|
2 members (melkman2, 1 invisible),
150
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206 |
I don't know if this fits here, but I can see Orthodoxy has indeed made a inroad to the Catholic world, Father Mark @ Vultus Christi blog has a link now to Bishop Hilarion's web page...I like it http://en.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to re Archbishop Hilarion's website. There is a great deal of Ecumenism among Catholics and Orthodox including the recent meetings between Archbishop Hilarion and His Holiness Benedict XVI, as well as meetings between His All Holiness Bartholomew and B XVI. I would have understood that this kind of engagement with Rome by Archbishop Hilarion would be the Ecumenism the signers of this Confession do not support. These quotes from that meeting don't seem to me to match up with what I hear in the Confession. I welcome correction from the Orthodox here who undoubtedly have a better understanding than I do. The Orthodox prelate re-emphasized that at present there are enormous possibilities for cooperation between the two Churches...
"All Christians, and especially we Orthodox and Catholics, can and must respond together to these challenges," the archbishop affirmed. "Together we can propose to the world the spiritual and moral values of the Christian faith. Together we can offer our Christian vision of the family [and] affirm our concept of social justice, of a commitment to protect the environment [and] to defend human life and its dignity."
The archbishop then expressed his hope that the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox develops more intensely and that the problems that remain between the two traditions be soon overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12 |
I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to re Archbishop Hilarion's website. There is a great deal of Ecumenism among Catholics and Orthodox including the recent meetings between Archbishop Hilarion and His Holiness Benedict XVI, as well as meetings between His All Holiness Bartholomew and B XVI. I would have understood that this kind of engagement with Rome by Archbishop Hilarion would be the Ecumenism the signers of this Confession do not support. These quotes from that meeting don't seem to me to match up with what I hear in the Confession. I welcome correction from the Orthodox here who undoubtedly have a better understanding than I do. Mary, I think James was using the example of the link to Archbishop Hiarion as a contrast to the link that began this thread. As regards the link, as someone has noted, the conservatism expressed in the Confession is just that - while our Orthodox brethren are not racing to the table to sign onto union with Rome, the Confession has a significantly more strident tone to it than that generally voiced by the Orthodox. It seems to me that the website on which it appears has been discussed here, some time ago, noting its decidely anti-ecumenical outlook. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
One can find equally strident anti-ecumenist statements originating from within the traditionalist fringes of the Catholic Church (and without venturing into schismatic or sedevacantist territory). The difference between those and this Orthodox "confession" is the former have no official standing and represent no more than the personal opinions of the writers, while the latter have as much authority as any other statement in the absence of a coherent Orthodox position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
One can find equally strident anti-ecumenist statements originating from within the traditionalist fringes of the Catholic Church (and without venturing into schismatic or sedevacantist territory). The difference between those and this Orthodox "confession" is the former have no official standing and represent no more than the personal opinions of the writers, while the latter have as much authority as any other statement in the absence of a coherent Orthodox position. There are two major issues which confront the Orthodox today. 1. The question of ecumenism, and what relationship we should have with those Christians outside the Church. 2. The question of the Calendar which has caused schism in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. In a sense both these issues are seen as peripheral since they do not touch, in any major way, on the essence of the Faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 700 |
There is a third major issue, Father Hieromonk...
The nature and scope of ordinary and episcopal authority, especially versus primatial authority and synodal authority.
While it's not one that the faithful often discuss, the diversity of modes is wide ranging, and has created scandal recently....
See this past years' issues with the Antiochian Church stripping enthroned bishops of their dioceses, and rendering them auxiliaries and vicars forane for the metropolitan, while not granting them the appropriate dignity as bishops of those dioceses.
There is also the issue of whether a primate is merely spokesman for the sobor (claimed by some apologists I've read), spokesman for the synod (Greek Orthodox), caller of the synod (several), executive for the synod able to act until they can be called (OCA), or even Superior of the synod (some past Russian patriarchs).
While it isn't faith-shattering for the majority of the faithful, it's definitely an issue that is troublesome for many Orthodox apologists, for the claims of conciliarity seem very weak, if not disingenuous, when issues like the Antiochian disenthronements become public. It also directly ties to issues of the nature of "Church"... is it the Bishop and his parishes, or the Synod, or the communion with other Orthodox synods?
Until it is resolved, any ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church are bound to cause only further division within orthodoxy.
As an issue, it even brings questions as to whether the Eastern Orthodox Communion's Churches follow the Canons of the 7 councils...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
I hate taking part in arguments, especially at 12:30 at night when I need to be going to bed......
.... but I'd strongly disagree that this exact opinion is held by a broad array of Orthodox. You'll find lots of different opinions on things within Orthodoxy. Even on Mount Athos there are a wide variety of opinions on various matters, and you find people ranging from zealots who don't even want Catholics around to places that will house Latin priests for months. And I find the ones with the most compelling "spiritual output" - books, recordings, etc. - sometimes will have nothing to do with controversies of this sort.
