www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenism

The Holy Fathers speak of a Church that is unaltered, full of truth and light, pure of every falsehood of compromise, with the Holy Spirit lighting her steps and enveloping her like the light of the sun, guiding her "to the fulness of truth" until the end of days. Their unity is a perfect unity in ONE faith through the Mysteries of Christ which transcends time and space. Just as man cannot divide that which God has united, so to is it that man cannot unite what Christ has divided.

But I'm sure everything the pope said seems quite natural to the Latins.

And I will leave it at that since I am a guest.

-----


Kurt, are you saying the Mormons are going to hell?

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Oecumenical Patriach has been specific in setting the limits Of Ecumenism for the Orthodox.The meaning he has set for the word "Ecumenism" is closely related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. It expresses the universal message of the Gospel and the capacity of the Christian Faith to be accepted by the whole world, regardless of race or language.

Many of those who are members of old calendar [note:I find nothing wrong with being old calendar much of World Orthodoxy is] churches that identify as the orthodox "Resistance Movement" accept the non-Orthodox Christian's definition for "Ecumenism". It is a very different definition from that of the Oecumenical Patriarch and those he is in communion with. They use the word in a different way: to the "Resistance Movement" Ecumenism expresses the idea of the universal amalgamation of various religions, Christian and non Christian, into one universal Religion. This type of Ecumenism, which is in reality a new "Syncretism", is rejected without any hesitation, completely and unconditionally by the Orthodox Church.

Official statements from the Oecumenical Patriarchate and his Brother Patriarchs, in communion with him, state that the "Orthodox Church of Christ seeks and desires dialogue with all other (heterodox) churches, based on equal conditions, and provided it be conducted in the fear of God and the witness of the One Divine Truth, which the incarnated Logos and Son of God the Father, our Lord and Saviour has revealed to the world." To the Patriarchs, the Orthodox Church aims for dialogue which seeks the love of man and which WILL UNITE ALL UNDER THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST.

There is no place in the body of the Church for untruths. The Church does not hold a part of the Truth, but the whole Truth; because Christ, who is the Head of the Church, is the Truth.

The dialogue of the Orthodox Church is conducted in THE SPIRIT OF LOVE AND TRUTH. To the historical Patriarchates it is the Historical Orthodox Church that determines the ecclesiological and moral preconditions and obligations which those who partake in this dialogue must accept, in order that such dialogue will take place without self-serving motivation or hidden purpose. This means that "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, from the Orthodox point of view, to ignore or TO SACRIFICE THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Divine Revelation, simply for the sake of an insincere, superficial and senseless union." Neither can we ignore the element of love as being the highest good in the relationship between men and institutions.

To the Patriarchs the limits to true Ecumenical interaction must be Prudent with "honest and effective dialogue" that takes place at all levels of theological confrontation, debate and conversation, and throughout this intellectual process, THE TRUTH OF CHRIST IS PROJECTED. All men must accept this Truth.

To those of us who are under the Historical Patriarchates of the Holy Orthodox Church, unlike those who who see themselves as a "Resistant Movement", see the restoration of unity amongst the churches will be achieved only when FULL COMMUNION IS RESTORED. This communion must be based upon the UNITY OF FAITH in accordance with the common experience and tradition of the ancient, Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

For this purpose, one sees the Historic Patriarchates involved in Ecumenism based upon the Orthodox definition of Ecumenism and not the definition assigned to it by the "Resistance Movement" of the non-canonical orthodox churches
which is in reality a new "Syncretism", that is rejected without any hesitation, completely and unconditionally by the Orthodox Church.

It is important to understand that many of the non-canonical orthodox churches that identify with the "Resistance Movement" are viewed by those Orthodox within the Patriarchal Churches the same was as Catholics view the various "vacante" movements challenging the historic Roman Catholic Communion. They simply do not represent the majority of the Holy Orthodox Church. Their voice may be loud but their size is small and they do not speak for the Historic Patriarchates.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Dear Death,

I was commenting on C. statements that "A perfect example is the new fad of proclaiming that allah(false god) is the same as the True God"

The Maronite Catholic community proclaims Allah is the same as the True God. As a Catholic, I would disagree that these fellow Catholics are proclaiming a false God.

K.

I don't understand why the word "Allah" is abused here in these forums. From the Orthodox perspective, Allah is the true God as revealed & understood in the Arabic language of the Christians. Muslims believe they have monopoly over the word "Allah" because its Christians that unfortunately reinforce this issue. The word "Allah" is most likely derived from the Syriac "elaha". Arab Christians have been using that word prior to Islam. There is nothing wrong with the word usage of "Allah". When it is placed in the context of Islamic theology it becomes unfortunate. When it is placed in the context of Christian theology then this is a blessing.

Dear OOD,

How are you feeling today?

Yes, and the fact that we love having you here is, in and of itself, a way in which you participate in our ecumenical paradigm.

I don't think I would last for long saying what I believe on one of your Orthodox forums.

