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

Re: Extremism, Esphigmenou, Mixed Marriages, RC 'church'

Expand Messages
  • luke padgett <boepad@msn.com>
    Dear Vladimir, ... Even if they have pledged to destroy orthodoxy, can they do it? I don t believe they can. Nevertheless, let us be attentive. ... We war
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 2 9:26 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Vladimir,

      > The latino-catholics are indeed schismatic and heretic that have
      > pledged to destroy orthodoxy and have already achieved a lot in
      > that line. As schismatic, they do indeed come from the Church, but
      > they have left her. The siege of Esphigmenou is part of their work.

      Even if they have "pledged to destroy orthodoxy," can they do it? I
      don't believe they can. Nevertheless, let us be attentive.

      > Let us not reinvent the appropriate way to relate with heretics.

      We war not against flesh and blood. If we have a neighbor who is a
      Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic, it is not our prerogative not to
      talk to them. If they are willing to talk to me about why I'm
      Orthodox, I'm going to talk to them. Such opportunities are rare.

      > Please see also post 6300:

      All these citations have a context. The context is very important. My
      sense is that when the apostolic fathers speak of heretics, they're
      talking about formal heretics, not those who are defending what
      they've always known as "the faith."

      > An orthodox knows that any adulteration of the faith that has
      > created heresy can be cured only by returning to orthodoxy, not by
      > reaching a compromise halfway between orthodoxy and heresy. In such
      > a process, orthodoxy would be lost. Half a lie is still a lie.

      When orthodoxy is lost I'd say the faithful can start to wall
      themselves off from their hierarchs. I could be wrong but I don't
      think the holy canons allow for such just because someone doesn't
      agree with their decisions.

      > This being said, how many latino-catholics and how many ecumenist
      > have you brought back to orthodoxy?

      None, because I don't personally know anyone who has willingly left
      orthodoxy for heresy. But I have witnessed to some by word and life,
      and seen them come to the true faith.

      > The monks of Esphigmenou are right and think right. They are
      > orthodox.

      What concerns me is those who enter into a spiritual relationship
      knowing the basis for it, have no moral justification for changing
      the terms of the relationship when things don't go well. Very much
      like a marriage, isn't it? They may very well be right, but if their
      actions are un-orthodox they forfeit their witness. Even if they're
      right, they're wrong. I would have much more respect for the
      brotherhood if they said, "we're willingly giving up this ground as a
      testimony against what we belive is evil on the part of the
      patriarch."

      I don't agree with everything my priest or bishop does or allows. I
      have to remind myself that if I could design my own bishop, priest,
      and parish, I would have the perfect church. But the brother standing
      next to me probably wouldn't think so! I'm not in the ROCOR, by the
      way, but I am a friend and in many ways an admirer.

      Love, luke
    • luke padgett <boepad@msn.com>
      I want to modify, or more accurately, clarify what I wrote earlier. ... There are really two separate (though related) issues here. One is the issue of
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 4 8:31 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I want to modify, or more accurately, clarify what I wrote earlier.

        > The latino-catholics are indeed schismatic and heretic that have
        > pledged to destroy orthodoxy and have already achieved a lot in
        > that line. As schismatic, they do indeed come from the Church, but
        > they have left her. The siege of Esphigmenou is part of their work.

        There are really two separate (though related) issues here. One is
        the issue of ecumenism. The other is the issue of the Esphigmenou
        monks and their status on the holy mountain. Let me state that I do
        believe the "branch theory" of the Church is heretical. And when I
        say that there is "good ecumenism" I should modify that to say that,
        on an official level, i.e. hopes for unification/intercommunion with
        Romanism, WCC/NCC involvment, etc., it may be harmful for Orthodoxy.
        On a personal level I believe we have an obligation to witness.

        Having said previously that the EP may be wrong, he may be hurting
        the witness of Orthodoxy if by "contacts" is meant to achieve anything
        official with Romanism. There is nothing to gain on that level other
        than common ground on social-ethical issues, in my opinion. It is
        pretty clear that John Paul II has worked consistently to try to
        bring Orthodoxy "back into the fold." Although I should give them
        credit for repudiating the means of uniatism to do so. But we must be
        discerning.

        The monks may be right in their stance, but wrong in their actions. I
        wish that they would work from within as a sure and steady, but
        humble and faithful witness to the Church, the Patriarch, and the
        world of the glory of the true Faith.

        Love, luke
      • luke padgett <loukas@swbell.net>
        I want to modify, or more accurately, clarify what I wrote earlier. ... There are really two separate (though related) issues here. One is the issue of
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 5 7:32 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I want to modify, or more accurately, clarify what I wrote earlier.

          > The latino-catholics are indeed schismatic and heretic that have
          > pledged to destroy orthodoxy and have already achieved a lot in
          > that line. As schismatic, they do indeed come from the Church, but
          > they have left her. The siege of Esphigmenou is part of their work.

          There are really two separate (though related) issues here. One is
          the issue of ecumenism. The other is the issue of the Esphigmenou
          monks and their status on the holy mountain. Let me state that I do
          believe the "branch theory" of the Church is heretical. And when I
          say that there is "good ecumenism" I should modify that to say that,
          on an official level, i.e. hopes for unification/intercommunion with
          Romanism, WCC/NCC involvment, etc., it may be harmful for Orthodoxy.
          On a personal level I believe we have an obligation to witness.

          Having said previously that the EP may be wrong, he may be hurting
          the witness of Orthodoxy if by "contacts" is meant to achieve anything
          official with Romanism. There is nothing to gain on that level other
          than common ground on social-ethical issues, in my opinion. It is
          pretty clear that John Paul II has worked consistently to try to
          bring Orthodoxy "back into the fold." Although I should give them
          credit for repudiating the means of uniatism to do so. But we must be
          discerning.

          The monks may be right in their position but wrong in their actions.
          I wish that they would work from within as a sure and steady, but
          humble and faithful witness to the Church, the Patriarch, and the
          world of the glory of the true Faith.

          Luke Padgett
          layman at St. Antony parish of the Antiochian Archdiocese, under His
          Grace Bp. Basil of Enfeh al-Koura (which, being translated means
          Wichita), who has a beard and does not wear suits ;)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.