www.byzcath.org
Posted By: Nelson Chase ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/06/16 12:31 AM
A balanced response to the Bulgarian Church's withdrawal from the upcoming council from Public Orthodoxy [publicorthodoxy.org].

Quote
By limiting the Church to a visible institution, the Orthodox (Byzantine rite) Church, the Bulgarian approach negates the Pauline notion, taken up by many Fathers of the Church, of the Church as “the Body of Christ” (1 Co 12:12-31; Eph.4:11-13; Col. 1:24 etc.). In much patristic and modern reflection on the Church, this came to be expressed as the “mystical Body of Christ,” emphasizing that the Church extends well beyond the limits of the limits of the Orthodox Church. Christ is “the Way and the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14:6). The three characteristics form one whole. Thus wherever there is Truth, there also are the Way and Life – the way and life that are Christ Jesus. The essence of Church is the possession of Truth, the witness to Truth, and access to the means of salvation. While non-Orthodox Churches and communities do not possess the fullness of the Truth found only in the Orthodox Church, they nonetheless possess elements of the Truth, to the degree to which they witness to Jesus Christ and manifest his teachings. They thus participate in the Church of Christ and hence are indeed members of the Body of Christ, which entitles them to refer to themselves and to be referred to as “Church.”
Posted By: Utroque Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/06/16 03:38 PM
I find it difficult to imagine how this Great Council can succeed when already such a small mindset has emerged and whole churches are withdrawing from participation. Indeed, these
churches are orthodox, but hardly Catholic. They'll need a Pope Leo to get through this one!
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/06/16 08:06 PM
Quote
I find it difficult to imagine how this Great Council can succeed when already such a small mindset has emerged and whole churches are withdrawing from participation.

Yes, it is looking bleak.

Quote
Indeed, these churches are orthodox, but hardly Catholic. They'll need a Pope Leo to get through this one

A Pope St. Leo indeed or, in my opinion, just a Pope. That is why I became a Catholic and remain one.
Posted By: Utroque Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/06/16 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
That is why I became a Catholic and remain one.

Ya, tozha. By the bye, the whole draft to which the Bulgarian Church objects to, is a very weak one at that; not for the reasons they site, but because it not once mentions the churches with whom the Orthodox would have the most affinity. Puzzling that the draft spends a paragraph or two about their relations with the WCC! I guess if the Russians withdraw, it's all over.
Posted By: akemner Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/08/16 09:09 AM
The Patriarchate of Antioch has withdrawn over the issue of Qatar. Here is the Statement of the Secretariat of the Antiochian Holy Synod: http://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/...holy-synod-on-the-6th-of-june-2016/1436/
Posted By: DMD Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/08/16 04:54 PM
Sister Vassa provides a great answer as to why old men divorced from the world should listen to women.
Posted By: bkovacs Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/10/16 03:05 AM
Let's be honest. This is ONLY an Ecumenical council for "Eastern Orthodox" churches. I this were a true "Ecumenical Council" like we had with the first three Ecumenical Councils. The Pope of Rome, the Pope of the Coptic Church (Alexandria) along with the Coptic Catholics, the Syriac Orthodox and Catholics, the Ethiopian Orthodox and Ethiopian Catholic Churches as well as the Eastern Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Catholics would all be represented. It's just a Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 for Eastern Orthodox Christians. I read that The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch will probably not attend either. So much for the Great Council. At least the Orthodox faith and traditions will still be intact. For the differences are once again jurisdictional issues. Like the past, with the Byzantine east.
Unity at any cost is not a virtue. The Catholic Church's ability to unite in so-called ecumenical councils has not done them any favors, as the doctrinal and liturgical chaos of that communion makes clear.

I would like to see the Orthodox Churches unite in a council and earnestly discuss the many problems facing the Church in the world today. Unfortunately this council was engineered to avoid any serious discussion or resolution of these problems. Instead, documents were drawn up by committees to be either rubber-stamped or rejected at the council, on the basis of consensus of the church delegations. Any amendments would require consensus for approval, and "off-topic" discussions would be banned.

The council is essentially aimed to present a picture of unity to the world while putting the real problems and disagreements on the back burner. This is a backwards way of doing a council. The main aim seems to be to enhance the prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in his ability to unite the churches, rather than substantively address the problems facing the Church. Not even the imperial councils (and it was the emperor, not the Pope, who convoked them) had such predetermination.

By all means, let's have a council but one which doesn't sweep everything under the rug. Address the problems and disagreements honestly- then unity can be really expressed without underlying rancor.
So far, Antioch, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Georgia are out, so, unless something dramatic happens at the last minute to bring them back, this thing is either not going to happen or will be a farce.
Posted By: johnzonaras Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/10/16 10:13 AM
Usually I don't comment but this time I will.. I am Eastern Orthodox by choice;I was born a Latin and converted of my own free will. I am a retired late antique historian. Some of you have been waxing poetic about this council and how this disorder would never happen under Rome. I would point out that this is not an ecumenical council. A council can only be called ecumenical by a subsequent council. in light of the 28 canon of the council of Chalcedon, The lockstep mentality of one of the comments above is rather cheeky. The council was meant for Eastern Orthodox only and it was not surprising that the documents were the way they were because the matters dealt with have been under discussion for my entire lifetime and there was need to impose some order on the matter. the fact that some churches did not attend...hmmm if I remember correctly, in 325 at Nicaea, there were few members of the western church present and the Bishop of Rome had only legates there. I for one rejoice in the disunity because it represents the true nature of the Eastern church and the way it has been since the time that Constantine the Great founded the Church which, in those days, consisted of both east and west.

We are all entitled to our own opinions and I expressed mine .

