That They Might All Be One - Unity talk

[OrthodoxJosh]

This past Sunday my family received the Eucharist from the hands of a Syriac Orthodox priest who was concelebrating the Melkite Divine Liturgy with our Catholic priest. Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox were in attendance and received the Eucharist as well.

At the local Armenian Orthodox church the priest invited me to receive the Eucharist and I responded that I’m Catholic, to which he responded “so? We believe the same Creed and Faith”.

I like the expression “refuse to participate in Schism”.

Peace and God bless!

I still don’t understand why the other Patriarchs haven’t removed Ignatius IV (Patriarch of Antioch) from the Dyptichs. He is always encouraging his clergy, and through them the laity, to trample the Holy Cannons underfoot. I guess the Patriarchs of World orthodoxy, have just decided that what Athenagoras started is the way to go. They are abandoning Orthodoxy in favor of the pan-heresy of Ecumenism. Many years to His Beatitude Kallinikos of Athens, Archbishop of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. The GOC is one of those “un-canonical” Orthodox Churches that refused the 1920’s change of the calendar and the many other heresies the Patriarch of Constantinople introduced to the Church. I actually am in the process of becoming a memeber of this True Orthodox Church. (Sorry, I got off on a tangent. I just don’t understand how Catholics and Orthodox can claim to be the one true church, and then still accept ecumenism and the branch theory.) I myself have seen something similar, Ghosty. Once when visiting St. Elias AOC in Atlanta while “bishop” Antoun was there, the pastor of St. John Chrysostom Melkite Catholic Church came to visit and was allowed to enter the sanctuary (not the nave, but the sanctuary behind the Iconostasion) and participate in the Liturgy, though he did not recieve communion. That was my last time in an Antiochian church. I think that if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches would return to the ancient traditions of the Church then we might be able to be unified. Let’s pray that this ecumenism is condemned, and that our two Churches can try to work on unity together, then the rest of the “christian” world might see our example and come to the fullness of the faith.

 

[Aramis]

Simply because an Orthodox Church is a “National Church” (the Church that the governement recognizes and sometimes backs) in no way means that they are not Orthodox Catholic. It just happens to be a situation that the particular Church is in, and does not ever change its Orthodoxy.

You need to read Russian histories… the ROC was a tool of the state, and many decisions of the Synod were politically focused… the Patriarchate supported the Tsars, and the Tsars made certain the patriarchate was the only legal church. (This ended in 1905 or so, with Nicholas II allowing Catholocism.)

This became even more pronounced during the reign of Stalin… the ROC was a tool of the Committee for State Security… And while it persecuted the Orthodox Church, it used them as reason to be psychotically agressive towards other christians.

The Russian Church’s mentality towards other Christians is decidedly uncharitable in many cases, and it can be seen as a possible side effect of the Russian Church’s incestuous relationship with Government. It was a tool for the unification of the peoples of the Russian Empire.

And that’s still quite true, as many in Russia seem bent upon imposing the ROC in lieu of a Russian Empire… And it’s back in bed with the state. It enjoys a protected status. If it were to acknowledge the validity of the Catholics as it did during the late Romanov era, there would be little justification for its protected status. And, since the canons as understood prohibit another orthodox church from impinging, they can have communion with those without risking their political protections, but not with Catholics, who don’t recognize those protections.

As a historian by training, the ROC, more than any other church besides the Church of England, was a tool of statecraft. And unlike the CoE, it once again is such a tool.

The anti-limited-ecumenism positions look very much to have nothing at all to do with orthodoxis nor orthopraxis, but merely maintenance of their state-sanctioned near-monopoly.

 

[Mickey]

The Russian Church’s mentality towards other Christians is decidedly uncharitable in many cases, and it can be seen as a possible side effect of the Russian Church’s incestuous relationship with Government.

Surely you don’t want to start a conversation about “incestuous relationships” in Church history.

Thank you God for the holy bishops, priests, deacons and dedicated laity in the Holy Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

You need to read Russian histories… the ROC was a tool of the state, and many decisions of the Synod were politically focused… the Patriarchate supported the Tsars, and the Tsars made certain the patriarchate was the only legal church. (This ended in 1905 or so, with Nicholas II allowing Catholocism.)

This became even more pronounced during the reign of Stalin… the ROC was a tool of the Committee for State Security… And while it persecuted the Orthodox Church, it used them as reason to be psychotically agressive towards other christians.

The Russian Church’s mentality towards other Christians is decidedly uncharitable in many cases, and it can be seen as a possible side effect of the Russian Church’s incestuous relationship with Government. It was a tool for the unification of the peoples of the Russian Empire.

And that’s still quite true, as many in Russia seem bent upon imposing the ROC in lieu of a Russian Empire… And it’s back in bed with the state. It enjoys a protected status. If it were to acknowledge the validity of the Catholics as it did during the late Romanov era, there would be little justification for its protected status. And, since the canons as understood prohibit another orthodox church from impinging, they can have communion with those without risking their political protections, but not with Catholics, who don’t recognize those protections.

As a historian by training, the ROC, more than any other church besides the Church of England, was a tool of statecraft. And unlike the CoE, it once again is such a tool.

The anti-limited-ecumenism positions look very much to have nothing at all to do with orthodoxis nor orthopraxis, but merely maintenance of their state-sanctioned near-monopoly.

Wow! Aramis is not holding back any punches today folks!

