Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • frpeterjackson
    There has been some discussion on this list about who ROCA is in communion with. We need to remember that there is a very real distinction bet. prayerful
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      There has been some discussion on this list about who ROCA is in
      communion with. We need to remember that there is a very real
      distinction bet. prayerful communion and liturgical (full) communion.
      In periods when heresies rage, the faithful cease from giving or
      receiving communion from Orth. hierarchs who are in error. At the
      same time, they withhold from breaking definitively from them until a
      definitive ruling has been made, normally in the context of an
      Ecumenical Council. Eg. when the Monophysite controversy began, there
      were a number of Monophysite bishops w/in the Church. Many faithful
      would refrain from receiving Communion from them. HOWEVER they were
      not considered to be outside of the Church until an ecumenical
      council condemned that heresy.

      The ROCA, then, is in Communion with all Orthodox local churches in
      the sense that we recognize that we all are one Body. At the same
      time, we have to acknowledge that some parts of this Body are ailing,
      and we need to shield ourselves and our flocks from this infirmity,
      viz. the heresy of ecumenism. The stock reply -- that we are in full
      Communion with Jerusalem, Serbia, and certain Old Calendarist
      churches -- though true on one level, can be misleading and can lead
      to a sectarian mentality. It makes it sound like we are not in
      communion with the rest of the Church. But Constantinople is
      Orthodox. Antioch is Orthodox. Do they have problems? To be sure. But
      these are problems *within* the Body. We have to be careful not to
      treat these problems as if we were somehow dealing w/heterodox, which
      is sadly how I see our people acting sometimes. When some of our ROCA
      people are traveling and there is no ROCA parish where they are, I
      learn that they do not attend services at all, even though there are
      other Orth. parishes there. If there is an Orth. parish nearby, you
      *must* attend services there. "Oh, Father, we're not ecumenists," I
      hear. Excuse me, but an ecumenist is one who attends *heterodox*
      services, not one who attends Orthodox services.

      So who are we "in communion with"? We are Orthodox, brothers and
      sisters. We are members equally of one another. We all share the same
      Baptism. Some Orthodox might be more, let's say, observant than
      others, but no one is more Orthodox than anyone else. Schism is a
      very serious matter. When I see people on this list struggling with
      whether they should leave the Church Abroad and join the so-
      called "Church in Exile" it grieves more than I can express in words.
      In the past two years I have seen people leave ROCA, not because of
      any accusation of heresy, but because of rumors. And not rumors about
      what ROCA may have done wrong, but because of what ROCA *might* do in
      the future. I can think of no other word for this than madness! 15
      yrs. ago people left the ROCA because there was a rumor that we were
      going to "join Moscow any day now". They've continued to say this to
      this day. Now we have a new round of this rumor w/in ROCA. First
      there is a rumor that there is a crisis, when there is none. Then
      some people fly into a panic about this supposed crisis. Then others
      see those who flew into a panic and conclude that such a panic must
      have *some* basis, and so the rumors become self-fulfilling: if
      people think there's a problem, it creates a problem: "See, we told
      you there's a problem!"

      Brothers and sisters, schism is a serious sin. I know people that
      jump in and out of the Church on whims. For those of you who toy
      w/going over to the "ROCiE", be advised that a number of those who
      did so have already come back. The few people I know who toyed with
      going over changed their minds once they saw w/their own eyes what
      was going on in Mansonville. Other "jurisdictions" are not
      other "options" like a cafeteria. We do not jump from one to another.
      You find a bishop who preaches Orthodoxy and you stay with him unless
      he preaches heresy. I was originally under a bishop who actually
      preached heresy. When I questioned him about his involvement in the
      ecumenical movement he told me that not only did he (and the EP)
      intend to united with Rome and the Monophysites, but eventually "with
      all monotheistic religions". (I kept his letter to show skeptics who
      downplay the danger of ecumenism.) We immediately fled to the ROCA,
      which we consider the healthiest part of the Church. I have never
      heard a bishop of our Synod teach heresy or support ecumenism. I
      would like to ask those who have left ROCA in the past year or so
      (and they are few in number) just what heresy did they hear preached
      from the mouths of our bishops which prompted them to leave. There
      has been no heresy. But someone shouts heresy and it's like
      shouting "fire" in a crowd: Everyone starts running around like
      madmen before they even verify whether there is a fire. There is no
      fire. There is not even smoke. There are only a few ill-intentioned
      people shouting "fire" and a few other good-intentioned people who
      are running to the doors.

