Christians lets Get Ecumenical:Ecumenical!

[dzheremi]

But the Athanasian Creed has nothing to do with St. Athanasius the Apostolic…? It is a Latin creed, probably composed in Gaul or thereabouts at least 100 years after the death of the saint…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed#Origin

 

[Faithdancer]

'sho nuff there will be smells. I lived in Amish country and could always tell when the fields were being prepped. Whew!!

Ah, the Amish. I sure hope they never change, the world would be a little less cool without them. And if I get any fatter, I’ll have to start riding one of their draft horses!

 

[Matthew_Light]

Ah, the Amish. I sure hope they never change, the world would be a little less cool without them.

You have a wonderful spirit of open-heartedness!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;11923801]What on earth are you talking about? Byzantine Catholics? I can’t speak for IgnatianPhilo, but I’m Coptic Orthodox – we’re not even in communion with the non-Catholic Byzantines, so what Catholic Byzantines have to do with anything is beyond me. I’m not talking about external form or a particular tradition. What I mean is that Catholics (of all rites, traditions, and particular churches) will have to become Orthodox. I’m not sugarcoating anything.

The discussion here is “ecumenism”. You just proved my point here from your previous post. You reveal no ecumenical effort on the part of the Orthodox here. You confirmed that it is your minority opinion that all Christians are to become Orthodox? That view is never ecumenical, and it does not belong in this thread.

You error in definition when you group all Christians under the heading of ecumenism. Ecumenism is an effort applied holding to the same faith but are not in full communion.

For our separated brethren who have removed themselves from the apostolic faith, require reconciliation.

This is just silly. If we think you’re wrong about this or that point of doctrine, then of course you’d have to change it or repudiate it as necessary

This is what ecumenism deals with. Your misinformed views, prejudices and objections to those expressions of faith practiced in the Catholic Church, without learning truly how they are expressed and correctly understood according to the Catholic Church. While Orthodoxy remains stagnant to the 7 councils, that do not address or defeat the new world with new false winds of doctrines.

This is truly what your opinion objects to in Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy sat idle and many times under suppression by her Emperors that Peter had to battle the enemy alone with the divine keys. When the battle smoke cleared, you rant to object to Peter defeating heresy’s and heretics. But that is not what this thread is about.

– no differently than how people coming into the Roman Catholic communion have to affirm what Rome tells them to if they want to be in communion with that church.

You remain steadfast in your false interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who come into the Church do so with their own free will. We don’t take the Orthodox position of forcing one to enter communion with the body of Christ. And we don’t administer rebaptism of a validly baptized Christian.

I will grant you this however; that those in Orthodoxy are out of communion with their own and I am sorry if you think I have grouped all of you together. My post reflect those Orthodox out of communion with Peter. Not those Orthodox in full communion with Peter.

Set aside your anti-Peter (pope) sentiments, hold fast to your Orthodoxy engage with a true ecumenical effort, and see that nothing is taken from Orthodoxy but it has much to gain from the infant stage of the Church to a more mature stage without the apostolic faith ever changing.

You have been lied to, if you think the Rock (Peter) has changed. Ecumenical dialogue can clear this up for you.

I don’t care if Catholics would want to preserve the way in which they worship, but again, they’d have to confess the Orthodox faith,

Now you appear to be taking an Islamic view here of forcing one to become something they never are.

Let’s get this out of the way here. Orthodox is a title many of you have taken upon yourself., including some protestants today. The early council and Pope dubbed those Church’s Orthodox who were in full communion with the Popes so that their sister church’s who fell into heterodoxy can be distinguished from one another.

Rome is always Orthodox without ever having to take on the moniker, for she possesses the divine keys given to her by Jesus Himself.

In response to your comments of competition. Please allow me to interpret your misunderstanding. By competition, I am referencing those things Orthodox object too in Catholicism. The competing reflects in generalities the Orthodox opposition towards Catholicism. We both agree that no competition is required or needed.

Yet, you object to everyone’s Christian faith who is not holding to what you call Orthodox. The objection pits you against every Christian who is not your type of Orthodox, introducing a competition of faith’s. This is never ecumenical.

