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

Re: Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.