. If Latin’s want to be in communion with us then they need to join us.

“Hey Jehovah’s witnesses you know if you add a few icons to your Church it would be a little more Orthodox”

don't believe that we should be throwing the word 'heretic' in the faces of Protestants. Culturally, it brings up images of the Spanish Inquisition. I think we need to discern carefully in each case, and distinguish between heretical teachings, which we must not fear to identify as heresy, and individual people who have no context in which to understand why those teachings are heretical. Some may not even hold those teachings, even if their 'church' does. Others have blindly accepted what their denomination teaches, not really having had any reason to challenge those beliefs. Our culture, insofar as there still exist any Christian elements in it, is a Protestant culture; therefore, it reinforces Protestant ideas, giving them credence and reducing the opportunities for the average Protestant to challenge his or her beliefs. 'Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.' When Christ said that of the Jews just before He died on the Cross, He did not trivialise or dismiss the sin, nor should we trivialise or dismiss heretical teaching; but we must believe that God will act according to His infinite mercy, and His knowledge of the heart, in every case.

Thats a good point.

Michael Astley

28-12-2006, 03:53 PM

Common prayer at ecumenical gatherings stopped in 1998, or so I am told. It is one of the bases for ROCOR's willingness to work toward reconciliation with MP.

If I recall correctly, it was at the last General Convention of the WCC that Orthodox objections to joint worship were heeded, with the result that a working party was set up in order to address Orthodox concerns about this and other WCC practices and statements. The solution to the jojnt worship problem is that WCC worship is now divided into twoi categories. There is official worship of the WCC to which representatives of all member churches are invited but which none must attend, and then there is whathas been termed "confessional" worship, where a particular member church may conduct worship in its own tradition and with its own clergy, and to which others may attend. This satisfies the canonical requirements that we do not pray with heretics for, rather than joining in a heretical act of worship, what is happening is that Orthodox member churches are now able to conduct Orthodox services, with Orthodox clergy, and ifnon-Orthodox happen to be present, then so be it.

At least, this was the working party's solution which was included in the report to be submitted to the General Convention of 2006. I do not know what the outcome was.

What ever was said on paper, and it was not a categorical recognition from my reading of the documents, the fact is that functionally no Orthodox have ever recognised Anglican Orders. No Anglican has ever been received in orders. One must remember that the context in which the issue came up with the Papal declaration of Anglican Orders as null and void. Orthodox views of Anglican Orders are not founded on Latin categories of 'validity.' My recollection of reading the documents is that it was recognised that the Anglicans had preserved the mechanical aspect of Apostolic Succession, therefore, there was something to work with. However until dogmatic unity is achieved, this piece of the puzzle is not sufficient.

Precisely!

In Catholic theology, Sacraments are either valid or invalid. Orthodoxy understands the Sacraments more in terms of wholeness and completion, and one essential element of that wholeness is that the Sacrament must be administered within the Church, for the Sacraments are precisely that - God's means of grace to his people under the New Covenant, the Church. Outside of that context, what are sacraments but empty shells?

That is why an Orthodox bishop who leaves the Church to become an episcopus vagans, and "ordains" priests to serve under him is not recognised as a bishop and his attempted ordinations are not recognised because he has removed himself from the context in which the Sacraments operate, namely, the Church. If he were to return to the Church, confess and receive absolution, he would not need to be ordained again in order to serve as a priest, because that which had been removed for the necessaity of the Sacrament (the context of the Church) would have been restored.

That is why Orthodoxy doesn't have as much of a problem with what to do with episcopi vagantes as Catholicism does, because Catholicism views ordinations outside its confines as valid, provided that correct form, matter and intention are present, even if the bishop is some renegade breakaway. Then they end up with all these independent priests whose orders they recognise as valid but with whom their faithful must be warned off being associated.

It is the same principle that, in some cases, makes it possible to receive converts to Orthodoxy by Chrismation alone, if they have been through the baptismal rites of a heterodox communion. This in no way implies that the heterodox baptismal rite was indeed the Sacrament of Baptism. What it does mean is that it is Baptism and Chrismation together that are the means of entry into the Church and that the heterodox baptismal rite had all of the elements of Baptism except for the context of the Church. Completing the initiation with Chrismation in the Church supplies that which was lacking from the initial baptism. I have serious problems with this being done as standard practice, (not least because it creates the wrong impression in the minds of the heterodox about our views of their attempted sacraments, especially if they hold to Catholic ideas of validity for then it looks as though we endorse what they do as "valid"), but in exceptional circumstances it is perfectly legitimate.

In the same way, the Anglican church (at least at the time of the Oecumenical Patriarchate's declaration (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm)) had preserved everything which was necessary for the transmission of the Apostolic Succession except for the context of the Church. As Subdeacon Mark has rightly pointed out, this was in the context of Rome's declaration of Anglican orders as "completely null and utterly void", or wording to that effect. What the 1922 statement is saying is that there would be no need for "re"ordination of Anglican clergy should Anglicanism become Orthodox. What the statement is not saying is that Anglican orders, as they stood in 1922, were actually to be recognised as being the Sacrament of Ordination. It only reads this way if you read it from the Catholic understanding of "validity/invalidity", which does not exist in Orthodoxy. To read it that way is to misunderstand Orthodox Sacraments.

Peter Farrington

28-12-2006, 04:28 PM

Hi Michael

I think that you have explained things very well.

In an Oriental Orthodox context, the antecedents of the British Orthodox Church could have been called episcopi vagantes, though they were serious about remaining Orthodox, and the bishop who headed them up when I first met them about 16 years ago was especially committed to Orthodoxy.

At the time of the union with the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate the Church was united with the wider Oriental Orthodox communion, AND AT THAT TIME became canonically Orthodox. Yet what had gone before was not eliminated but rather fulfilled.

So the bishop was elevated to Metropolitan in the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, the priests became hegumenoi, and the laity were received by communion. So there was something definitely orthodox there before, but it became Orthodox again, and was made whole only by union with the wider Oriental Orthodox communion. (I am using lower and capital O to describe an orthodoxy of form and belief, and communion within the wider Oriental Orthodox community).

It has to be said that the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate does seem to have an issue with the baptism of Roman Catholics at present. I am trying to research whether this is primarily because of form - Coptic Orthodox do not like sprinkling, or because of doctrinal matters, or because of the encroachments of Roman Catholics in Egypt where most of their mission is directed at Coptic Orthodox rather than Muslims. Certainly in the past all Chalcedonians were only received by confession, even in the most controversial times and even in the face of persecution, so I am not sure when the Roman Catholics became viewed as a different group to the Eastern Orthodox - I would surmise at the time of the French Napoleonic invasion of Egypt.

So the process I described only seems to be applicable to an 'orthodox' vagante group, since Roman Catholics are presently required to be baptised, and Eastern Orthodox are still only received by confession and prayers. I am really not sure what would happen if a Continuing Anglican group, for instance, approached the British Orthodox Church? I would expect at present that they would all require baptism.

This might seem hard, but the Coptic Orthodox are also very heavily involved in all manner of ecumenical dialogues, including membership of the WCC, so being involved in such discussions does not equate to liberalism.

Peter

Scott Pierson

29-12-2006, 01:52 PM

Roman Catholics in Egypt where most of their mission is directed at Coptic Orthodox rather than Muslims.

Thats horrible. Is that possibly the case because they fear to convert Muslims due to the possibility of retribution but they know the Copts wouldn't do anything of that nature ?

John Charmley

29-12-2006, 04:11 PM

Thats horrible. Is that possibly the case because they fear to convert Muslims due to the possibility of retribution but they know the Copts wouldn't do anything of that nature ?

Dear Scott,

That is, indeed, part of the reason; any Muslim who converts to Christianity is likely to find him or herself in trouble - which contrasts with the situation in the west, of course.

The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, also richer, has access to more resources and offers education in the west to those who might benefit from it; there is an air of cultural imperialism about the whole business.

Thank the Lord that relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church are so different, and so much better than they used to be. There are, after all, a few benefits to real ecumenism.

In Christ,

John

Christophoros

29-12-2006, 07:58 PM

This is why Ecumenism is a heresy and membership is the WCC is viewed by some as tantamount to the tacit acceptance of un-Orthodox teachings:

http://www.wcc-assembly.info/en/theme-issues/assembly-documents/1-statements-documents-adopted/christian-unity-and-message-to-the-churches/called-to-be-the-one-church-as-adopted.html

and why the 45th Diocesan Assembly of the Midwest Diocese of the OCA in October resolved the following:

"WHEREAS, the World Council of Churches affirms a heretical ecclesiology which states that, ‘Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches’ (source: Called to be the One - Church statement adopted at the Ninth WCC Assembly, February, 2006, Porto Alegre, Brazil); and WHEREAS, the NCC and the WCC have confused liberal political ideology and sexual immorality with the truth of the Gospel and freedom in Christ … … be it further RESOLVED, that the Diocese of the Midwest calls upon to the Orthodox Church in America to withdraw from formal membership, and active participation, in the NCC and the WCC forthwith."

It's nice to finally see increasing numbers of Orthodox anti-Ecumenist confessors emerging from the "canonical" Churches and not simply from the Old Calendarists.

Peter Farrington

30-12-2006, 03:51 PM

Hi Christopher

That is certainly ONE view that can be held about the WCC, but my own Church, which is very conservative and anti-liberal, also participates in the WCC without theological compromise.

There are many things which are objectionable about the WCC, but it seems to me that there are many objectionalable things about many people with whom I correspond on the internet.

I am not convinced that isolationism is the right response to error in the world in which we live, otherwise we must withdraw ourselves from almost everything in the world. It is possible to be in the world but not of it.

Peter

John Charmley

31-12-2006, 01:37 AM

I am not convinced that isolationism is the right response to error in the world in which we live, otherwise we must withdraw ourselves from almost everything in the world. It is possible to be in the world but not of it.

