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

Re: Who we're in communion with

Expand Messages
  • mwoerl
    The object of ecumenism is undoubtedly the unification of all religions, whether Christian, monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic, or even neo-pagan (the only
    Message 1 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.