You error again to falsely believe that every Christian descended from the Catholic
Church.

Is it some Orthodox view or is it your view, that Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Protestant Christians from the west, because they are Rome’s problem? Is that not the general view of Orthodoxy? Is this where you get your false interpretations of the Roman Church from liars? This is why we need ecumenical dialogue, to clear up what you have been falsely given and incorrectly interpreted what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed unchanged since apostolic times.

Our Catholic view of those holding to true Orthodoxy, because there are some who have adopted the “Orthodox” moniker, is made public. Orthodoxy has 7 valid sacraments, a valid priesthood, and have valid apostolic succession to the apostles.** In these, there is no division. Now does that sound like Peter is competing with Orthodoxy? You are gravely misinformed.**

Do you have another avenue towards ecumenical dialogue without having to force every Christian to your view of Orthodoxy?

 

[dzheremi]

The discussion here is “ecumenism”. You just proved my point here from your previous post. You reveal no ecumenical effort on the part of the Orthodox here. You confirmed that it is your minority opinion that all Christians are to become Orthodox? That view is never ecumenical, and it does not belong in this thread.

Then I guess according to you I’m not very ecumenical. Shocking. That’s fine, but it’s not a minority view (mine or others’ within the Orthodox Church, whether you think that church is the Eastern/Chalcedonian one or the ‘Oriental’/non-Chalcedonian one) that in order to be in communion with the Orthodox Church, you need to be Orthodox. That’s what communion is about for Orthodox people and their Church: Shared faith. You either have it or you don’t.

For our separated brethren who have removed themselves from the apostolic faith, require reconciliation.

Indeed.

This is what ecumenism deals with. Your misinformed views, prejudices and objections to those expressions of faith practiced in the Catholic Church, without learning truly how they are expressed and correctly understood according to the Catholic Church. While Orthodoxy remains stagnant to the 7 councils, that do not address or defeat the new world with new false winds of doctrines.

I do not agree that Orthodox remains stagnant (or with that bit about the seven councils, as you might imagine), but I do want to point out that as you say ecumenism deals with my misinformed view about your church, then the same must also apply to you and your misinformed view about mine, which is on full display in your reply to me. So if you want to know what Orthodox people really believe and require of Roman Catholics who want to us to be in communion with them (which, again, is the corollary of what your definition of ecumenism is, so if you don’t abide by it yourself you are in no position to tell me very rudely that my views do not belong in a thread about ecumenism), it would behoove you to stop addressing me in this manner.

This is truly what your opinion objects to in Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy sat idle and many times under suppression by her Emperors that Peter had to battle the enemy alone with the divine keys. When the battle smoke cleared, you rant to object to Peter defeating heresy’s and heretics. But that is not what this thread is about.

Who’s “ranting” against Peter? We call St. Peter in the Coptic Orthodox Church “the greatest of the apostles”, and pray and believe so. You are getting off topic in an effort to slander me and my position for reasons that are not clear in the content of your response.

You remain steadfast in your false interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who come into the Church do so with their own free will.

What? When did I ever claim otherwise?

We don’t take the Orthodox position of forcing one to enter communion with the body of Christ. And we don’t administer rebaptism of a validly baptized Christian.

No one is ‘forced’ to become Orthodox. Rather, if they want to be in communion with the Orthodox Church, they must profess the Orthodox faith – just as those who want to be in communion with Rome must (in theory, at least; not sure how this squares with the RCC position that Orthodox may receive) profess the same faith as those in that communion. This is why you do not commune Lutherans, Presbyterians, and all other manner of Protestants, no? I don’t think it would make much sense if I were to therefore claim that you are ‘forcing’ those people to be Catholic…

I will grant you this however; that those in Orthodoxy are out of communion with their own and I am sorry if you think I have grouped all of you together. My post reflect those Orthodox out of communion with Peter. Not those Orthodox in full communion with Peter.