Peter

Dear Peter,

I would tend to agree. I can understand that zeal for one's Faith might make one extremely suspicious of something like the WCC (I am suspicious of it for other reasons too, as it happens), but I do find the language in which some of the objections are couched objectionable in itself.

I know that the Early Fathers could have a good turn of phrase when they wanted, but it all seems to ignore the direct words of Our Lord Himself in Matthew 5:43-46:

43 You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Can we not bear in mind that although we may think these people misguided, they are, by their estimation, good Christians trying to live the Christian life as best they can manage?

When I read these beautiful words of the Incarnate Lord and then think about something like the recent ruckus on Mt. Athos, or the way we Christians have often treated each other, it makes me wonder about how seriously we take what Christ said? How close do we come sometimes to deserving the rebuke that is recorded in Luke 11:43-44.

43 Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.
44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are not aware of them.

Is it so hard, with others who seek to confess faith in the Risen Lord to obey the injuction of St. Paul to the Romans [Romans 13:8-9]

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For the commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Could we not, in this matter at least, bear in mind what Our Lord said as it is recorded in Matthew 5:47:

47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

So many times I read of us saying that we are 'the chief of sinners', often just before we rush off to point out the mote in someone else's eye.

Even if we think those who think of themselves as our fellow Christians are sinners, can we not heed the injunction to love the sinner even as we condemn the sin?

'Thy will be done' - or our will?

Just a thought.

In Christ,

John

Mark Harrison

31-12-2006, 06:57 AM

Gentlemen,

I do not think isolationism is what is intended; at least, it is not what I intend in my opposition to Orthodox participation in the NCC/WCC. Instead, I believe that it is participation in those particular venues that is problematic. The Antiochian Archdiocese in this country took a great step in 2005 when they withdrew from the NCC, but not from all interfaith dialogue. They chose to exercise discernment - to discern which dialogues are being constructive and which are not. They determined that the NCC has strayed from even the most 'basic' Christian tenets and is no longer a fruitful venue for dialogue.

When ROCOR anathematised 'ecumenism' in 1983, many in the OCA (like me at the time) had the impression that they were saying that it was a heresy just to talk to heterodox. I think the reconciliation process with Moscow has clearly demonstrated that this is not true; if it were, there would be no reconcilation. At the same time ROCOR is still pushing for a pull-out. Why? Because they too see participation in the WCC as fruitless and a source of temptation. It is a source of temptation to those weaker brethren who might see it as negotiating the non-negotiable - the Faith itself. More importantly, however, it has been fruitless. Can anyone point to a a single heterodox group coming to Orthodoxy as a result of our participation in the WCC? I've yet to hear of one. After decades of 'witness' there has been no fruit. The greatest profit has been the opening of dialogue between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. That is important, and should not be forgotten, but we don't need the WCC to carry that on now. We can, and must talk directly.

Whatever legitimate grounds there were for participation at one time, they are no longer at play. The Iron Curtain no longer exists, and that was another reason for Orthodox to pariticipate. Dialogue with Rome is going as well as can be expected, too well in some quarters where people tend to jump the gun. Here again, we do not need the auspices of the WCC to carry on dialogue. There was a basis for hope up until the early 1960's that dialogue with the Anglicans could bear a wonderful fruit. Those hopes have long since been shattered. Even the most Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are more interested in proving to themselves, and trying to prove to others, their 'catholicity' as Anglicans. They seem determined to believe that organic reunion with their roots is unnecessary. Of course, that follows from the fact that they believe that they have that organic unity, however clouded, or dubious to others it may seem. They are waiting for the rest of us to come to our senses and recognise it. Of course, that is impossible, and the reason it is impossible themselves have a bearing here:

Anglican Comprehensiveness (see my Anglicanism thread) makes it impossible for us to find in the Anglican Communion the faith once delivered to the saints. It is nothing short of syncretism. But it is far more insidious that many other forms of syncretism, because it steals patristic language, most especially the word 'katholike' and twists the meaning to suit the syncretistic agenda. 'Catholic' is reduced down to human universality, and robbed of its true meaning in which it is co-terminous with Orthodoxy and 'fulness'. Catholicity is the fulness of the faith, as held in the whole body of the Church. It contradicts multiciplicity of doctrines. Historically, the Church adopted the term and pressed it in its fight against Gnosticism, which like Anglican Comprehensiveness, bought into various irreconcilable doctrines.

This year the WCC issued a statement on 'ecclesiology' using the Anglican understanding of catholicity. The text can be read at:

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/1-statements-documents-adopted/christian-unity-and-message-to-the-churches/called-to-be-the-one-church-as-adopted.html

Section II begins with a confession of 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.' Yet, the very essence of how that is to be understood is very ambiguous, and is reduced to a baptismal rite, whose meaning is likewise. ambiguous. The statement says, "We acknowledge that there are different ecclesiological starting points, and a range of views on the relation of the Church to the churches." How can that be? This is itself an internal contradiction. How can the One Church have differing self-understanding among its members? How can the finger and the toe be part of the same body and not have fully know what that body is? Such a statement defies every image used in Scripture and the Fathers to describe the Church.

The statement makes categorical statements about the 'catholicity' the WCC sees lying in the member 'churches':

The catholicity of the Church expresses the fullness, integrity, and totality of its life in Christ through the Holy Spirit in all times and places. This mystery is expressed in each community of baptized believers in which the apostolic faith is confessed and lived, the gospel is proclaimed, and the sacraments are celebrated. Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches. We affirm that the catholicity of the Church is expressed most visibly in sharing holy communion and in a mutually recognised and reconciled ministry.

Each 'church' cannot equally be the Church Catholic when each maintains irreconcilable doctrines. That is the very antithesis of genuine catholicity.

The statement also says (III.9):

In God’s grace, baptism manifests the reality that we belong to one another, even though some churches are not yet able to recognise others as Church in the full sense of the word. We recall the words of the Toronto Statement, in which the member churches of the WCC affirm that “the membership of the church of Christ is more inclusive than the membership of their own church body.

Once again, a contradiction: this is saying that there is a unity that not everybody in that unity understands to exist. That isn't unity, nor is it healthy diversity. It is simply division, and not within the Church, but from the Church. Once again, the finger cannot be part of the same body as the toe without both knowing it. Yet another contradiction lies in the statement, "We have much work ahead of us as together we seek to understand the meaning of unity and catholicity, and the significance of baptism." The Church, the real Church knows the significance of unity, catholicity and Baptism." These are not questions in need of answers. They are divine attributes and gifts within the Church, which the Church has known for 2,000 years. If the WCC is seeking answers, that tells much in itself about the nature of the WCC.

I urge everybody to thoroughly read this statement. In spite of the agreement that Orthodox would not have to affirm heretical statements or participate in heretical worship, this statement using Orthodoxy language (another favourite term is 'koinonia') to claim a pseudo-ecclesial status; one which in times past was never claimed. Furthermore, it calls on all of its members to recognise all that is 'provisional' (II.7) and to 'admit' those things to the other 'churches.'

None of this is consonant with Orthodoxy. In spite of the use of words like 'koinonia' and 'catholic' this document demonstrates that the WCC is far from Orthodoxy and moving further away, not closer. In fact the false use of those terms itself shows a movement away from Orthodoxy. As I said before, whatever basis there may have been in the past for Orthodox participation in the WCC, it exists no more. What ROCOR anathematised in 1983 was not dialogue itself, but the so-called Branch Theory, which is the underpinning of this most recent WCC statement. There is unquestionably a basis for certain individual dialogues, and those should continue as long as they continue to be positive (yes, from the Orthodox point of view). In being discerning, we shall avoid both syncretism and isolationism. To me, that seems to be the more balanced, healthy path - the narrow path.

Frs David and Raphael, please do comment as you see fit. I can only participate here for a couple of days before I am back to studies, but I'd love to hear from either or both of you on this.

Sdn. Mark Harrison

John Charmley

31-12-2006, 12:44 PM

Dear Mark,

It is doubtful if many here would dissent from the views you express on the WCC, which was why the thrust of my question lay elsewhere; how should the Church react to others who call themselves Christian and who feel that they are doing their best to follow God's will?

Of course, one answer ought, I suppose, to be that it should be trying to show them that Orthodoxy offers the fulness of the Christian life; would you be satisfied that it does this? Compared with the efforts that some of the 'Churches' attached to the WCC do in this area, would we be satisfied that in addition to pronouncing on the deficiencies of other Churches, Orthodoxy is willing and able - and ready - to receive those who, on hearing the message, wish to follow it?

Then there was the question directly raised in my last post. Given that I (and I daresay many others) think as you do on the WCC (it is its liberal secularist agenda which ticks me off), what language do we use about it - and what language do we employ when we disagree with others who are sure they are Christians? The reason I raised recent happenings in Mt. Athos is that I have lost count of the number of my friends who, knowing of my journey towards Orthodoxy, have kindly and quietly said to me words to the effect: 'Why would you want to associate with a bunch of so-called Christians who think their God calls them to use sledgehammers against their fellow Christians? We know you are interested in the Middle Ages, but do you really want to go back and live there?'

Language is often the precursor of action, and there are times when, reading what some Orthodox write, that I think I see the precursor of this type of violence. I understand zeal for the faith, but I do wonder about this question of a wider Ecumenism? Was it just that this was where this thread started that we all leapt to the thought 'WCC' when ecumenism was mentioned?

I am one with you, Mark, in what you say about Anglicanism and syncretism, but I am equally with you in what you say about dialogue with non-Chalcedonians (this will come as an immense surprise, I am sure!). But if there is going to be such dialogue, then we have to evolve our own language and protocols, not rely on those of the WCC.

So how do people here feel on this issue of dialogue with non-Chalcedonians, Roman Catholics and Anglicans - outside of the WCC, as well as within it? And what language do you use about those Orthodox hierarchs who actually think that staying within the WCC has its uses?