The "confession", to my mind, is not the unified Orthodox position - note that only 5 bishops (and a bishop-abbot of a monastery in West VA) are on the list. Beyond that are five Athonite abbots (of monasteries that are definitely on the more "zealot" side) and the abbots of several other monasteries. You also have much of the population of St. Anna skete on Mount Athos and St. Sabas monastery in Palestine (despite this apparent distastes for Catholicism, I know Palestinian Catholics who have visited St. Sabas). Beyond that, it seems to be to be the signatures of maybe 500 Orthodox.
This is certainly a position that needs to be seriously considered and can't be dismissed. Many people do hold it. But, at least in my experience, it's a bit of an extreme position and the majority of Orthodox wouldn't go quite this far. And this includes people who are not wimpy, wishy washy ecumenists or false monks - some of these people are "as good as" any other Orthodox monk, bishop, or layman.
I also strongly disagree with the assertion that Orthodoxy in the US is mostly corrupt and that there are only a few good monasteries (presumably Elder Ephraim's monasteries and a few ROCOR monasteries). Allow me to address your concerns one at a time: ".... but I'd strongly disagree that this exact opinion is held by a broad array of Orthodox. You'll find lots of different opinions on things within Orthodoxy. Even on Mount Athos there are a wide variety of opinions on various matters, and you find people ranging from zealots who don't even want Catholics around to places that will house Latin priests for months. And I find the ones with the most compelling "spiritual output" - books, recordings, etc. - sometimes will have nothing to do with controversies of this sort."
Yes, you will find a variety of opinions on many things within Orthodoxy, as you have noted. However, in Dogmatic Teaching, "opinion" is of no consequence. "The "confession", to my mind, is not the unified Orthodox position - note that only 5 bishops (and a bishop-abbot of a monastery in West VA) are on the list."The proposal arose within Greece in response to occurances within the Phanar and directly affecting the Church of Greece. 5 out of 45 bishops of the Church of Greece have already signed. I expect more to follow. The only reason +George would have even been aware of this is that he is an Athonite monk and mantains ties with the Holy Mountain. I fully expect many more bishops to sign on once word of this spreads. And +George is a bit more than a Bishop/Abbot of a Monastery in West Virginia. His Grace is Bishop of Mayfield and all of Pennsylvania and Vicar Bishop of the Eastern-American diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. "But, at least in my experience, it's a bit of an extreme position and the majority of Orthodox wouldn't go quite this far. And this includes people who are not wimpy, wishy washy ecumenists or false monks - some of these people are "as good as" any other Orthodox monk, bishop, or layman."And outside of the irregular position of the Church in North America, who are these people? "I also strongly disagree with the assertion that Orthodoxy in the US is mostly corrupt"OK, lets look at the facts. GOA. Largest "jurisdiction" in America. The recent scandals involving Fr.Nicholas Katinas and Fr Pappas comes immediately to mind amongst others. AOC. 2nd largest. Recent demotions of all bishops and power grab by the metropolitan. OCA. 3rd largest. Metropolitan Herman basically forced to resign over financial mismanagement. Kondratick scandal. Orthodox Christians for Accountability. "and that there are only a few good monasteries (presumably Elder Ephraim's monasteries and a few ROCOR monasteries). "Name them. Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 |
If you look closely at what +Hilarion writes, it is not about ecclesiastical unity, it is about Christian based cooperation with those whose thinking is closest to us. I would be all in favor of Rome working hand in hand with Moscow to confront the evils of the modern day.
Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
If you look closely at what +Hilarion writes, it is not about ecclesiastical unity, it is about Christian based cooperation with those whose thinking is closest to us. I would be all in favor of Rome working hand in hand with Moscow to confront the evils of the modern day.
Alexandr Exactly...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
There is a third major issue, Father Hieromonk...
The nature and scope of ordinary and episcopal authority, especially versus primatial authority and synodal authority. This is an artificial problem created by Cardinal Kasper (and Metropolitan Zizioulas), and by the Plenary Sessions of the International Dialogue at Belgrade and Ravenna. We do not have specific reports from Cyprus since the bishops intervened and will no longer allow the Plesary Session to continue acting independently and issuing Joint Statements independently. Now that the Synods of the Local Churches are taking control of this dialogue - what is discussed, the nature and presuppositions of the discussion, the publication of Joint Statements - this dialogue will be more faithful to orthodox ecclesiology and structures and unable to promote innovative ideas such as a "Global Protos." The Orthodox have no wish to restructure their ancient system of church governance, even though it may seem unweildy at times but it is based on the holy canons of ancient times and it has stood us in good stead for centuries. And any change risks schism in the Church, something we have suffered from with both the Old Believers schism and with the Old Calendarist schisms. I do not think we want to go down that path again by bringing in a new ecclesiology and risk rending the Church. "Do not remove the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set" ~Proverbs 22:28
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
There is a third major issue, Father Hieromonk...