Nor do I think I would be very welcome either.

But you are and we love having you here (as a guest and sometimes as breakfast ).

Alex

Just a minor correction: not elaha. West Syriac: Aloho, East Syriac: Alaha.

Alex,

I am feeling much better today, thank you. Alka-Seltzer� Flu Medicine - theres nothing like it.

The traditional Orthodox forums that I have been a part of would receive you warmly I'm sure. If anything you posted was contrary to Orthodox teaching you would be warmly refuted; I doubt you would meet the end you think. But admitedly we all sin at times.

One of our Bishops here in America received a request from a ecumenical group of Protestant and Catholic priests and clergy to take a tour of one of our monasteries (I don't think they realized we were old calendar). The monks rolled out the red carpet in every way. During the dinner our bishop stood up and said: "Compassion and love dictate that I tell you that you are all heretics and must come into the Church." It was not something he took pleasure in doing, in fact I'm sure he found it difficult, but it says allot about the different functions of Christian love, truth, and common hospitality.

Most people here think I am an un-canonical schismatic who must come back into the Church, so it works both ways.

I plan to respond to Thomas tonight on what defines "canonical". I just love how most people have some abstract notion that it means "the majority" when in fact it has an indelible link to the canons, few of which they actually follow.

Dear OOD,

Well, I respect you for your stand. I don't agree with you, but I respect you.

As someone who experienced what is really minor persecution for my beliefs and even for my adherence to the Old Calendar, I feel a kinship with you, despite the fact that I'm an heretic .

Perhaps I shouldn't have put that smiley there . . .

But since I'm already in Reader Sergius' bad books today, I don't want to create an Anti-Alex movement here, so I wish you complete recovery and a great day!

Alex

For me, while I have been a troll, and (worse) a liberal, I proclaim myself an Alexophile!

K.

Dear Brother Kurt,

While you know we don't always agree on monarchism and Christian Marxism , I respect your sincerity!

Around here, an "Alexophile" is a file that contains info on every time I mess up!

But thank you for the vote of confidence!

Alex

God Alone Is Great!

Dear Brother in Christ Thomas, Thank you for all your effort in stating what appears to be the position of the majority of historical Orthodoxy on Ecumenism. In my humble opinion, it provides hope for the future.

Dear Orthodoxy or Death, I too respect you, but disagree on much of what you say. I'll leave it to those more knowledgable than myself to comment on the "Holy Fathers," "canons," etc. But one thing I must say is, that even in the name of "truth," for the bishop to call his guests heretics in that particular situation seems inappropriate. -- You are welcomed into my house, I feed you, we converse and laugh, and then, oh, charity requires me to tell you this.-- I don't think so, but maybe it's just my Southern Italian syncretic ecumenism.

Dear Alex, Why not give those traditional Orthodox forums a try and test the warm reception that OOD seems to think you'll get?

The Peace of Christ to all of you, Vito

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: vito ]

Vito,
I expect that most people here will not agree with me and am happy to just express the views that have always been held by the Orthodox. Perhaps the Holy Spirit can, in time, turn a few around.

And indeed, the people on this board have been very patient and a model for any Orthodox board. Out of respect, I do not plan to outstay my welcome.

-----------------

Thomas,

I keep asking because it keeps surfacing, that "mainstream" and “canonical” Orthodoxy does not agree with my views. And that somehow I am an outcast. I find this very disturbing because unlike those around me, I thought I have spent a considerable amount of time to make sure I was canonical and therefore in the Church, or “mainstream”.

I have stayed away from synods and decisions of "Patriarch" Meletius Metaxakis who was an uncanonical Masonic Patriarch and uncanonically recognized Anglican orders and has the Anathema by the Synods of 1583AD, 1587AD, and 1593AD for changing the calendar.

I have never followed the thinking of Chrysostom Papadopoulos, the supposed Archbishop of Athens, who uncanonically preached syncretism by saying at his enthronement "For the purpose of such cooperation and mutual help, doctrinal unity, unfortunately difficult to achieve, is not a necessary presupposition, since the bond of Christian love suffices, which, after all, can smooth the road toward union."

I have never been counted with those like, Athenagoras who wished to brainwash everyone and declared so by saying: "Why do we not automatically return to Mysteriological (Sacramental) communion? Because it is necessary for us to prepare our peoples for it, both theologically and psychologically".

I will never commemorate a bishop who commemorates Bartholomew because, despite the two-faced double talk that you posted, he signed an “agreement” which states: "that which Christ has entrusted to His Church -- profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops -- cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches."

And again in November of 1998, Bartholomew addressed the papal delegation who they were celebrating the feast of St. Andrew with by saying: "Those of our forefathers from whom we inherited this separation were the unfortunate victims of the serpent who is the chief of all evils; they are already in the hands of God, the righteous judge". He continues: "And these men, being the causes for the schism, are now in the hands of God, the righteous judge."! Anyone who wishes to smear mud on the face of our Holy Fathers is not for me.