      God bless us all and grant us a spirit of sobriety and teach us to
      save our souls.

      Priest Peter Jackson
    • polychrony
      ... wrote: [snip] ... The rumor, as you point out, is that the ROCA will unite with the Orthodox ecumenists (i.e., Moscow Patriarcate). [snip] ... In seems
      Message 2 of 10 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "frpeterjackson" <frpeterjackson@y...>
        wrote:

        [snip]

        > In the past two years I have seen people leave ROCA, not because of
        > any accusation of heresy, but because of rumors. And not rumors
        > about what ROCA may have done wrong, but because of what ROCA
        > *might* do in the future.

        The rumor, as you point out, is that the ROCA will unite with the
        Orthodox ecumenists (i.e., Moscow Patriarcate).

        [snip]

        > I was originally under a bishop who actually
        > preached heresy. When I questioned him about his involvement in the
        > ecumenical movement he told me that not only did he (and the EP)
        > intend to united with Rome and the Monophysites, but
        > eventually "with all monotheistic religions". (I kept his letter to
        > show skeptics who downplay the danger of ecumenism.)

        In seems that in the first instance, it is the allegation of uniting
        with the ecumenist. In the second instance, it is allegation of
        uniting with the objects of ecumenism. Is this a meaningful
        distinction?

        Also, the allegation of "uniting with all montheistic religions" is
        so bizzare, one cannot help but be skeptical.

        Polychronios
      • Hristofor
        Dear Regina, I beg that you heed the words of the wise priest in this letter, as well as the advice of the parishonner in the next letter. May St John SF help
        Message 3 of 10 , Apr 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Regina,

          I beg that you heed the words of the wise priest in this letter, as well as
          the advice of the parishonner in the next letter. May St John SF help you
          find the rightPath!