See this past years' issues with the Antiochian Church stripping enthroned bishops of their dioceses, and rendering them auxiliaries and vicars forane for the metropolitan, while not granting them the appropriate dignity as bishops of those dioceses. But please note that this extraordinary departure from orthodox ecclesiology was short lived, a couple of months. It was abandoned thanks to the efforts of the bishops themselves and, most importantly, by the refusal of the priests and laity to accept this abberant innovation. The whole episode gives one confidence in the conciliar system which permeates the Orthodox Church. "Stand in the crossroads and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls....." ~Jeremiah 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Until it is resolved, any ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church are bound to cause only further division within orthodoxy. I'd also like to comment on this point in your message, Aramis. The ecumenical discussion has not caused division within Orthodoxy, although it was heading in that direction. The small group of professional ecumenists conducting the dialogue were beginning to go off on a tangent which would certainly have caused divisions, and in particular the attempt to present a "Global Protos" as something integral to Orthodox ecclesiology. That is just a piece of nonsense foisted on the international dialogue by the two co-chairmen But, glory be, we have seen that, before Cyprus last year, the bishops of various Churches became aware of the possibility of damage and division originating from the dialogue and they acted to prevent it. Those who have hitherto been conducting the dialogue without much supervision from their Churches are now being held accountable by the bishops.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,206 |
Bless, Father Until it is resolved, any ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church are bound to cause only further division within orthodoxy. I'd also like to comment on this point in your message, Aramis. The ecumenical discussion has not caused division within Orthodoxy, although it was heading in that direction. The small group of professional ecumenists conducting the dialogue were beginning to go off on a tangent which would certainly have caused divisions, and in particular the attempt to present a "Global Protos" as something integral to Orthodox ecclesiology. That is just a piece of nonsense foisted on the international dialogue by the two co-chairmen But, glory be, we have seen that, before Cyprus last year, the bishops of various Churches became aware of the possibility of damage and division originating from the dialogue and they acted to prevent it. Those who have hitherto been conducting the dialogue without much supervision from their Churches are now being held accountable by the bishops. This continues to be a very interesting thread to me, in spite of the fact I'm clueless about much of the background so can't fill in between the lines for myself. Without getting into the specifics of "Those who have hitherto been conducting the dialogue without much supervision " can you tell me, Father, where does the work of the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation [ scoba.us] fall? I've not infrequently made reference to some of the Agreed Statements they have put out. -Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Bless, Father Until it is resolved, any ecumenical discussions with the Catholic Church are bound to cause only further division within orthodoxy. I'd also like to comment on this point in your message, Aramis. The ecumenical discussion has not caused division within Orthodoxy, although it was heading in that direction. The small group of professional ecumenists conducting the dialogue were beginning to go off on a tangent which would certainly have caused divisions, and in particular the attempt to present a "Global Protos" as something integral to Orthodox ecclesiology. That is just a piece of nonsense foisted on the international dialogue by the two co-chairmen But, glory be, we have seen that, before Cyprus last year, the bishops of various Churches became aware of the possibility of damage and division originating from the dialogue and they acted to prevent it. Those who have hitherto been conducting the dialogue without much supervision from their Churches are now being held accountable by the bishops. This continues to be a very interesting thread to me, in spite of the fact I'm clueless about much of the background so can't fill in between the lines for myself. Without getting into the specifics of "Those who have hitherto been conducting the dialogue without much supervision " can you tell me, Father, where does the work of the The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation [ scoba.us] fall? I've not infrequently made reference to some of the Agreed Statements they have put out. -Mary It is primarily a small think tank in the USA. None of its statements and recommendations have received, as far as I know, any attention from the ancient Patriarchates or any of the Orthodox Churches. The thing is that the American Orthodox amount to 1% of global Orthodoxy and while they have an influence in the English-speaking Orthodox world they are viewed as new kids on the block by the rest of the Orthodox world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
Although I note that Orthodoxy in the rest of the world does not despise the color of American Orthodox money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Although I note that Orthodoxy in the rest of the world does not despise the color of American Orthodox money. Russia has plenty of its own, also Greece, Serbia, Romania, etc. Jerusalem is supported financially via the government of Greece. Probably the only Patriarchate receiving money from the States in any quantity is Constantinople. But I have seen an article where the Phanar actually denies this and says that it is adequately supported via the New Lands (the northern dioceses of Greece which belong to Constantinople.) But I think that trying to score points about financial assistance from America, as if the Old World should be grateful for the money and praise the American theological consultations with the Catholics - well, it doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