I have disassociated myself from the likes of Archbishop Stylianos who blasphemed the Holy Spirit in his sermon maintaining that "the individual and even the whole Church has never received the gifts of the Spirit sufficiently" and that "this is precisely why the well known characteristics of the Church, being "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" remain until the day of the Parousia both gifts and postulates at the same time".

What do the canons say regarding these men?
The Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Council of Constantinople says:

But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by the Holy Councils or Fathers, sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches
heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called Bishop before synodal clarification, but [on the contrary] they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not Bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church.

The Apostolic Constitutions say that schism is made not by him who separates himself from the ungodly, but who departs from the godly.

"…those who set up unlawful opinions are marks of perdition to the people. In like manner, do not you of the laity come near to such as advance doctrines contrary to the mind of God; nor be you partakers of their impiety. For says God: 'Separate yourselves from the midst of these men, lest you perish together with them.' And again: 'Depart from the midst of them, and separate yourselves, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.' "[

I have a feeling Thomas that we have a different understanding of what “mainstream” and canonical is. For you, “mainstream” means the “what everyone else is doing” and this must therefore be canonical. This unwillingness to separate yourself when heresy is preached is quite uncanonical and very antichristian. In fact, St. John the New Theologian says you are as guilty as the perpetrators themselves.

And the people you follow honor the Saints with their lips and despise them with their hearts.

[They asked St. Maximus], "To which church do you belong? To that of
Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches,
together with the provinces subject to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you
also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest
fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which
you do not expect!"
To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that
Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of
Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared
that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know
the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you
say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then
neither will I be separated from it."

Then the envoys [patricians Troilus and Sergius Euphrastes] asked him,
"Then will you not enter into communion with the Throne of Constantinople?"
"No," replied the Saint.
"Why so?" they asked.
"Because," replied the Saint, "the leaders of this church rejected the
resolutions of four holy councils, and accepted the 'Nine Chapters' published
in Constantinople and Alexandria as a rule of faith. Thereafter they accepted
the 'Ekthesis' composed by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople and the 'Typos'
issued in recent times. On the other hand, in the 'Typos' they have rejected
everything that was asserted in the 'Ekthesis', and they have excommunicated
themselves from the Church many times over and accused each other of erroneous
thinking. In addition to having excommunicated themselves from the Church, they
have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local council which
took place recently in Rome. What mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what
spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?"
"Then you alone will be saved, and all others will perish?" they objected.
To this the Saint replied, "When all the people in Babylon were worshipping
the golden idol, the Three Holy Children did not condemn anyone to perdition.
They did not concern themselves with the doings of others, but took care only
for themselves, lest they should fall away from true piety. In precisely the
same way, when Daniel was cast into the lion's den, he did not condemn any of
those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not wish to pray to God, but he
kept in mind his duty, and desired rather to die than to sin against his
conscience by transgressing the Law of God. God forbid that I should condemn
anyone or say that I alone am being saved! However, I should sooner agree to
die than to apostatize in any way from the true Faith and thereby suffer
torments of conscience."
"But what will you do," inquired the envoys, "when the Romans are united to
the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and
tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the
Patriarch."
The Saint replied, "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the
Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the
holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be
anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new
teaching."

Then the dignitary presiding over the council address him [St. Maximus]:
"Will you enter into communion with our Church, or not?"
"No, I will not enter into communion," replied the Saint.
"Why?" inquired the president.
"Because she has rejected the rulings of the Orthodox councils," replied
the Saint.
"But if our Church has renounced the councils," objected the president,
"then how is it that they are inscribed in the diptychs?"
"What profit is there in naming them and recalling them, if the dogmas of
these councils are rejected?" was the Saint's reply.

Dear OOD, I, for one, would not be happy to see you go. I think it's important to hear your voice. Thanks, Vito

Our Lord is the trump card: "That they all may be one as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee; that they all may be one in Us."

It seems to me that those who do not work towards the Lord's goal of unity, and rely instead upon human devices and pronouncements, are like the soldiers at the Cross taunting the Lord's all-embracing love and sacrifice. In the name of all humanity, the Lord voluntarily stretched out His Hands, and the nails were driven so that we might be one in Him.

The saints, and the councils, and the pronouncements, etc. are all well and good. But, "as for me, I shall follow the Lord Jesus" and do what He told us to do. If there is a contradiction, then the Lord's modeling and prescriptions must always come first. He ate with tax collectors, hookers, and hung around with ordinary working folks who had all kinds of problems. Even that wonderful Samaritan woman who asked for blessings. He said: "What is for the children of God should not be given to the dogs." And she responded: "But even the dogs get the crumbs from the table." And it is clear (to me at least) that the Lord was pleased that this woman was both arrogant and single-minded enough to approach what she knew was her (and our) only hope.

That's the way I believe we should be. Always go to Christ; always do what He showed us to do; and by acknowledging Him as the Lord of All, our prayers will be answered beyond our wildest dreams.

End of sermon.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John, Amen, Amen, and Amen. Vito