We are, after all, called to love one another. Yes, I am well aware of other scriptural passages which get quite fierce with wrong belief, as I am with similar passages about Pharisiasm, but the general scope and tenor of Our Lord's teaching is not towards violence but towards non-violence and the healing power of love - was it not? When He was seized in the Garden, He did not allow the disciples to resort to violence, not did He curse those who crucified Him - and we are called, are we not, to follow that example?

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

31-12-2006, 01:59 PM

I would have to disagree with Mark on a couple of minor points I think, though I agree with much in his excellent post.

Firstly, I do no think we should describe the Anglican Church as syncretistic. There are those within it which are syncretists, and those in leadership certainly from an Orthodox pov seem to be leading it further up the garden path. But there are a great many committed Christians who are Anglican, and many of them are orthodox, or evangelical, or catholic - with lower cases certainly, but they are not all syncretists and do not all want to be syncretists.

Secondly, I do not believe the aim of any witness should be reduced to the short term benefit which we may or may not see. We are taught that one sows and another reaps. It is not for us to know the times and seasons of God's harvest. What if in a much longer time scale a Christian community says 'Thank God you stuck with us through all the years we thought we knew better than the Scriptures. It was your constant witness that now brings us to light and life in the Holy Church'.

There may well be reasons for withdrawing from the WCC, but I am not sure that we should be surprised by the fact that many participants in the WCC are syncretists. It seems to me that this is just life, it doesn't have any necessary impact on our own Orthodoxy.

If we transfer questions about activity in the WCC to our own local environment, we would not consider it reasonable to say 'I have spoken to my colleague at work several times about Orthodoxy and he shows no sign of converting so I am not going to talk to him anymore'. Nor would we say, 'My colleague at work has some strange non-Orthodox ideas and I don't want them rubbing off on me so I am not going to talk to him'.

Personally I think Orthodox should be involved in a great many more ecumenical organisations and forums. We should not be looking for mass conversions, but if people are becoming more aware of Orthodoxy, more open to Orthodox thinking and spirituality, more aware that Orthodoxy has problems with some modern ways of doing ecumenism, then these are all good things.

If we expect more than God wills, and quicker than God wills, then we should not be surprised that the results we expect are not the results God gives.

Peter

John Charmley

31-12-2006, 04:44 PM

Dear Peter,

Thank you for this wise posting.

It is what might be perceived as a combination of defensiveness and offensiveness in relation to ecumenism that disturbs me.

It seemed unduly harsh to label the whole Anglican Church as 'syncretist', although I wasn't sure that was what Mark really meant, and I agreed with what I took to be his meaning, which was that its dominant mindset tends in that direction. But when Mark says:

Anglican Comprehensiveness (see my Anglicanism thread) makes it impossible for us to find in the Anglican Communion the faith once delivered to the saints. It is nothing short of syncretism.

I would tend to agree with you, Peter, that

there are a great many committed Christians who are Anglican, and many of them are orthodox, or evangelical, or catholic - with lower cases certainly, but they are not all syncretists and do not all want to be syncretists.

Indeed, I would tend to think of myself in terms of Peter's caveat, and as I journey toward Orthodoxy (with a capital) it remains unclear to me that Orthodoxy is any less complicated than Anglicanism was in jurisdictional terms. Indeed, by taking the view that where one is is where God is, one takes on a position that ought to involve a mixture of great humility and great missionary activity.

After all, if one had the great good fortune to be born into the Orthodox Faith, or the guidance that took one there, imagine how one might feel if one found that another group of people were saying: 'But we are the Orthodox Faith'? And, what is more, they used just the same arguments as you did? How confusing might that be?

There is, about some of these views on the WCC, a defensiveness and an offensiveness that seems difficult to fit into any description of Christian behaviour - unless it were under the heading of bad behaviour.

Just as we expect others to acknowledge our sincerity, even when they think us wrong, and just as we try to correct others, with humility, when we judge they are going wrong, so too ought we not to be open to reciprocity here?

I read the other day that:

The Eastern Orthodox Church prides itself on having maintained the beliefs and practices of the early Church as passed on through tradition and as set forth in the decrees that resulted from the original regional and ecumenical councils.

That 'prides itself' worried me a little, as I compared it with the words of St. Paul in Galatians 6:14

14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

It can sometimes seem, from the outside, as though in its understandable 'pride' at having maintained what it has, the Orthodox Church is content to withdraw into whatever the EO equivalent of the Anglican holy huddle is.

The quotation from the Incarnate Lord at Matthew 5:47 would seem incompatible with the view that one should withdraw from ecumenism. But then what do I know - as someone on a journey looking for the right way?

In Christ,

John

Mark Harrison

31-12-2006, 09:21 PM

Greetings, John and Peter (and anyone else):

Both of you have made significant points.

First regarding Anglicanism: I do not deny that there are thousands of serious, sincere, committed Christians in the Anglican Communion, especially in the Global South. I admire Abp. Peter Akinola, among them. Unfortunately, what Anglican Comprehensiveness does is water down their view to make it virtually inert. Has the voice of the Global South called Episcopalians to their senses? NO; Episcopalians and other liberal Anglicans use the theory of comprehensivness to justify following their own agenda while still claiming to be part of the same communion in equal standing. The result is that on an institutional level the Communion becomes syncretistic, in spite of those who resist that syncretism and remain true to the Gospel.

Anglican Comprehensiveness as a working theological model, is the antithesis of Tradition. It equates Tradition with personal speculation and sentiment and with the Zeitgeist. This is not the 'Faith of our Fathers.' Tradition tests the spirits. Tradition guards against sentiments, speculations, and Zeitgeists. If offers a measuring stick (kanon) against which to judge theological opinions, and that measuring stick, the kanon pisteos (rule of faith) is what has been established in the Church from the time of the Apostles. It was this measuring stick that showed the Gnostics for what they were. The problem with Anglican Comprehensivness is that as a paradigm it contradicts that kanon. While Tradition is supposed to be part of the paradigm, it cannot be because it ceases to be the measuring stick and comes to be judged by a different, opposing meauring stick, or a variety of measuring sticks. In any case, it loses its force.

The problem is that the Communion on an institutional level, adheres to the theory of comprehensivenss. Thus, on the institutional level, the Anglican Communion cannot be identified with the Church. On an institutional level, by the direct actions of certain provinces like ECUSA, or by the paralysis of the CoE and others, the Communion is becoming increasingly syncretistic because there is no solid kanon against which false teaching can be measured, judged, and stopped.

All of this must be distinguished from the sincerity of individual Anglicans who are true, sincere Christians. I don't think it is even fair to say that they just think they are. Their ecclesial status, in terms of what God has given us to know on this earth, is problematic. Thanks be to God, He truly is merciful and He is able to act where we are not. Am I implying an invisible super-church? No, and I don't wish that to be inferred. I am only saying that that I know that there are sincere Christians outside the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church and I know that God is all-merciful and all-knowing, and that He has established One Church - One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. How all this works together - His divine economy - is just that HIS. I have every confidence that He will do what is right, true and just in every case.

So, to answer John's question about what to do with those who believe they are doing God's will, I'd say encourage them wherever possible! There is no need to take an antagonistic approach; to start with the assumption that somebody is not what he or she claims to be. I have a Baptist friend. We definitely disagree on many things, but we regard each other as serious Christians and ask each other's prayers. I'd never commune with her, but wherever we do find points of commonality, we share in those and rejoice in them. I have an even deeper relationship with a friend of my family (she's my mother's age), who is Anglican. She is one of those who struggles with the direction the Anglican Communion and ECUSA in particular is going. Once again, we rejoice in what we can truly share. I just sent her a Christmas CD with hymns like "Once in Royal David's City" and "Of the Father's Love Begotten." The former was sung at either Wells or Salisbury Cathedral. It was a reminder to me of when I was a child in the Episcopal Church - of the things I cherish most of my Anglican past - and I do cherish them. We MUST, ABSOLUTELY MUST, rejoice at every opportunity. I'll rejoice with an Orthdoox Jew wherever we can find a point of contact. I love the Karate Kid movies; in spite of a definitely non-Christian context, there is much wisdom that is consonant with Orthodoxy there. It is very important to distinguish between ideas and people. Ideas are subject to aprobation or rejection. People must all be accepted as the Image of God, even if they deny the very God in Whose Image they were created.

We are called to speak the truth in love. Yes, some people will make a habit of using a sledgehammer instead. If that is what you feel I have done, please forgive. When St Paul says to rebuke a heretic three times and then let him go his way, I think part of the idea was that it will become unproductive to continue to harp on the subject. Part of it also is that we should not 'cast our pearls before swine.' In a positive sense, we should wait until the person shows that they are ready to receive what we have to say. If the other person is outright obstinate (a swine) why push the point and make the Faith (pearls) an object of scorn?

Will I be contaminated by association with heterodox? I haven't yet. And yet, I see in the WCC a definite tempation for some. There is the temptation to be lured in by Orthodox words, to be lead to think that the WCC is becoming more Orthodox, instead of less. Certainly Fr Georges Florovsky would not have been lured by such things, but others might. I love Harry Potter, but I wouldn't recommend it to just any kid to read. For some it could be a great source of temptation. As in so many things, discernment is the key. There is no one single, absolute, black and rule by which all cases are this way or that way.