 

[Cavaradossi]

You need to read Russian histories… the ROC was a tool of the state, and many decisions of the Synod were politically focused… the Patriarchate supported the Tsars, and the Tsars made certain the patriarchate was the only legal church. (This ended in 1905 or so, with Nicholas II allowing Catholocism.)

This became even more pronounced during the reign of Stalin… the ROC was a tool of the Committee for State Security… And while it persecuted the Orthodox Church, it used them as reason to be psychotically agressive towards other christians.

The Russian Church’s mentality towards other Christians is decidedly uncharitable in many cases, and it can be seen as a possible side effect of the Russian Church’s incestuous relationship with Government. It was a tool for the unification of the peoples of the Russian Empire.

And that’s still quite true, as many in Russia seem bent upon imposing the ROC in lieu of a Russian Empire… And it’s back in bed with the state. It enjoys a protected status. If it were to acknowledge the validity of the Catholics as it did during the late Romanov era, there would be little justification for its protected status. And, since the canons as understood prohibit another orthodox church from impinging, they can have communion with those without risking their political protections, but not with Catholics, who don’t recognize those protections.

As a historian by training, the ROC, more than any other church besides the Church of England, was a tool of statecraft. And unlike the CoE, it once again is such a tool.

The anti-limited-ecumenism positions look very much to have nothing at all to do with orthodoxis nor orthopraxis, but merely maintenance of their state-sanctioned near-monopoly.

What a joke to make such accusations, when the history of the Vatican is riddled with its own political intrigue. How anybody could look, for example, at the events surrounding the end of the papal states in the late 19th century, or the events surrounding the Great Schism (the time of the Avignon papacy), and conclude that the Vatican’s actions were somehow above political influence throughout history is a most baffling mystery.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

What a joke to make such accusations, when the history of the Vatican is riddled with its own political intrigue. How anybody could look, for example, at the events surrounding the end of the papal states in the late 19th century, or the events surrounding the Great Schism (the time of the Avignon papacy), and conclude that the Vatican’s actions were somehow above political influence throughout history is a most baffling mystery.

Aramis never made the claim that the Vatican’s actions have been above political influence throughout history. I don’t know many Catholics who would make such a claim, especially Eastern Catholics. All Aramis did was to point out the truth that even within Orthodoxy such things have happened and continue to happen. Such a sad truth illustrates the reality that the Church, apart from being a divine institution, is sometimes an all-too-human institution as well. Innumerable Popes, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, deacons, and even laymen have used the Church for their own political gain. No one Church is completely innocent on this account.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Aramis never made the claim that the Vatican’s actions have been above political influence throughout history. I don’t know many Catholics who would make such a claim, especially Eastern Catholics. All Aramis did was to point out the truth that even within Orthodoxy such things have happened and continue to happen. Such a sad truth illustrates the reality that the Church, apart from being a divine institution, is sometimes an all-too-human institution as well. Innumerable Popes, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, deacons, and even laymen have used the Church for their own political gain. No one Church is completely innocent on this account.

I can agree to that, but how is it fair to paint it as if the ROC is alone in its problem (to be fair, he mentions the Church of England, but it is an irrelevant force in the modern world)? Obviously, the history of ‘national’ churches has been fraught with political intrigue, but what OrthodoxJosh is trying to point out is that phyletism is condemned in Orthodoxy, even if some churches are less than perfect when it comes to avoiding it.

What Aramis wrote is nothing but the pot calling the kettle black here. Roman Catholicism would still be a tool of statecraft of multiple kingdoms in the West, had it not fallen out of favor in a modern and secular Europe. Were Catholicism given the mixed blessing of a government willing to support it, it is hard to say that the Catholic hierarchy would be able to resist the temptation.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Roman Catholicism would still be a tool of statecraft of multiple kingdoms in the West, had it not fallen out of favor in a modern and secular Europe. Were Catholicism given the mixed blessing of a government willing to support it, it is hard to say that the Catholic hierarchy would be able to resist the temptation.

No argument here. As for the rest of your comments, I let Aramis defend himself. I know he’s perfectly capable.

 

[Aramis]

Rome meddled with a lot of governments.

Rome was not, however, the puppet of those governments. The ROC and the CoE both were tools of their respective states. The CoE lost it’s power in the 1950s… The ROC is working to regain its temporal and civil power.

And Rome has always sought to renew communion with the EO and OO churches. Not always on healthy terms, but always has sought to do so.

The ROC certainly don’t look like they have any desire to do so. (Their actions in re the baltic state’s Churches and the Ukrainian Orthodox certainly show a forced uniate model…)

 

[Mickey]

All Aramis did was to point out the truth that even within Orthodoxy such things have happened and continue to happen.

The point was made that the Holy Orthodox faith…is the Holy Orthodox faith. The gates of Hell cannot prevail as we can see by the failure of evil communism. Many new martyrs were created in Holy Russia and the faith is re-vitalized and strong. And yet Mr Aramis seems to want to point to negative aspects of history as some type of apologetic against the Church.

As you said, history is rife with the sins of men…that does not affect the truth.

I think that is the point that Cavaradossi is making.

 

[Mickey]

The ROC certainly don’t look like they have any desire to do so.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion. Others would say that the Russain Orthodox Church does not want to compromise the faith. I believe that they are quite involved in the interfaith dialogue.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!