          Chris

          At 11:11 AM 3/30/2002, you wrote:
          >There has been some discussion on this list about who ROCA is in
          >communion with. We need to remember that there is a very real
          >distinction bet. prayerful communion and liturgical (full) communion.
          >In periods when heresies rage, the faithful cease from giving or
          >receiving communion from Orth. hierarchs who are in error. At the
          >same time, they withhold from breaking definitively from them until a
          >definitive ruling has been made, normally in the context of an
          >Ecumenical Council. Eg. when the Monophysite controversy began, there
          >were a number of Monophysite bishops w/in the Church. Many faithful
          >would refrain from receiving Communion from them. HOWEVER they were
          >not considered to be outside of the Church until an ecumenical
          >council condemned that heresy.
          >
          >The ROCA, then, is in Communion with all Orthodox local churches in
          >the sense that we recognize that we all are one Body. At the same
          >time, we have to acknowledge that some parts of this Body are ailing,
          >and we need to shield ourselves and our flocks from this infirmity,
          >viz. the heresy of ecumenism. The stock reply -- that we are in full
          >Communion with Jerusalem, Serbia, and certain Old Calendarist
          >churches -- though true on one level, can be misleading and can lead
          >to a sectarian mentality. It makes it sound like we are not in
          >communion with the rest of the Church. But Constantinople is
          >Orthodox. Antioch is Orthodox. Do they have problems? To be sure. But
          >these are problems *within* the Body. We have to be careful not to
          >treat these problems as if we were somehow dealing w/heterodox, which
          >is sadly how I see our people acting sometimes. When some of our ROCA
          >people are traveling and there is no ROCA parish where they are, I
          >learn that they do not attend services at all, even though there are
          >other Orth. parishes there. If there is an Orth. parish nearby, you
          >*must* attend services there. "Oh, Father, we're not ecumenists," I
          >hear. Excuse me, but an ecumenist is one who attends *heterodox*
          >services, not one who attends Orthodox services.
          >
          >So who are we "in communion with"? We are Orthodox, brothers and
          >sisters. We are members equally of one another. We all share the same
          >Baptism. Some Orthodox might be more, let's say, observant than
          >others, but no one is more Orthodox than anyone else. Schism is a
          >very serious matter. When I see people on this list struggling with
          >whether they should leave the Church Abroad and join the so-
          >called "Church in Exile" it grieves more than I can express in words.
          >In the past two years I have seen people leave ROCA, not because of
          >any accusation of heresy, but because of rumors. And not rumors about
          >what ROCA may have done wrong, but because of what ROCA *might* do in
          >the future. I can think of no other word for this than madness! 15
          >yrs. ago people left the ROCA because there was a rumor that we were
          >going to "join Moscow any day now". They've continued to say this to
          >this day. Now we have a new round of this rumor w/in ROCA. First
          >there is a rumor that there is a crisis, when there is none. Then
          >some people fly into a panic about this supposed crisis. Then others
          >see those who flew into a panic and conclude that such a panic must
          >have *some* basis, and so the rumors become self-fulfilling: if
          >people think there's a problem, it creates a problem: "See, we told
          >you there's a problem!"
          >
          >Brothers and sisters, schism is a serious sin. I know people that
          >jump in and out of the Church on whims. For those of you who toy
          >w/going over to the "ROCiE", be advised that a number of those who
          >did so have already come back. The few people I know who toyed with
          >going over changed their minds once they saw w/their own eyes what
          >was going on in Mansonville. Other "jurisdictions" are not
          >other "options" like a cafeteria. We do not jump from one to another.
          >You find a bishop who preaches Orthodoxy and you stay with him unless
          >he preaches heresy. I was originally under a bishop who actually
          >preached heresy. When I questioned him about his involvement in the
          >ecumenical movement he told me that not only did he (and the EP)
          >intend to united with Rome and the Monophysites, but eventually "with
          >all monotheistic religions". (I kept his letter to show skeptics who
          >downplay the danger of ecumenism.) We immediately fled to the ROCA,
          >which we consider the healthiest part of the Church. I have never
          >heard a bishop of our Synod teach heresy or support ecumenism. I
          >would like to ask those who have left ROCA in the past year or so
          >(and they are few in number) just what heresy did they hear preached
          >from the mouths of our bishops which prompted them to leave. There
          >has been no heresy. But someone shouts heresy and it's like
          >shouting "fire" in a crowd: Everyone starts running around like
          >madmen before they even verify whether there is a fire. There is no
          >fire. There is not even smoke. There are only a few ill-intentioned
          >people shouting "fire" and a few other good-intentioned people who
          >are running to the doors.
          >
          >God bless us all and grant us a spirit of sobriety and teach us to
          >save our souls.
          >
          >Priest Peter Jackson
          >
          >
          >
          >Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
          >
          >
          >
          >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • mwoerl
          ... You really think so? Look at some of the Roman Catholic statements on Judaism, and some of the pronouncements of the Patriarchate of Alexandria concering
          Message 4 of 10 , Apr 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 concering 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
          • Jean-Claude Williams
            Reading the creed we profess at every liturgy is more than empty words unless we hold them within our hearts. Read them and you will see our belief is more
            Message 5 of 10 , Apr 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Reading the creed we profess at every liturgy is more than empty words unless we hold them within our hearts. Read them and you will see our belief is more than merely being monotheistic.
              "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
              And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages................."
              Get a copy and prayerfully read it.
              In the same attitude, read the Our Father.
              Being Orthodox is more than being monotheistic.

              Jean-Claude Williams


              Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:16 PM
              Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Who we're in communion with


              --- 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 concering 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




              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




              Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • mwoerl
              You seem to have missed my entire point, as my reply was somewhat tongue in cheek. I was certainly not endorsing uniting with mootheistic religions! To those
              Message 6 of 10 , Apr 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                You seem to have missed my entire point, as my reply was somewhat
                tongue in cheek. I was certainly not endorsing uniting with mootheistic
                religions! To those who think the "allegation of uniting with
                monotheistic religions" is bizarre, I might point out that the Creed
                also announced the Orthodox belief in 'One, Holy, Catholic and
                Apoistolic Church,' and stress that the Orthodox Churches who have
                embraced ecumenism have pretty much ignored.
                Michael Woerl


                --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Jean-Claude Williams" <cwilliams@i...>
                wrote:
                > Reading the creed we profess at every liturgy is more than empty words unless we hold them within our hearts. Read them and you will see our belief is more than merely being monotheistic.
                > "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
                > And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages................."
                > Get a copy and prayerfully read it.
                > In the same attitude, read the Our Father.
                > Being Orthodox is more than being monotheistic.
                >
                > Jean-Claude Williams
                >
                >
                > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 11:16 PM
                > Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Who we're in communion with
                >
                >
                > --- 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 concering 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!
              • polychrony
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 10 , Apr 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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...


