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

Re: Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Apr 1 5:43 AM
    • 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 2 of 10 , Apr 1 7:11 AM
      • 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 3 of 10 , Apr 2 8:16 PM
        • 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 4 of 10 , Apr 3 5:25 PM
          • 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 5 of 10 , Apr 4 5:23 PM
            • 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 6 of 10 , Apr 5 9:49 AM
              • 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 7 of 10 , Apr 6 8:14 AM
                • 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 8 of 10 , Apr 8 2:39 PM
                  • 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 9 of 10 , Apr 8 7:38 PM
                    • 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.