Peter is correct in saying that we cannot simply judge by whether we see results today or tomorrow or the next day. At the same time, in spite of Orthodox presence, and in spite of Orthodox objections, the WCC is going down a contrary path. I believe our participation in that particular venue is no longer justifiable. There is no foundation. At the same time, I do believe that individual dialogues are not only justifiable but commendable - necessary even in the case of EO / OO dialogue. I probably will not live to see the day that Orthodox and Roman Catholics are reunited - if God wills that it ever should happen; yet I believe that that particular dialogue has a firm foundation. That is a case where I believe Peter's reference to one man sowing and another reaping applies. It's not a simple matter of whether they show any immediate sign of conversion. They may not. My Baptist friend certain has not. My Anglican friend likes Orthodoxy doctrinally, but prefers her Anglican parish home life. That doesn't stop me from dialoguing with them. The issue to me is whether or not there is a foundation for dialogue. There is one with these two friends in particular. I believe there is one between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. There certainly is between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. However, the twisting of the meaning of words in the WCC tells me that there is no such foundation there. In that forum, we cannot even agree on the meaning of basic terms, including the verb 'to mean.' What does 'mean' mean in that context? This is no foundation. At least with a Baptist, we can agree that meaning derives from the Truth of God, and that the Truth of God exists, and that it is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That is an important foundation for dialogue; I dare say the sine qua non foundation. With this foundation, I can talk to Baptists, Calvinists, Jews, and others. Without such a foundation, all dialogue is meaningless.

I am sorry if this has been somewhat disorganised. I am afraid I don't have time to proofread. Please feel free to pick it apart.

MAH

Mark Harrison

01-01-2007, 02:09 AM

I am sorry to report, after some investigation, that the resolution attributed to the 45th Diocesan Assembly of the Diocese of the West of the OCA is not authentic. My source from within that diocese reports:

"There was a proposed resolution from a single parish, which was not set forward by the resolution committee, nor discussed by the assembly, nor voted upon, let alone favorably. Hence no record of it appears."

I am truly saddened.

MAH

John Charmley

01-01-2007, 03:28 AM

Dear Mark,

A happy New Year to you and your loved ones.

I don't disagree, indeed I am glad to see that I did catch your drift the first time. It is because I agree with what you say about the state of the Anglican Communion that I feel I cannot follow where it is going; indeed, although everyone says this almost every year, I do wonder whether that Communion will exist in its current form in a year's time. I am sad for so many of my fellow Anglicans, who also feel deserted, and especially for those who are where I was this time last year; it is a dark and desolate place - even with prayer.

I love your formulation that

It is very important to distinguish between ideas and people. Ideas are subject to aprobation or rejection. People must all be accepted as the Image of God, even if they deny the very God in Whose Image they were created.

No, there is no sledgehammer with you, or with our other posters here, just a good and helpful dialogue - for which I am very grateful. I am always aware when I post here that I do so as several sorts of outsider, and always try to show sensitivity to an Orthodox mindset that is bound to find my words foreign to much of its own thinking.

I would not wish to argue over the WCC, whatever good it does could, as you indicate, be done equally well, if not better, in other ways. Indeed, the dialogues I have had here with you and with others over this past year have been most fruitful, and I am sure not only for myself.

So thank you, Mark, for the time and the Christian love you show in responding as you do - and bless you, and others, for their patience with me.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

01-01-2007, 03:00 PM

Hi Mark

That was another thoughtful post.

I wouldn't want to argue with you about the WCC per se, although I do sense that it is becoming more aware of the fact that the Orthodox see things completely differently, and need to be allowed to express their contributions entirely differently.

I guess that many Eastern Orthodox use the WCC as a codeword for any and all dialogue with anyone. And it is that retreat into a rather fearful isolationism which I believe is contrary to the mission the Church has received.

I don't sense any of that in your own posts however and I am sure that we are substantially in agreement.

Happy New Year

Peter

Mark Harrison

02-01-2007, 06:42 AM

Hi all,

First, John, thank you for your kind words. I am glad I've not come off like a sledgehammer.

Peter, you have a very vaild point. In the 1980's especially, when ROCOR first promulgated its anathema against 'ecumenism' ANY sort of dialogue was equally looked down upon. The whole idea of relations with heterodox was 'anathema.' Now, things are a bit more nuanced, I am happy to say. This is evident in the fact that ROCOR is reconciling with the Moscow Patriarchate in spite of the latter's continuing participation in the WCC. ROCOR hopes the MP will come to their senses and pull out, but mere participation is no longer considered to be heretical in se. To me this is a very important step. At this point, I find myself in 100% support, without reservation, of ROCOR's stance.

Likewise, I think it is very significant that the Moscow Patriarchate, which broke all relations with ECUSA, has agreed to dialogue with Bishop Duncan's diocese. To me, this shows some needed discernment. Furthermore, I believe it sends a positive message to solid Anglicans - like our friend John - that Orthodox are willing to respond positively where there is a basis to do so. There is a wonderful history of good relations, which reached its summit under Lord Michael Ramsey. That should not be forgotten. The Society of SS Alban and Sergius is still alive. There is much that we can rejoice in together and in those areas we are commanded by Scripture to do so - REJOICE!

In fact, it seems to be that Orthodox have a special duty - an obligation of love - to clearly and strongly support those Anglicans who are sticking to the faith of the Undivided Church, as far as they understand it. I believe that doing so should mean breaking relations with the liberal Anglicans. I even go so far as to say that their aquatic rite of initiation is no longer Baptism. It is an empty shell. They have perverted the very meaning of the authority of Scripture - of their own 39 Articles - not to mention Sacred Tradition. I see no basis, by even the most liberal interpretations of the canons and the Holy Fathers, to see in thier rites anything other than a liturgical show.

This is not true with the faithful Anglicans who have had the courage to break communion with the liberals. These have seen the handwriting on the wall and placed truth before the pretence of unity. While they may still be wide of the mark in many areas - there is nevertheless a fundamental commitment to Divine Truth. Again - this should be a cause of rejoicing for Orthodox and it should be visibly supported. My personal proposal would be to continue to accept such conservative Anglicans (those who have broken communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada in particular) by Holy Chrismation, according to oikonomia.

It seems to me that taking such action would be in agreement with the truth of the situation and therefore would send a very strong message to the liberal Anglicans. Oh yes, I do not think we should worry for a moment about offending the Anglican powers that be by interfering. We must act according to truth, not diplomatic expediency here.

Any thoughts? I'll be out of touch for a while now, weather permitting. I am supposed to board a plane tomorrow morning (its 2040hrs here / 0540 GMT) for Seattle to begin the second quarter of my Master of Library Science program. Hopefully I'll be able to post something on Thursday. We'll see.

MAH

Andrew

03-01-2007, 02:11 AM

John Charmley

03-01-2007, 10:01 AM

My godfather who grew up Anglo-Catholic (he's been Orthodox for over a decade now) says that an Orthodox charity group has started taking over the parish bookstores of Anglican Churches in England and will start pouring Orthodox books into their parishes. Also, he said something about another Orthodox group that is starting to buy out the buildings of dying parishes and turn them into Orthodox temples. The fallout of the Anglican Communion might be what the faithful Anglicans need to bring them to see where the true Church has truly been.

And John, I know for some it will be hard to answer the question "which one." May the Lord guide you in your quest!

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your kind thought - and I am sure that He will, if I open myself to Him.

On the book front, what has happened is that the old SPCK book shops have been taken over by an Orthodox organisation, and, as in Norwich (my nearest big city), where those book shops are in 'redundant' churches, they have taken over the buildings too. The first fruits of this I found in my Christmas presents! Two months ago getting an Orthodox book from SPCK was something you had to order, by early December there was a reasonable selection, and some icons; both turned up in my presents!

2007 is going to be (yet another) a turbulent year for Anglicanism, and, full of admiration as I am for Rowan Williams, I cannot see how even he can find a way of keeping the whole thing together. The Times carried a piece a few days ago from the new Episcopalian primate which read like a report from Oxfam. Nothing wrong in that at one level, of course we are called to service - but not once did she mention the reason we are so called, or the spiritual help we might bring. Indeed, she specifically said it was impossible to do anything to spiritually help the hungry and the deprived, and that our first duty was to feed them. It is what we feed them that matters - and that includes two types of food.

Still, no one can say Anglicans don't practice a penitential discipline - indeed, for my last few months attending a modern service, it felt very penitential.

In Christ,

John

Kusanagi

13-08-2007, 04:46 PM

The ecumenical idea's, like of WCC and others ecumenical congregations, are a eclesiological heresy?

From what I understand it started by protestants so the church would have a bit more power in the world's eyes as lots of people got fed up with the church and all its bad publictiy.

St Justin Popovich says it is a bad thing as we try to be one without sorting out the differences between the churches which means mixing with heretics which St Ephraim the Syrian says we shouldnt even talk, look or be involved with them at all!

In one of the Orthodox Word it says most ecumenism is about trying to use loving one another to cover each other's mistakes. But Also it be better to try and explain and correct their mistakes so they understand why there is a separation.

Also for inter-faith marriage. St John Chrysostom and even the bible says it is ok for mixed faith marriages as the bible says 'For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.' St John goes on to say it is the duty of the believing partner to try and bring the unbeliever through to the right faith by setting a good example.

Christophoros

27-02-2009, 07:09 PM

Does the Russian Orthodox Church Need to Participate in the Ecumenical Movement?, by Blessed Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Bogucharsk, delivered during the proceedings of the Congress of the Orthodox Churches at the Celebration of the Quincentennial of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow, Russia, July 13, 1948:

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2009/02/26/20090226aStSeraphimEcumenism%20Folder/20090226aStSeraphimEcumenism.pdf

Ryan

14-03-2009, 06:16 PM

Speaking of monasticism, it seems to me that the critique of ecumenism tends to come largely from monastic circles, in the Greek, Georgian, Serbian, etc. Churches. Has a similar critique emerged among Antiochian monastics?

Mark Harrison

16-03-2009, 07:05 AM

I have not heard of any such "resistance" among the Antiochian monastics.

Father Raphael can address this better, but I think one hope has been that ROCOR's position within the Russian Church, instead of on the periphery, will allow their hierarchs to have more voice on this issue.

