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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.