5784Re: Who we're in communion with
- Apr 8, 2002The object of ecumenism is undoubtedly the unification of all
religions, whether Christian, monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, or
even neo-pagan (the only groups being labelled as 'pagan' are those who
adopt that name themselves-groups traditionally considered 'pagan' are
NOT referred to with that word anymore as some see it as an insult).
This refers to the WCC, as well as other ecumenical partisans and
bodies (Parliament for the World's Religions, etc.) The unification, of
course, will not be under one head (the example of the Monophysites
serves here: if the Monophysites unite with the Orthodox, does anyone
seriously think that either Monophysite or Orthodox Partriarchs will
'step down' in deference to their 'counterparts'? No way!) - but a
recognition that all these religions are equally valid, and equally
salvific, equally able to bring their adherents to God, or to whatever
they call their respective deities. As many of the Orthodox Churches
continue their involvement with the WCC and various other ecumeincal
initiatives, bodies, etc., and as there has been no meaningful protest
or comment against this 'all-inclusive" trend in the WCC, I find it
rather amazing that anyone who is aware of events in the general
ecumenical movement could be so sceptical. Referring to the the
Patriarchate of Alexandria, the question can be asked: has the new
Patriarch repudiated any of the pronouncements of his predecessor? I
don't think so.
As far as the question about the 'distinction' between "a" and "b"
(see below), I can only say that "a" will eventually lead to "b."
Bishops in Churches that tolerate "a" are those same Bishops who will
elect and consecrate their own successors. Will they elect those who
they obviously feel are ignoratnt and intolerant, and despise their own
dearly held viewpoints? And as this process goes on, only the more,
shall we say, liberal, will become Bishops. Look at the history of the
EP in the twentieth century! Who was the last patriarch of
Conostantinope that held what can be considered as traditional orthodox
views regarding non-Orthodox Christian bodies, as well as monotheistic
and other religions? And, hasn't the trend of thinking coming from the
EP since the 1920's been a fairly progressive one, moving further and
further away from traditional Orthdox thinking regarding the question
of non-Orthodox and non-Christian faiths?
I might ask: what is the great distinction between "communing with"
non-Orthodox bodies and the situation that holds today with the EP and
Rome? The Liturgy (or Mass-whichever you prefer) is concelebrated
between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope, only "stopping"
at the point of "sharing the chalice." The EP and Rome recognize each
other as both being part of the Body of Christ, as sated by the current
Patriarch on more than one occasion, and as "Sister Churches," as
clearly stated in the Balamand Agreement (also adhered to by several
other Orthodox Churches, the MP included). So, isn't it rather
hypocritical on the part of the advocates of agreements such as these
to say: "we share the same faith, we are sister churches, we are both
memebers of the Body of Christ-the Church, but are not worthy of
sharing the chalice yet"????? What stops them, other than the fact that
many of their faithful are fooled by the current shenanigans and the
many excuses offered for such, but would certainly and finally
understand, and perhaps protest vehemently over the "sharing of the
Or perhaps that there are some who believe that the ecumenically-
minded Orthodox Churches will, all of a sudden, when they "realize"
what is going on, withdraw from the ecumenical movement, and return to
a traditional Orthodox ecclesiology? In light of the history of the
ecumenical movement, and particularly the Orthodox involvement, and the
progression of events and thinking of the Orthodox ecumenists, I
certainly cannot see exactly where scepticism concerning this question
comes from, other than wishing and hoping.
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "polychrony" <UPB_MONIODIS@O...> wrote:
> --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "mwoerl" <mwoerl@y...> wrote:
> > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "polychrony" <UPB_MONIODIS@O...> wrote:
> > > Also, the allegation of "uniting with all montheistic religions"
> > > is so bizzare, one cannot help but be skeptical.
> > You really think so? Look at some of the Roman Catholic statements
> > on Judaism, and some of the pronouncements of the Patriarchate of
> > Alexandria concerning the Mohammedans! Why wouldn't they, anyway?
> > You wouldn't want ecumenism to be "exclusive," and allow only
> > Christians, would you? With the state of things ecumenical as of
> > late, I don't find this to be bizarre in the least!
> > Michael Woerl
> I remain skeptical. The Patr of Alexandria case is an example of
> someone who has buckled underneath the particular circumstances.
> He's dead -- the Patr of Alexandria has moved on.
> I repeat my question that I posed to Presybter Peter Jackson:
> Is there a meaningful distincition between:
> (a) a church that tolerates someone (even a bishop) that holds such
> ecumenistic beliefs, and
> (b) a church that tolerates to commune with (a).
> Still waiting...
- << Previous post in topic