This is unintelligible to me. All Orthodox are in communion with Peter via their respective Antiochian Patriarchs – HH Moran Mor Ignatius Aphrem II Karim for us Orientals and HH Patriarch John X (Yazigi) for the Byzantines.

Set aside your anti-Peter (pope) sentiments

I don’t have anti-Peter or anti-Pope sentiments, other than (perhaps to you) the desire to point out that the Roman Pope does not equal Peter in the way that the syntax of the above statement suggests.

hold fast to your Orthodoxy engage with a true ecumenical effort, and see that nothing is taken from Orthodoxy but it has much to gain from the infant stage of the Church to a more mature stage without the apostolic faith ever changing.

Well this thread is something of a micro-level ecumenical effort among laypersons, isn’t it? So the Orthodox come, lay our cards on the table as is right to do, and say “This is where we stand”. And you don’t like it and you complain and say all kinds of nasty and irrelevant stuff to me. So, there ya go. There’s our grand ecumenical effort. And people might wonder why the Orthodox seem less ecumenical than Catholics or Protestants! We don’t even have anything close to the same idea of what that entails, as our exchange more than demonstrates.

You have been lied to, if you think the Rock (Peter) has changed. Ecumenical dialogue can clear this up for you.

Peter has not changed, and the Rock of his confession of faith has not changed. The Roman church and communion has changed, or else we’d be in communion. I would love to be able ot say that ecumenical dialogue will clear this up for you, but honestly I don’t think you’re interested in it, from what your reply has shown to me.

(cont’d below)

 

[dzheremi]

Now you appear to be taking an Islamic view here of forcing one to become something they never are.

This is just a little bit beyond the pale, don’t you think? I’m a Muslim because I stick within the traditional boundaries of my church and communion when it comes to dialoguing with people outside of it? That’s disgusting. I am disinclined to interact with you any further on this or any matter, if this is the way you deal with positions you disagree with.

Let’s get this out of the way here. Orthodox is a title many of you have taken upon yourself., including some protestants today. The early council and Pope dubbed those Church’s Orthodox who were in full communion with the Popes so that their sister church’s who fell into heterodoxy can be distinguished from one another.

This is more inscrutable talk to me. “Orthodox is a title many of you have taken upon yourself - including some Protestants today”? What does that even mean? Protestants are now going by the “title” Orthodox? Well, if it’s just a title to them, then I guess I don’t care, but it’s not just a title to me. And it’s not just a title to our priests and bishops and monks and other faithful. And I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn to say it’s not just a title to any person actually within the Orthodox Church anywhere in the world. Respectfully, Gabriel, I think you are projecting your own view of the Orthodox Church onto others, which is not what I have done vis-a-vis Catholicism in explaining my own church’s view of how we are to relate to the non-Orthodox. I do not appreciate or understand why you are doing this, but I wish you would stop, as it is deeply offensive and works counter to your stated goals.

Rome is always Orthodox without ever having to take on the moniker, for she possesses the divine keys given to her by Jesus Himself.

That’s not what Orthodoxy is. Remember that nobody is infallible in the Orthodox Church, so keys or no keys, we must choose to be Orthodox everyday. It is not something possessed of the man himself by any particular reading of scripture or church history…or at least not any that is accepted by us.

Yet, you object to everyone’s Christian faith who is not holding to what you call Orthodox. The objection pits you against every Christian who is not your type of Orthodox, introducing a competition of faith’s. This is never ecumenical.

I guess not as you keep defining it, but it is reality. You’re either Orthodox or you’re not. I don’t understand how to make this any clearer. We are not against non-Orthodox people, only non-Orthodox ideas and doctrines.

You error again to falsely believe that every Christian descended from the Catholic Church.

I think you may be confused here…? I’m pretty sure this is the Roman Catholic view, not the Orthodox view. Of course, we do refer to ourselves as “Catholic” in the creed and elsewhere, but by that we do not mean what the modern RCC means.

Is it some Orthodox view or is it your view, that Orthodoxy has nothing to do with Protestant Christians from the west, because they are Rome’s problem?