I have always been a supporter of ROCOR's 1983 anathema. I wish the entire Russian Church would formally adopt it; then it might seep into the OCA. The problem I had with ROCOR's stance in the late 1980s was that I didn't know of any OCA hierarch who would disagree with the anathema or would act contrary to it. The practice of the reception of converts has always been fluid, depending on the century (decade), and the place, and the strain on relations. In the 1980's, however, at least in Southern California, any contact with heterodox was called heretical ecumenism by people in ROCOR. I would have to agree with those who say (including my own bishop) that our participation in the NCC & WCC is without good fruits and should be abandoned as a bad job (as the Brits would say). I don't think it is heretical in itself, but the very nature of those two bodies as they have evolved has become antithetical to Orthodox participation, as far as I can see. Whatever gains there may have been in the past in the Soviet era are no longer there, and financial aid just doesn't cut it with me.

Some might be interested in reading Hopko's All the Fulness of God. What we are calling "ecumenism" he calls "denominationalism."

BTW - time constraints still prevent me from participating regularly. I'm glad to see, however, that discussion continues.

D. W. Dickens

16-03-2009, 05:59 PM

Who am I? But it seems to me that hanging out with folks who claim to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and believe Jesus did something (even if they are off on precisely what He did or are mistaken about the technicalities of theandric doctrine) is a good thing.

I was one of these people and I could not have known about my lacking if someone didn't represent the fullness. I'm not sure that those particular (NCC WCC) organizations have any useful opportunity for that representation. But to me the argument I hear over ecumenism isn't about those organizations but the concern over any involvement at all.

Let us be vary careful how we judge "success" in this witness. By these efforts and those like them, I came to the Church. I wish no harm come to those in the Church by these activities, but I cannot regret that which bore fruit in my life.

If there's a local Christian preacher's lunch once a month, it seems like a good thing to visit. If there's an effective Lutheran charity, why not volunteer?

St Herman came to show the Alaskans that their religion needed to be fulfilled. My Christianity certainly needed to be fulfilled. Clearly you have to be careful what organizations you are involved in and how you are involved in them, but no one I knew growing up was a heretic in any meaningful personal sense. They believed the best they knew about God. If you don't show them the fullness they will continue to wander in ignorance of it.

These aren't a bunch of Arians trying to undo the Gospel or corrupt the Church.

If it's just about how well you've memorized the 7 Ecumenical councils then some Orthodox are just as bad off as any Protestant I know. Many of the desert fathers seem to me more concerned with repentance, humility and love. (I'm not excusing here deliberate disobedience or the acceptance of heresy.)

The prayer of Saint Ephram doesn't say:

O Lord and master of my life give me not the Nestorian heresy, iconoclasm or ecumenism.

But give me to me, your servant, a prefect essay on ousia, hypostasis and energia.

Lord and King teach me that I might memorize the Rudder and not listen to Southern Gospel music, for you are blessed unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Vasiliki D.

17-03-2009, 05:52 AM

Margaret S.

17-03-2009, 01:49 PM

I'm not sure that those particular (NCC WCC) organizations have any useful opportunity for that representation. But to me the argument I hear over ecumenism isn't about those organizations but the concern over any involvement at all.

Personally I don't think the WCC, etc, are of any use or service to anyone except the enemy. Are you saying though that you find people objecting to, say, helping out at a Lutheran homeless shelter or a Methodist scheme to keep kids off the streets on the grounds that its ecumenism?

Regards
Margaret
in Edinburgh

Margaret S.

17-03-2009, 02:02 PM

Oh, this article is SO very interesting ... Ecumenism from the other side. Some things said make me fume and like Saint Nicholas I want to slap a few people in the face:

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/fatima.htm

Oh dear. It made very horrible reading but I suppose it's a good thing in that it reminds one that, whatever the ecumenists might think, that the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics are not separate because of an insignificant accident of history.

Regards
Margaret
in Edinburgh

D. W. Dickens

17-03-2009, 04:34 PM

Personally I don't think the WCC, etc, are of any use or service to anyone except the enemy. Are you saying though that you find people objecting to, say, helping out at a Lutheran homeless shelter or a Methodist scheme to keep kids off the streets on the grounds that its ecumenism?

Yes. I've been told that working at a Protestant-affiliated Christian university (we often pray before meetings) is not acceptable.

The phrase that all of this hinges on is "praying with heretics".

I suppose that would preclude Orthodox from running for public office since sessions of nearly every representative body in this country start with a prayer. I suppose I shouldn't pray with my still-protestant family at Thanksgiving.

Oh but I shouldn't have Thanksgiving either as that's a fast day (or maybe it's OK because only us new calendarists have the Nativity fast start that early and we know the new calendar is heresy as well).

Sorry, I'm getting weird in my tone. Yes. Those who I hear object publicly to ecumenical activities, object to them all. I suppose putting my son in Boy Scouts is also out.

Kseniya M.

17-03-2009, 05:04 PM

Oh dear. It made very horrible reading but I suppose it's a good thing in that it reminds one that, whatever the ecumenists might think, that the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholics are not separate because of an insignificant accident of history.

You know what I noticed?

The quote from the Virgin Mary, in which she uncharacteristically claims triumph. Unless I'm even more ignorant than I think I am (I admit I'm pretty ignorant), the Theotokos of the Orthodox Church always points to her Son. "Do whatever He says." This Mary, she's glorifying herself.

If that's a basis for R/C ecumenism, it makes me shudder.

-Kseniya

Kusanagi

18-03-2009, 03:46 AM

Oh, this article is SO very interesting ... Ecumenism from the other side. Some things said make me fume and like Saint Nicholas I want to slap a few people in the face:

http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/fatima.htm

Well the article has too many holes to poke through, I wonder when the catholics will call their church of Mary, rather than Flock of Peter etc.....

Anyway, an interesting note to share is even though the Patriarch of Romania met with the Pope, some monasteries and churches in Romania under him didn't protest much or it wasn't published.

one thing to share is:

At Sihastria monastery (Fr Cleopa's final resting place) in North East Romania, was requested by the then Metropolitan Daniel (now Patriarch) to allow catholics to serve at the Holy Altar. Of course the abbot refused point blank about it. I am sure the Metropolitan was fuming at the response and asked the Abbot who does he think made him abbot??
The Abbot replied it was the Most Holy Mother of God.

I think this happened 2-3 years ago and since then nothing happened again i hope, i thought it might be worse when he became Patriarch though, but the monastery has many articles against ecumenism quoting from many saints that spoke against it.

Margaret S.

18-03-2009, 11:59 AM

Yes. I've been told that working at a Protestant-affiliated Christian university (we often pray before meetings) is not acceptable.

The phrase that all of this hinges on is "praying with heretics".

I'm horrified. I think there should be some difference between praying with people who can say 'Jesus is Lord' and mean it and praying with those, ie, the WCC who really don't seem to mind who is Lord. I'd be even more horrified though if someone had told you you couldn't work in a Methodist soup kitchen.

Regards
Margaret
in Edinburgh

Margaret S.

18-03-2009, 12:04 PM

You know what I noticed?

The quote from the Virgin Mary, in which she uncharacteristically claims triumph. Unless I'm even more ignorant than I think I am (I admit I'm pretty ignorant), the Theotokos of the Orthodox Church always points to her Son. "Do whatever He says." This Mary, she's glorifying herself.

If that's a basis for R/C ecumenism, it makes me shudder.

-Kseniya

That is the main reason I don't believe any of the recent manifestations of 'Mary' are actually the Theotokos.

Margaret

Christophoros

30-05-2009, 09:45 PM

The ecumenical idea's, like of WCC and others ecumenical congregations, are a eclesiological heresy?

A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, signed by metropolitans, archimandrites, protopresbyters, monks and parish priests throughout Greece:

http://oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/omologia_pistews.htm

Kosta

16-06-2009, 10:45 AM

A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, signed by metropolitans, archimandrites, protopresbyters, monks and parish priests throughout Greece:

http://oodegr.com/english/oikoumenismos/omologia_pistews.htm

Im pleasantly surprised by the above document. I have to hand it to the greek bishops who signed it and applaud them, i wouldnt of guessed they would have the guts to write and sign such a statement. I really like the veiled chastisement of the EP (and other patriarchs) in point 8.

Isaac Crabtree

16-06-2009, 08:14 PM

Ecumenism is such a loaded and slippery word-- what exactly are we talking about here? I think we have to distinguish the good from the bad here, and realize also, I think, that the people who try to tell us that Orthodox hierarchs are attempting to sell us out are usually trying to sell something themselves. I should know because I nearly joined an Old Calendarist movement in my first year as an Orthodox Christian-- I read all of their essays, and all of the rumors that they spread about how much we were obligated to not commemorate New Calendarist ecumenists. Exempla gratia: the above silly rumor about Patriarch Daniel of Romania wanting to let Romanian Uniates use an altar at Sihastria. Imagine! And where do we find out about such things? The grapevine of course, and no actual witnesses. That is how it is with all of their rumors.

On the other hand, good ecumenism is not only beneficial, but arguably obligatory for the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ. By good ecumenism I mean meeting with separated Christians who maintain parts of the Orthodox faith. This bearing witness in love is not condemned by the canons. ROCOR, a thoroughly anti-ecumenist jurisdiction of Orthodoxy, sent observers to Vatican II, for crying out loud! Heresy is not something you catch like an air-borne virus.

I have heard from convincing sources that the canon against "praying with heretics" has to do with liturgical services, and not simply impromptu kinds of invocations. I think that the OCA's website has an excellent manual about the do's and dont's of ecumenism. The real ecumenism of most Orthodox hierarchs who engage in various ecumenical activities is a sober undertaking, with a full awareness of our duty to love and bear witness on the one hand and to preserve an maintain inviolate the purity of the Orthodox faith on the other. Here's link to a 1973 encyclical by the OCA holy Synod about ecumenism (you'll be surprised if you've bought into the rumors of schismatics): http://www.oca.org/DOCencyclical.asp?SID=12&ID=5

Nina

16-06-2009, 09:35 PM

Elder Arsenie Papacioc - On Ecumenism
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o7UGLTauHI)

Nina

16-06-2009, 09:46 PM

YouTube - Romanian Elders on Ecumenism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-RdNeKlFs8&feature=related)

Vasiliki D.