Originally Posted by johnzonaras
Constantine the Great founded the Church


Huh...
Posted By: Nelson Chase Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/10/16 12:35 PM
Quote
I for one rejoice in the disunity because it represents the true nature of the Eastern church

How can one rejoice over disunity?

Quote
nd the way it has been since the time that Constantine the Great founded the Church which, in those days, consisted of both east and west.


St. Constantine founded the Church? Hmmmmm...
Posted By: Peter J Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/11/16 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by bkovacs
Let's be honest. This is ONLY an Ecumenical council for "Eastern Orthodox" churches.
What are you responding to, exactly?
Posted By: Utroque Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/17/16 06:02 PM
Well now, there's not much to look forward to these coming days in Crete as the Synod of the ROC has also decided to withdraw from the Council, as I had predicted, after Bulgaria declined. I have the feeling that they never had any real intention of attending in the first place as they always seem to find excuses. "Ut unum sint!"
Posted By: Pavel Ivanovich Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/19/16 04:26 AM
https://www.facebook.com/eremitic.ambles/posts/1267975633231827

An interesting point of view of just what is going on with the various parties.
Posted By: byzanTN Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/20/16 02:32 PM
Quote
They'll need a Pope Leo to get through this one!

No, what they need is an emperor. They don't need a pope. I am an eastern Catholic who has a pope. Take our pope...please? I don't think we are in better shape than the Orthodox because we have a pope.
Posted By: KO63AP Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/20/16 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by byzanTN
No, what they need is an emperor.

Which could be read: "We can't (won't) get along with each other so we need an external power to force us to work together."
Posted By: theophan Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/20/16 08:41 PM
Christ is in our midst!!

I have read this thread with sorrow and continue to pray for the desired outcome of this Great Council for our Orthodox brethren, whatever the Holy Spirit wants it to be for them.

Bob
Posted By: johnzonaras Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/23/16 12:14 PM
With my comment about Constantine, I meant that he called the council of Nicaea and asked for them to come up with a common creed which most of the bishops present could accept. In essence,his action created united church which he could use as the basis of the Roman state religion. In this sense, he established the church. Before Nicaea, there really was no united church.

A number of years ago, Bob (theophan) posted a piece here on what a reunited church would be like and, if I remember correctly, it stressed or implied a conciliar model I would hope he would reprint it here or give us a link to it. I personally like the way orthodoxy operates, even if seems messy to those who like the lock step approach of the Vatican. I urge all of you to check into the affair of Apiarius in North Africa in which Aurelius Augustinus (Augustine of Hippo) told the bishop of Rome to stay out of the affairs of the church of North Africa. I have left out all details so review them. some historians have called this event end of conciliar governance in the western church.
Posted By: theophan Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/24/16 08:42 AM
johnzonaras:

Christ is in our midst!!

I don't remember the original thread in which I posted this set of remarks, but found it in another where I'd re-posted it. I hope this is what you refer to.

Quote
Christ is in our midst!!

When one works really hard to understand the point of view of another, he really understands when he can pose the other's position in concrete terms. Some time ago, I posted this on another thread dealing with what future communion ought to look like from an Orthodox perspective.

1. In the event of full communion, there will be no Eastern bishop who will report to the Roman patriarchate for any reason whatsoever. If Rome has something to say to a specific bishop, it can be addressed to the relevant patriarch in whose synod that bishop is a member. In ordinary matters, that will not happen.
2. There will be no issue whatsoever of any Eastern bishop having to answer to anyone but his own synod over who he accepts for priestly formation nor who he ordains. The Eastern Churches are fully capable of making their own decisions in these areas based on their own canons and traditions.
3. In the event of full communion, there will be no issue with any man transfering to another bishop if he feels called to Holy Orders and the decision to accept or reject him will be entirely up to the bishop he approaches without any appeal or interference from Rome. so if a Latin man is rejected because he is married and an Eastern bishop feels he has what it takes and accepts him, there will be no comment from his former Latin bishop or from Rome.
4. In the event of full communion, the Oriental Congregation that has been the Roman Patriarch's medium of dealing with Eastern Churches in full communion up to that time will be abolished. The Pope can feel free to send a delegation to another patriarch to discuss any concerns he may have, but there will be no jurisdictional authority to interfere in the internal workings of another patriarchate unless based on the ancient canons wherein Rome is a last resort for certain limited matters. If Rome wants some sort of regular contact with other patriarchs, an ad hoc committee can be set up, but with no authority other than that granted by the patriarchs involved.
5. In the event Rome does not like these concrete statements of how life in renewed communion will be, then it will be Rome's fault that full communion cannot be achieved.

From an Orthodox perspective, the problem with the development in the Roman Church in the second millenium is that the Pope acts as if the Lord made Peter the overseer of the other Apostles in such a way that they could do nothing without his permission. Such is not the case. While he is supposed to support his brethren in the Faith, he is not their master.

Bob

I remember another thread about how things would function within regions--with the various bishops of Apostolic Churches functioning in a synodal style in their area and without outside interference from larger bodies except in special circumstances--but I cannot find it.
Posted By: N Mosley Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/26/16 10:35 PM
Can anyone speak to the veracity of the source of this letter? Sam Noble, perhaps? I am, frankly, astounded if it is true.

My Chains the Bond of Unity [pemptousia.com]
Posted By: johnzonaras Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/27/16 12:16 AM
Thank you, Bob. This was the piece I was talking about.
Posted By: Samn Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/27/16 12:31 PM
The translation doesn't make it as clear as it should be, but the letter is written in his name, as a kind of literary trope, by his relative, Met Siluan (Muci) of Buenos Aires.
Posted By: N Mosley Re: ON ECUMENOCLASM: WHAT IS CHURCH - 06/28/16 05:03 PM
Thank you, I thought that might be the case.
© The Byzantine Forum