Well considering that Protestantism is ‘protesting’ Rome, yes, I would say that is accurate at least from a historical point of view. Protestants are the world’s problem, though, since they’re found basically everywhere Western Christianity is found, and that is an awful lot more places since the 17th century or thereabouts than it was before when the various Protestant sects were more or less confined to Europe. I suppose it’s most fair to say that Protestantism as a philosophy is not indigenous to the non-Western world. What is your point in bringing this up, though?

(cont’d below, again)

 

[dzheremi]

Is that not the general view of Orthodoxy? Is this where you get your false interpretations of the Roman Church from liars?

No…? I get them from the Vatican, as I’ve explained before when Catholics here assumed I must be reading “anti-Catholic” literature without checking references against what Rome itself says (which is quite easy to find nowadays, thanks to the internet and vatican.va, as well as other Catholic websites). Again, where are you going with this? And are you forgetting that we were ‘protesting’ Rome’s excesses as far back as 449 AD, if not before? some ~1000 years or so before Luther et al, so I don’t know why you want to try to tie us to whatever was going on in Western Europe, where we had not been welcome for some centuries beforehand…

This is why we need ecumenical dialogue, to clear up what you have been falsely given and incorrectly interpreted what the Catholic Church has always taught and believed unchanged since apostolic times.

Okay. I would certain expect this to be the Roman goal in the ecumenical dialogues. This is not our goal, however.

Our Catholic view of those holding to true Orthodoxy, because there are some who have adopted the “Orthodox” moniker, is made public. Orthodoxy has 7 valid sacraments, a valid priesthood, and have valid apostolic succession to the apostles.** In these, there is no division. Now does that sound like Peter is competing with Orthodoxy? You are gravely misinformed.**

I’m going to be honest here: This is getting so off-track and muddled I’m not even sure how to respond to what you’ve typed here. Yes? No? I don’t know what it is you’re trying to say or prove.

Do you have another avenue towards ecumenical dialogue without having to force every Christian to your view of Orthodoxy?

Well, there are a few different ways that you can approach ecumenism. Certainly we pray and hope for the reunion of all the churches (not just Rome and her compatriots, but also the Eastern Romans/Al-Rum Orthodoks , as well as the Nestorians, Protestants, and whoever else might be out there), as was actually a portion of HH Pope Tawadros II’s Easter message as was just read in all our Coptic churches a few days ago. But we do so by laying bare our expectations of what being Orthodox means, and it means what we say it does. This is not me espousing my personal view as the be all and end all of Orthodoxy, but rather that to be Orthodox myself I am also held to the same standard. Neither your church or mine is a church of personal interpretation, and so when dialoguing with those outside my own Church, I know full well what is expected of those who should commune with us, because I’m already living by those rules of faith and prayer.* Lex orandi, lex credendi* is nowhere more true than in the Orthodox Church. Knowing that, again, we make no bones about what we believe and require of any who should come to us. In that, we don’t force anybody to do anything, but rather present the Orthodox faith and way of life to all, so that those who are in favor of this way of life can know what it means and what is required to act on their free will and actually/literally become Orthodox, which again is what is needed if people not currently in the Orthodox Church want to partake in its life-giving sacraments.

And if they don’t, that’s fine. I won’t judge them on that account or call them any bad names or whatever, or say that they’re deceived or what have you. They’re not following the correct faith, but that’s not really to the credit of anyone who is. Orthodoxy is true regardless of who does or doesn’t embrace it. But in order to know that it’s there, you have to actually (re)present it before the world, whether its in consultation with Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, etc. So that’s what goes on. In fact, I would say (and every Orthodox person I’ve talked to says similarly) that this is the only reason any Orthodox person or church should be engaged in ecumenical talks with other churches or Christians. We’re not coming together to admire one anothers’ hats or whatever, y’know?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear dzheremi,

Please allow me to summarize and clear up a few things here;

I would like to thank you for your response and express my sincere gratitude for your (name removed by moderator)ut here, and for you not fleeing from a difficult discussion.

My responses reflect what you have posted, I regret that the train of thought is missed by you from our exchanges. I assure you, my post’s are a response to you what you posted.