17-06-2009, 10:44 AM

D. W. Dickens

17-06-2009, 04:47 PM

The one thing I don't believe is ecumenism-as-disease that is communicable and the mere lack of sufficient (to the "True" Churches satisfaction) and public denunciation of those who have made questionable statements is enough to qualify whole local Churches as apostate.

Additionally, there are many conspiracy theories and red herrings like the calendar which obscure the more legitimate points. In the end I think they prefer their protest and isolation rather than stay and work out the hard complexities of life within the Church. (I'm not saying the calendar isn't something to deal with.)

Athanasius stood against the world inside the Church, he didn't run off claiming the other Bishops had apostatized. Stay and do the hard work, this is humility and love.

The one exception I would make to this is the impossible situation the Russian Church found itself in, where systematically it could not function do to outside interference. I can see why communion was broken in that particular case. But surely even those who judged it necessary felt it a grave and terrible thing.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

17-06-2009, 05:04 PM

Thankfully the posts here are far from the invective back & forth that one usually sees on this subject. And what is contained in the posts is of real worth I believe.

However one question very rarely raised in a Patristic/ascetic way is about the way in which ecumenism as we presently know it very often occurs- ie ecumenical conferences given over to resolving questions concerning the Faith.

Are such conferences I have asked myself many times over the years in accordance with the Patristic and ascetic way of the Church?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Christophoros

17-06-2009, 05:18 PM

All the Athonite monks that are of the "style" of Elder Cleopa are anti-ecumenism too; however, I think Isaac makes a valid distinction between a "healthy" ecumenism versus an "unhealthy" ecumenism ... discussions, so that those outside the faith can come back to the proper order of the Canons is "healthy" but when we start compromising to meet "half-way" that is not healthy ...

The problem with the whole idea of "healthy ecumenism" is it doesn't actually exist except as a concept in the minds of those Orthodox who are trying to reconcile their participation in (or support of) a movement that runs so contrary to Patristic ecclesiology and the canons of the Church. The most spiritually gifted elements in every Local Church - the monastics of Russia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. - are pretty much unanimous in their condemnation of Ecumenism as heresy. We ignore their witness at our own peril.

In Christ,
Chris

Ryan

17-06-2009, 06:58 PM

I agree that it is not helpful to paint ecumenism with too broad a brush. There are some forms that are not heretical. If Orthodox hierarchs want to meet with heterodox leaders, in some effort to win them to Orthodoxy, there is nothing really heretical about thatl.
The problem is, is this "healthy" ecumenism worth the time and effort? How many regular folks in the heterodox churches are paying close attention to these meetings, and are they getting the message that our leaders are trying to communicate?

I see some ecumenists virtually equating ecumenism with missionary work, but some theological discussions between clergy aren't going to accomplish much. As official representatives of their denominations, these heterodox leaders will be especially hardened against conversion. Their followers are unlikely to get news of these meetings that isn't filtered through their denominational lens.

While some Orthodox may perceive these meetings as attempts to win converts to Orthodoxy, many others, Orthodox and heterodox, rightly or wrongly, see these meetings as implying that the RC's, Protestants, monophysites, etc. are part of the Church. The many joint statements on theology encourage doctrinal minimalism and the branch theory. In this way, I think "healthy" ecumenism does more harm than good. So while I don't think this "healthy" ecumenism is heretical, I still think it is bad strategy.

All of the en-masse conversions I have heard about have occurred not because of ecumenism but because the groups involved were already interested in Orthodoxy. This is not to say that Orthodox should sit around and wait for people to find their Church, but I think missionary work is generally more effective on the personal/ individual level; high-level meetings are unlikely to make an impact on the rank and file. If our Church shows a refusal to meet with heretodox leaders or to make joint statements, while at the same time has a proactive willingness to reach out to heterodox on the ground and cooperate with them in charity work, I think that would give a much clearer picture to the world of where we stand.

Seda S.

17-06-2009, 07:26 PM

When you're receiving guests like me, when I'm talking to you, and you're talking to me, and we discuss this or that thing together, is this ecumenism?

Nina

17-06-2009, 07:31 PM

Are such conferences I have asked myself many times over the years in accordance with the Patristic and ascetic way of the Church?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is a very good question Father. And I have discussed this issue with a friend of mine (who is also a poster here) and who used to participate in such conferences (WCC). There were a lot he had to say and he was not aware at that time of what was wrong and right according to the Patristic teachings regarding ecumenism there since he had no knowledge. He thought that this was part of the "healthy" ecumenism to help people come to Orthodoxy. However he was faced there with realities such as the Protestant lesbian/gay groups meetings, women ministers etc. and such things and he was very scandalized when he realized what he had found there (not to mention he got invitations to join non-Christian groups which are masonic! there). Also he spoke about the prayers there and it is all just too much to hear. Also he told me that everytime that there is a gathering of WCC there are discussed many "dogmas" of Christianity, and there is a vote on the formulations of "dogmas" of Christianity which are totally foreign to Orthodoxy, and although the Orthodox members reject such formulations these so called dogmas are passed since the Orthodox are a minortiy there and their vote does not count. But at the end still the Orthodox are members there and they appear like they endorese such "dogmas" when the report is published! Imagine even the RC are not member of WCC! Although they participate there. And we are. Also I have heard on YouTube prayers in such conferences, there were pagan prayers and prayers for Mother Earth and such and also Christ was refered to as a brother and other faiths (I think Hinduism, Budhism) as a mother or father. We all are sinners and I am not judging them but I think the modern Elders who tell us to run away from such things are right. But even if we help them to "see" Orthodoxy, at what expense? What good is for the man to gain the entire world and loose his own soul, said Christ. Also there are two main orders God has given us. Love your God with all your soul, mind and being. and Love your neighbour. In the name of the second love we can't sacrifice the first one.

D. W. Dickens

17-06-2009, 10:47 PM

There's a big difference between (and I've said this before) the WCC (which serves at this point nothing but a straw man, as Orthodox around the world have pulled or are pulling out of it) and your local Christian pastors association or prayer breakfast.

You cannot judge the efficacy of such endeavors in a mathematical way. You cannot say, "My priest has gone to these Saturday breakfasts for 10 years and never gotten a convert."

On my first visit to an Orthodox parish (the priest knowing that I was a singer) I was invited to stand with the choir and sing along if I desired. This is, by some definitions, ecumenical heresy. A heretic wasn't just praying with Orthodox but I was the only Bass in the choir so I was effectively leading the faithful.

I certainly hope my spiritual father is never scandalized in the future for his hospitality. It was a crucial moment in my spiritual journey and such things cannot be quantifiably measured.

This same discussion is going on in a blog I read. And this was offered up:
http://tinyurl.com/nn5mub

This seems a rational, careful and meaningful explanation for certain kinds of ecumenical dialogs, at least with Rome.Hart is (if you read to the end of his passage) fully protective of critical issues which he has no intention of ceding. But he is cheritable and faithful to the historical Church (correcting the exaggerated defensiveness of some).Who's ready to head the anathema committee?

Ryan

18-06-2009, 01:42 AM

...the WCC (which serves at this point nothing but a straw man, as Orthodox around the world have pulled or are pulling out of it)...

Huh? It's news to me. The only Church I've heard of that pulled out was the Church of Georgia, under heavy monastic pressure. The Church of Serbia came close, but ultimately didn't. None of the other churches have given any indication of leaving that I can find.

On my first visit to an Orthodox parish (the priest knowing that I was a singer) I was invited to stand with the choir and sing along if I desired. This is, by some definitions, ecumenical heresy. A heretic wasn't just praying with Orthodox but I was the only Bass in the choir so I was effectively leading the faithful.

Did you lead the faithful to sing heretical hymns? I think you are setting up a strawman against anti-ecumenism here.
The whole point of forbidding prayer with heretics is to avoid legitimizing their prayers, so allowing heterodox to sing in the choir does not fall under this stricture. It is not prayer with heretics to invite them to pray Orthodox prayers... otherwise, only Orthodox would be allowed to our services.

Vasiliki D.

18-06-2009, 02:14 AM

When in doubt, always reach for Scripture.

As far as I am concerned, the Scripture tells me that not all are "Apostles" etc. This clearly tells me that those who God has permitted to be ordained as Patriarchs, Bishops etc to lead His church are there for a purpose - with their right or wrong decisions.

This stretches into the topic of Ecumenism. On Facebook, someone had a go at the Patriarch of Constantinople for canoodling with the Pope. Whether this is the right thing for the Patriarch or not is NOT for me to decide ...

MY job is to pray for the heads of the Church - that is clear in the Liturgy every Sunday where we, the faithful, are responsible to pray for the leaders ... if I am not praying hard enough and they are making bad decisions ..it is not their fault but my own ...

If WE the faithful prayed properly for our leaders then God will enlighten them to always make the right decisions on behalf of the Church; sometimes, these decisions/actions are not evident to us NOW in OUR present but may have a significant impact on the later ... the future direction of the church.

HENCE, why I think, discussing Ecumenism as healthy or unhealthy is really a topic we should leave for those who hav been appointed by God to manage the Church.

and by the example of St. Nektarios, we should love them (the Hierarchs) all no matter how incredibly silly mistakes they make.

I really wanted to say that :) thanks for listening!

Nicolaj

18-06-2009, 09:36 AM

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/svots/vsv01_hilarion.mp3

Here are also some remarks on "ecumenism" made by an Russian Orthodox Metropolitan. Very interesting because it shows very much that all others lost so much on their broad road that they see the "Dialog" more as a hour of questioning the True Church, trying to find back to the roots of Truth.

Christos Voskrese! Nicolaj

Alice

18-06-2009, 09:59 AM

I think that the word 'ecumenism' brings much confusion to us, and we must be careful.