                  Polychronios
                • frpeterjackson
                  ... of ... the ... to ... uniting ... I do not blame you for being skeptical, Polychronios. This is why I am happy to show the letter to anyone who wishes to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Apr 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "polychrony" <UPB_MONIODIS@O...> wrote:
                    > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "frpeterjackson" <frpeterjackson@y...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > [snip]
                    >
                    > > In the past two years I have seen people leave ROCA, not because
                    of
                    > > any accusation of heresy, but because of rumors. And not rumors
                    > > about what ROCA may have done wrong, but because of what ROCA
                    > > *might* do in the future.
                    >
                    > The rumor, as you point out, is that the ROCA will unite with the
                    > Orthodox ecumenists (i.e., Moscow Patriarcate).
                    >
                    > [snip]
                    >
                    > > I was originally under a bishop who actually
                    > > preached heresy. When I questioned him about his involvement in
                    the
                    > > ecumenical movement he told me that not only did he (and the EP)
                    > > intend to united with Rome and the Monophysites, but
                    > > eventually "with all monotheistic religions". (I kept his letter
                    to
                    > > show skeptics who downplay the danger of ecumenism.)
                    >
                    > In seems that in the first instance, it is the allegation of
                    uniting
                    > with the ecumenist. In the second instance, it is allegation of
                    > uniting with the objects of ecumenism. Is this a meaningful
                    > distinction?
                    >
                    > Also, the allegation of "uniting with all montheistic religions" is
                    > so bizzare, one cannot help but be skeptical.
                    >
                    > Polychronios

                    I do not blame you for being skeptical, Polychronios. This is why I
                    am happy to show the letter to anyone who wishes to see it. I am not
                    saying that this bishop's views are representative of all of the EP's
                    bishops. If I had been under a different bishop, who knows? I might
                    have remained in the EP today, or at least a longer time. If I had a
                    scanner I would post the original letter on the list. If you or
                    anyone wants to see it, please send me your address and I will be
                    happy to send it to you and allay your suspicions.

                    Please explain what you mean by the phrase "the objects of ecumenism".

                    Fr. Peter
                  • frpeterjackson
                    ... Thank you for repeating your question, or rather for rephrasing it. I did not understand what you were asking the first time. In fact, I m still not sure I
                    Message 9 of 10 , Apr 8, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > 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...
                      >
                      >
                      > Polychronios

                      Thank you for repeating your question, or rather for rephrasing it. I
                      did not understand what you were asking the first time. In fact, I'm
                      still not sure I do, but I'll try to address it, anyway.

                      I do not know if the Patriarch of C'ple would agree with the view and
                      goal of my former bishop as he expressed them to me. I have never
                      seen any EP document explicitly stating anything about uniting with
                      other monotheistic religions. The Holy Canons instruct us to separate
                      ourselves from a bishop who teaches heresy. They do not say anything
                      about remaining under a heretical bishop if the other bishops of his
                      synod do not make similar statements. So for me, whether or not the
                      EP expressly teaches teaches such a thing is only a secondary
                      consideration. I was under a bishop who preached heresy and I had to
                      separate myself from him. The only way I could do this and still
                      remain in the EP would have been by moving off of the continent of
                      South America! The other option was to put myself under the spiritual
                      direction of a traditionalist synod, which I did.

                      ROCA is in full, eucharistic communion with Serbia and Jerusalem, as
                      has been thoroughly discussed recently. And both of these Churches
                      have hierarchs who participate in ecumenical activities, if I am not
                      mistaken. However, I don't think any of them would advocate uniting
                      with other monotheistic faiths.

                      Does this answer your question? Forgive me if I don't understand what
                      you're getting at.

                      In Christ,

                      Fr. Peter Jackson
                    • mwoerl
                      The object of ecumenism is undoubtedly the unification of all religions, whether Christian, monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, or even neo-pagan (the only
                      Message 10 of 10 , Apr 8, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The 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
                        chalice"?
                        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.
                        Michael Woerl







                        --- 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...
                        >
                        >
                        > Polychronios
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.