Quickly moving on here, our exchange reflects exactly what my post’s all point too here. That the Orthodox have taken the Catholic position and interprets it their own way to protest against which leads to misunderstandings and misgivings of my Catholic faith.

If I have posted anything negative here, I only repeated what you stated; “Catholics must become Orthodox”. Under your own pretense, you appear to take offense at my response. When no offense was ever given by me.

Again this proves communication of understanding is what is missing in ecumenical dialogue without taking a hard line during an exchange. I only pointed out your hard line “Catholics must become Orthodox”, is not keeping within an ecumenical dialogue.

You rejected the ecumenical dialogue offered here, by stating I a Roman Catholic have to become Orthodox first.

Simply put, When your ecumenical effort is to convert others to Orthodoxy, I disagreed with your Orthodox view of an ecumenical effort as not being ecumenical, that is all. My comments are not to offend you, but to deal directly with the hard knocks that infect our communions.

That said, I have no problem with you disagreeing with Catholicism, but disagree with what She truly teaches, not with what you wrongly perceive She teaches.

Due to the Orthodox autocephalous church’s, I believe each Orthodox Church should be taken on a case by case ecumenical dialogue with Rome. For we cannot group or generalize all Orthodox Church’s under the same ecumenical dialogue.

That has been the confusion here, because I have failed to address your Coptic Church independently of the Other Orthodox independent Church’s. Which left you in the dark from some of my posts, when I was addressing all of Orthodoxy not in full communion with Peter. For this I have failed you and apologize.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

My responses reflect what you have posted, I regret that the train of thought is missed by you from our exchanges. I assure you, my post’s are a response to you what you posted.

If I have posted anything negative here, I only repeated what you stated; “Catholics must become Orthodox”. Under your own pretense, you appear to take offense at my response. When no offense was ever given by me.

As you see it. I very much disagree. Peace.

 

[andrewstx]

But the Athanasian Creed has nothing to do with St. Athanasius the Apostolic…? It is a Latin creed, probably composed in Gaul or thereabouts at least 100 years after the death of the saint…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed#Origin

Perhaps so. But I still think it is a good creed for Calcedonian Christians.

 

[Peter_J]

U]If dzheremi and Ignatian Philo’s ecumenical efforts are to try and convert Latin Catholics into Byzantine Catholics, as you have stated above. Then your attempts at ecumenism have failed,

which reveals that your Orthodox opinion’s serve no purpose in ecumenism.

Hi Gabriel of 12. I seldom read your writings nowadays, so take this with a grain of salt;but I find this ^^ completely bizarre.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps so. But I still think it is a good creed for Calcedonian Christians.

That’s fair, I suppose, but the post I was replying to said something about what St. Athanasius must’ve meant vis-a-vis the Athanasian Creed, which doesn’t make sense if he didn’t actually write it…that’s all I meant in posting that. It’s fine as a creed for those who want to use it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel of 12. I seldom read your writings nowadays, so take this with a grain of salt;but I find this ^^ completely bizarre.

I found it very bizarre for the Orthodox to falsely believe ecumenism = converting Catholic’s to Orthodoxy.

The grain of salt need not apply to me, it applies to the Orthodox who hold to such a bizarre view. It is never my view. Besides your post misquotes me, it lacks the whole content just for clarification.

Thank you anyway.

Peace be with you

 

[Richard_Feynman]

I found it very bizarre for the Orthodox to falsely believe ecumenism = converting Catholic’s to Orthodoxy.

The grain of salt need not apply to me, it applies to the Orthodox who hold to such a bizarre view. It is never my view. Besides your post misquotes me, it lacks the whole content just for clarification.

Thank you anyway.

Peace be with you

Well, I mean, isn’t the Catholic view to convert everyone to Catholicism? I might be confused here, but that’s what I thought it was.

Richard Feynman

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As you see it. I very much disagree. Peace.

Honestly dzheremi, I have never heard of a Coptic Orthodox Christian. When was Orthodoxy applied to the Coptic church? Do you know when and why you added the term Orthodoxy and Christian to your Church?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, I mean, isn’t the Catholic view to convert everyone to Catholicism? I might be confused here, but that’s what I thought it was.