Personally, I think that 'ecumenism' as in bringing all world faiths together, as in the WCC, etc., is frightening. We can respect others such as Hindus who have never had a chance in their culture to be brought to the Truth which is Christ, but we need to beware of their gods for what they really are. We can find some common belief such as 'one God' with Muslims but we need, again, to beware of their cultlike ethos and their prophet who may have very well listened to an angel not of God. We can honour our first brothers in the faith, the Jews, for they were the chosen of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, our Panaghia and others were born into it, but we still lament that they have not seen the Messiah when He came....

But, we cannot compromise the Truth we have.

Then there is 'ecumenism' as in relations to our estranged brothers in the West, the Roman Catholics. God has seen fit, despite our estrangement to bring many miracles and much holy men and women to them. The cultures of East and West are very different and developed differently at a time where television and the internet and globalization did not unite people. The first time I visited Greece, for instance, in the 1960's, before television in Greece, with little contact with the West and Western thought, and despite being of Greek origin and having relatives all around me who were Greek born but were now Americans, I thought I had dropped off the planet and was in Mars. Imagine, therefore, how different Eastern and Western cultures and their mentalities were from each other centuries ago.

I think that we need to find *some spiritual ground* with each other. We cannot preach love, forgiveness and reconciliation of Christ and not practice it. We cannot say to make up with a brother 70 x 7 and not try to do this with our estranged brother, the Pope and he with us. I personally think that God is pleased with my Greek hierarchs when He sees such initiatives. If holiness is bestowed on persons in that tradition by God, who am I to judge them?

In Christ our Lord,
Alice

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-06-2009, 03:18 PM

As to the question that I raised all that we do must be done in an ascetic & Orthodox way that calls upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore love is the result and unity is already held out as a possibility.

The vehicle then of various conferences that we are so attracted to in this age could be the very thing which prevents true churchly unity. For the temptation is to try to go around how the Church achieves unity.

After all it is through our bishops who together manifest the synodal spirit that the Church is guided.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

D. W. Dickens

18-06-2009, 04:58 PM

Did you lead the faithful to sing heretical hymns? I think you are setting up a strawman against anti-ecumenism here.
The whole point of forbidding prayer with heretics is to avoid legitimizing their prayers, so allowing heterodox to sing in the choir does not fall under this stricture. It is not prayer with heretics to invite them to pray Orthodox prayers... otherwise, only Orthodox would be allowed to our services.

That's a preferable interpretation, but not one in accordance with those who cry "pan-heresy".
At one time non-Orthodox weren't allowed in services. And there are good theological and pastoral reasons for this. (I personally think that they aren't as important as the witness of the services. But then if my Bishop thought differently who would I be to complain?)

Yet one more example where "evangelism" and "ecumenism" are ambiguous.

Kosta

18-06-2009, 08:04 PM

Ecumenism tends to be fruitless. When a portion schisms or a group has always been heterodox, if reconciliation doesnt occur within a few years or decades at best, it will never happen.

There simply is no example of it ever happening except maybe if one wants to include old believers.
This is why current dialogues with non-chalcedonians is basically compromises. We have already tried to heal this schism when it was fresh and it failed, it was called the 5th ecumenical council!

Ecumenism in the name of philanthropic causes are also dangerous. After WW2 the unia tried to help Greece, being disguised as good samaritans, building a hospital, doing philanthropic work and such, while attempted to steal the flock by setting up the unia, good thing the government stepped in and stopped them.

Currently there is some sort of interfaith convent under the auspices of the WCC, made of 2 Orthodox, 2 RC, and 2 protestant nuns who pray together even though each other may regard certain prayers heretical. It demonstrates how demonic the WCC really is. A quote by one of the lutheran nun says, "What i have realized is that when we talk about unity, it doesnt mean to change someone's faith." Then why are the Orthodox participating in the WCC why are there Orthodox nuns involved with this? Whats the point of this convent? Here is the full text of the article straight from the WCC website:

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article/6845/ecumenism-is-a-way-of-lif.html

Nina

18-06-2009, 08:26 PM

If holiness is bestowed on persons in that tradition by God, who am I to judge them?

Alice

Actually, one person who is in the process of Canonization, and who was from Greece is Elder Filotheos Zervakos. And he did not agree with the ecumenism of our days and wrote against it.

Nina

19-06-2009, 06:21 AM

News (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-mBPHr0Ya18j7JVrLsOsmHs_NIwD98F8TA80)
I have no comment since the article speaks for itself however the message was too short.

Bogdan

20-06-2009, 01:40 AM

Isaac Crabtree

21-06-2009, 04:08 AM

This all goes back to Augustine vs. Cyprian. How harsh is too harsh? Are we going to do as the Donatists did?

As much as the Augustinian argument is the one actually in affect, we can not ignore the Cyprian argument. And also, even though Cyprian was against ecumenism (a term that didn't even exist in his time) he still had contact with everyone. Would this contact not also be ecumenism??

The whole thing makes my head spin. If anyone is interested in a more serious breakdown of the argument, I recommend the following link to a paper on the argument.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/181

Let's slow down a bit, Bogdan! Sts. Augustine (and Pope St. Stephen, for that matter) on the one hand, and St. Cyprian of Carthage on another, had nothing at all to say about ecumenism. Their different methodologies had to do with how to receive heretics or those who lapsed during the persecutions. Augustine and Cyprian did disagree with one another about the nature of sacraments performed outside the canonical boundaries of the Church (of course, they were dealing with different heretics, too) but they did agree on efficacy-- the way I understand it, Augustine did not believe that the otherwise (in his view) valid sacraments were efficacious unto salvation outside of the Church, so we should be careful about quoting him as some great tolerant "ecumenist."

Ryan

21-06-2009, 04:59 AM

As far as I am concerned, the Scripture tells me that not all are "Apostles" etc. This clearly tells me that those who God has permitted to be ordained as Patriarchs, Bishops etc to lead His church are there for a purpose - with their right or wrong decisions.

This stretches into the topic of Ecumenism. On Facebook, someone had a go at the Patriarch of Constantinople for canoodling with the Pope. Whether this is the right thing for the Patriarch or not is NOT for me to decide ...

I would agree here if we were only talking about administrative decisions. But when the EP "canoodles" with the Pope, we are encroaching on the area of faith, and when it comes to matters of the faith, I think all believers do have some say... in fact, the objections of the laity were important at some pivotal moments in our Church's history (e.g., the false union of Florence). That's not to say that we shouldn't be modest, or that we shouldn't give our leaders the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, but when so many holy voices, included hierarchs, have spoken against ecumenism, we really should pay attention.

Fabio Lins

22-06-2009, 04:11 PM

This same discussion is going on in a blog I read. And this was offered up:
http://tinyurl.com/nn5mub

What a horrible article! And horrible in the sense that it is little less than intolerant pseudo-intellectual bullying. If you don't agree with him you're historically illiterate, ignorant, execrable, undiscerning, pathologically compromised, comical, unable of intelligent interpretations ... My God, the number of pejorative labels per paragraph against those he disagrees with is enormous! It is an article full of hate!

Compared to this article the harshest condemnation of other Christianities as heresies are nothing but mild parental scoldings.

To me what he is doing is condemning the traditional orthodox in the same way he feels they do against his own opinions. If that is the case, he is not even operating in the rational level but just reacting emotinally, and reacting to a dellusion of perception I must say.

Not surprisingly, rarely if ever he concedes that *he* may be wrong. That's the routine for bigots. And I don't know if the author is one, but in this article he sure is writing as one. To this man, all who disagree with him are either ignorant or full of malice, a group of people who are not be listened to but defeated! He says of Romanides, Lossky, Staniloae and even of Zizioulas: "until those claims are defeated - as well as they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful"

This is not a man in "dialogue". He is a resolut militant, who has decided before-hand who is "good" and who is "evil". This is not even a scientific article. It is a manifesto and a political program to defeat political enemies. To him, nothing lasts but the utter destruction of the "evil" side. And evil, for him, includes people like St. Mark, Popovich and all the "ignorant" spiritual fathers who say that Ecumenism is a heresy.

God have mercy!

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

Jonathan Hayward

22-06-2009, 11:17 PM

There is a distinction I would draw between two things:

Working and praying for full Christian unity. (This is not optional; it is mandatory. Period.)
Embracing what is called 'ecumenism'.

Just after I ended the quotation in Monachos.net Discussion Community - View Single Post - How to defend against Protestant (sola sciptura) apologetics? (http://monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80170&postcount=45) :
So Luther worked to establish the re-established ancient Christian Church, and I am not particularly concerned here with the ways the re-established ancient Christian Church served as a projection screen for ideas that were in vogue at the time. (Somehow, when people re-establish ancient glory, their work ends up with a large dose of ideas that are in vogue with their creators. It happens again and again, and I think it has to do with how the ancient glory serves as a projection screen, much like New Age.) That tendency aside, Luther and the Catholic Church treated each other as heretics for a very good reason. It wasn't that they weren't ecumenical enough, or that they needed to be more tolerant, or that they needed to be told they were all Christians and Christianity is Christianity. The reason was something else. I can lament the blood that was shed, but there was a very healthy reason why people went that far against their opponents.

The Catholic Church, along with Luther, and for that matter along with the Orthodox, recognized that there is one Church, bound together in a full communion that cannot exist without agreement in doctrinal matters. Luther's reconstituted Church and the Catholic Church differed in doctrine and could not have this common basis. If you have two different groups which differ in doctrine, at least one of them is not the true Church. This is for the same reason that if one person says that an airplane is in Canada and another person says the same airplane is in Mexico, at least one of them has to be wrong. They could both be wrong; nothing rules that out. Luther and the Catholic Church might neither be the true Church. But if there are two conflicting organizations competing to be called the true Church, at least one of them has to be wrong, just as an airplane cannot simultaneously be in Canada and in Mexico. Luther and the Catholic Church both recognized this.

