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

Re: Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Apr 8 2:39 PM
      > 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 2 of 10 , Apr 8 7:38 PM
        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.