Richard Feynman

Let us not mix ecumenism with Evangelization the two are very different.

How are you confused?

 

[Richard_Feynman]

Let us not mix ecumenism with Evangelization the two are very different.

How are you confused?

I guess I’m confused about how the Orthodox and Catholic position differ. Both require everyone to be under one church, be it Orthodox or Catholic. Catholics can go about doing it through evangelization, but so can the Orthodox Church. Both can also go about it through ecumenism.

Richard Feynman

 

[dzheremi]

Honestly dzheremi, I have never heard of a Coptic Orthodox Christian. When was Orthodoxy applied to the Coptic church? Do you know when and why you added the term Orthodoxy and Christian to your Church?

Because the people in it are Christians, and its faith is Orthodox. :coffeeread:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I guess I’m confused about how the Orthodox and Catholic position differ. Both require everyone to be under one church, be it Orthodox or Catholic. Catholics can go about doing it through evangelization, but so can the Orthodox Church. Both can also go about it through ecumenism.

Richard Feynman

No, the second Vatican council has made it clear. The Roman Catholic dialogue with the Orthodox becomes ecumenical to arrive at a clear understanding and correct interpretation of each ones differences.

I risk confusion when grouping all Orthodox Church’s here, when I say we both are Catholic in every way, due to our apostolic succession, sacred Liturgies, valid priesthood, valid holy orders, valid sacraments. In these we need not convert the Orthodox to Catholicism or vice versa because we are all already Catholic.

The term Ecumenism according to Vatican II does not attempt to convert Orthodox Church’s into Latin Church’s, it seeks to remove the misunderstandings of Catholicism which some of the Orthodox Church’s from being under suppression missed the battles which the Popes defeated with clarification of Church doctrine.

Now that the danger is removed and the world heresies have been dealt with, the time has come to deal with our brothers who remain in schism with the Chair of Peter through ecumenical efforts in order to clarify misgivings and misinterpretation of doctrine by the Orthodox Church’s.

It is difficult to group all of these together, because each one is independent of one another. They are not all united to one head, as all the apostolic Successors are united and full communion to Peter’s Chair in the West.

The Orthodox have rejected the Chair of Peter as the head of the apostles. This is the main reason “authority” that feeds the schism from the Orthodox against the Popes of Rome.

Since the invention of the new Rome in Constantinople, the See of Peter and his authority has been sought after by both secular powers and the Patriarchs of Constantinople. These same sentiments from these Orthodox Church’s protest against Peter’s authority since the presumed date 1054 a.d. to today.

It must be mentioned here, that some of these Church communities, although have been dubbed heretics never the less, they have not moved away from the valid apostolic succession, valid sacraments and valid priesthood.

When it comes to the non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians, the effort for communion is made through reconciliation not ecumenism. That is according to Vatican II documents.

These so called protestant Christians fall under the umbrella of Catholicism by virtue of their valid baptism, and by no fault of their own, remain our separated brethren.

Yet these Christians have no valid sacraments, no valid priesthood, no valid apostolic succession, therefore the dialogue is reconciliation due to their separation that removed them from the True Apostolic Catholic Faith.

So a note to the OP, “Christians lets Get Ecumenical” can be misleading officially.

Some Evangelization is still required in much of the reconciliation of Christians to full communion because they are not Catholic as are the Orthodox Church’s.

I hope I did not digress too much here, but I sensed this thread was not addressing true ecumenism. But I am happy to share with those who disagree with me or object to Vatican II’s declaration on Ecumenism.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Because the people in it are Christians, and its faith is Orthodox. :coffeeread:

Help me out here for my own learning; Do Coptics fall under the Heading of Orthodox? or are Coptics historically officially labeled Orthodox by the early Church Council and the bishop of Rome?

If you don’t have an answer? What constitutes your Orthodox Catholic faith? I hope this is a fair question, because these day’s I find everyone calling themselves Orthodox for some reason?

Peace be with you