What one might have expected, if Luther were simply re-establishing what the Christian Church was in ancient times, was that there would be one and only reformer's Church. When Luther couldn't agree with other reformers, they split off from each other, each saying, "We're the true Church!" "No, we're the true Church!" It wasn't long until there were seventy or so different groups, and the claim, "We're the true Church" could no longer be taken seriously. In retrospect, Luther's saying "I do not accept the authority of Popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other," and then moving to Protestant churches was a move out of the frying pan and into the fire. Perhaps Luther could not have foreseen this unintended consequence, but the disagreements and divisions in Luther's wake made the disagreements of Popes and councils pale in comparison.

At that point, the reformers reconsidered what was going on, but they chose to consider the Church structure generated by the Reformation as valid. There was an unwritten rule: "Whatever you say about churches, it has to approve of what's happened with the Reformation splintering into many groups that could not be in communion with each other, no matter what Christians have believed about Church since the days of the Apostles themselves."

The solution they invented included the concept of a "denomination". The idea was that these different groups were not competitors for the title of "true Church;" instead, they were simply names for parts of the true Church. The true Church was not a unified organism complete with authority as it had been understood from the days of the apostles; it was something invisible and quite independent of formal structures. It's kind of like there had been a supercomputer club whose charter said that they would have one supercomputer, but they couldn't agree on which computer was the most appropriate supercomputer, so they violated the club charter by each buying his own computer, and to be able to say they had one computer like the charter said, hooked the computers up and said that the real club supercomputer was something invisible, a sort of virtual computer, that was emulated over the club network—and then said that this is what the original charter really called for. This is not because the reformers read the Bible and this was the best picture they could come up with of what the Church should be. It was much closer to an answer to the question of "How can we re-imagine Church so it won't look like the Bible condemns the church structures which the Reformation can't escape?"

Today we have:

All denominations point to the same Christian truth.
It doesn't matter which denomination you're part of, as long as you have faith.
It doesn't matter much whether you stick to one denomination's prayers, doctrines, and so on and so forth, or for that matter whether you consider yourself a member of one denomination at all.
We should pursue the goal of uniting all the different denominations.

But let me change barely more than one term:

All religions point to the same truth.
It doesn't matter which religion you're part of, as long as you have faith.
It doesn't matter much whether you stick to one religion's prayers, doctrines, and so on and so forth, or for that matter whether you consider yourself a member of one religion at all.
We should pursue the goal of uniting all the different religions.

Sound familiar [compared to earlier discussion in http://jonathanscorner.com/orthodoxy/]? (http://jonathanscorner.com/orthodoxy/%5D?) It should. It's New Age. It's the foundation to the New Age movement that all the exotic Asian decor rests on, and it is more Western than most of the West. Or at least there's an uncanny resemblance between Protestantism and something most Protestants wouldn't want to be associated with. (Or at least evangelicals wouldn't want to be associated with New Age. With mainline, er, oldline, er, sideline, er, flatline Protestantism, the line between "Protestant" and "New Age" is often crystal clear, but at other times can be maddeningly difficult to tell the difference.) Beyond all New Age's Eastern trappings, the heart of the New Age is a non-Christian twist on a very Western way of thinking about religious community. That way of thinking is the Protestant understanding of Church.

Why am I making such a disturbing and perhaps offensive connection? Do I believe Protestantism is as bad as New Age? Absolutely not; I think there's a world of difference. The answer has to do with something else, something about Orthodoxy that seems strange to many Protestants. What is this something else?

Jesus, in the great prayer recorded before his execution, prayed fervently that all his disciples may be one, and Paul made incendiary remarks whenever he discussed people having different denominations. So it is important for all Christians to be united, and that goes for Orthodox. So why do Orthodox refuse to attend non-Orthodox worship and especially to take non-Orthodox communion? Why do we exclude non-Orthodox from our own communion cups? So why don't Orthodox recognize that we are just one more denomination, even if we are a very old denomination? Why are there so few Orthodox at ecumenical gatherings?
Something has to give, and Protestants often try to figure out whether the observations about Orthodoxy are what gives, or whether Orthodox really being Christians gives. Which one gives? Neither. Neither the practices that seem so strange to Protestant ecumenism, nor the imperative to Christian unity, give. What give are the Protestant assumptions about what makes Church, that determines what Protestants see as real ecumenism.

I've written a long and subtle discussion about Ella Enchanted, New Age, and other things because I wanted to get to this point. New Age may do all sorts of things to get an impression of being Eastern, and it may be chock full of exotic decor. But underneath that decor is something very Western. It is a modified form of Protestant teachings about Church. The similarity between:

All denominations point to the same Christian truth.
It doesn't matter which denomination you're part of, as long as you have faith.
It doesn't matter much whether you stick to one denomination's prayers, doctrines, and so on and so forth, or for that matter whether you consider yourself a member of one denomination at all.
We should pursue the goal of uniting all the different denominations.

and:

All religions point to the same truth.
It doesn't matter which religion you're part of, as long as you have faith.
It doesn't matter much whether you stick to one religion's prayers, doctrines, and so on and so forth, or for that matter whether you consider yourself a member of one religion at all.
We should pursue the goal of uniting all the different religions.

is a disturbing similarity. And most evangelicals wouldn't touch the second list of statements with a ten foot pole. Yet it is connected to the first statement. The first set of statements isn't what the Bible says. It isn't what Christians have believed from ancient times. Its job was to give a rubber stamp to the sort of churches the Reformation created, and serve as a substitute for what the Orthodox believe about Church. And, with modifications, that way of thinking about Church has been perfectly happy to abandon Christianity and help give us the New Age movement.

My purpose isn't to get you to reject Protestant assumptions about church. But it is my purpose to help you see that they are assumptions, and that Orthodox have worshipped God for two millenia with a quite different set of assumptions. If you can see your own objection to New Age treating all religions as interchangeable, you may be able to see the Orthodox objection to treating all denominations as interchangeable, even if it's on a smaller scale. And to show why Orthodox do not simply see the Protestant style of ecumenism as necessary to a full and robust obedience to the commandment to Christian unity.
What is called "ecumenism" today is a Protestant approach to Christian unity in the wake of Protestant schisms that gave birth to the teaching of the invisible Church (and the doctrine of the Invisible Church is a doctrine of a merely Virtual Incarnation).

Let us all work for Christian unity, but not on Protestant terms.

(The two main pieces on my site dealing with ecumenism in more detail are An Open Letter to Catholics on Orthodoxy and Ecumenism (http://jonathanscorner.com/ecumenism/) and A Glimpse into Eastern Orthodox Christian Religion (http://jonathanscorner.com/orthodoxy/), the latter of which is quoted above.)

Jonathan Hayward

23-06-2009, 01:47 AM

I have heard from convincing sources that the canon against "praying with heretics" has to do with liturgical services, and not simply impromptu kinds of invocations.
The canon against "praying with heretics", on that note, could only have dealt with formal liturgical prayer because that is the only kind of prayer anyone thought you could have. This is, or rather was, not an Orthodox distinctive: Jews, various heretics, and pagans alike understood prayer as formal and liturgical.

I'm wary of saying "always" and "never" with regards to low-church Protestantism in particular, but it is not the general rule that Evangelicals, for instance, have formal liturgical prayer at church on Sunday and only improvised prayers in their day-to-day faithfulness. There are devout Protestants who know the Our Father but couldn't quote from memory a second liturgical prayer, because with that lauded exception prayer as such is improvised and informal, the pastor's prayers from the pulpit even before communion being just as extemporaneous as a lay prayer before a meal.

If low church Protestantism understood serious prayer to be formal and liturgical and a much lesser grade to be spontaneous prayers offered by the faithful, and such were envisioned by the canons, then such a distinction could be significantly important. But neither is the case: low church Protestant prayers are overall informal and extemporaneous, and spontaneity does not distinguish a less serious class of prayers that should not be compared to Orthodox-style formal and liturgical prayers.

I wish to give a caveat in saying that I am not holy enough to push this to its logical conclusion, let alone judge others even if I were in a position to be strict. But I am concerned about argument that says "The canons are only about formal, liturgical prayer; it's a misapplication to apply them to prayers that are just spontaneous and informal."

-Christos Jonathan

Isaac Crabtree

23-06-2009, 03:32 AM

What a horrible article! And horrible in the sense that it is little less than intolerant pseudo-intellectual bullying. If you don't agree with him you're historically illiterate, ignorant, execrable, undiscerning, pathologically compromised, comical, unable of intelligent interpretations ... My God, the number of pejorative labels per paragraph against those he disagrees with is enormous! It is an article full of hate!

Compared to this article the harshest condemnation of other Christianities as heresies are nothing but mild parental scoldings...

Romanides, Lossky, Staniloae and even of Zizioulas: "until those claims are defeated - as well as they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful"

This is not a man in "dialogue". He is a resolut militant, who has decided before-hand who is "good" and who is "evil". This is not even a scientific article. It is a manifesto and a political program to defeat political enemies. To him, nothing lasts but the utter destruction of the "evil" side. And evil, for him, includes people like St. Mark, Popovich and all the "ignorant" spiritual fathers who say that Ecumenism is a heresy.

God have mercy!

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

Fabio, I didn't get the "hate" even though I do see his tendency to sort of marginalize those who might disagree with him. Where exactly did he use "evil"? I am no sympathizer to the extreme ecumenists, and I certainly disagree with Dr. Hart's "love fest" here, but he brings up some good points about the porous sacramental boundaries between Orthodox and the erring Roman Church. St. Mark of Ephesus is, for me, the perfect model of real ecumenism. He as a great bishop and theologian was quite positive about the reunion council. His address to the Pope makes it clear that he considered him a fellow Christian, an elder brother, etc. He even kissed his hand! Read it for yourself! Nevertheless he did not compromise the Orthodox faith-- and in his disputations at one point it was revealed that a very large number of the Latin monks agreed with St. Mark. This is why, when they forced and starved all the Orthodox bishops to sign that reprehensible "agreement" to submit to Rome, and nevertheless St. Mark's signature was missing, the Pope remarked: "Then we have accomplished nothing."