The Ecumenical Orthodox?

[Magnanimity]

Knowing how important ecumenicity and interreligious dialogue are (and have been for decades) within the Catholic Church, I’m wondering how important they are for the Orthodox? Much engagement of other Christians (and non-Christians) going on from the Orthodox perspective?

 

[Nine_Two]

There is a level of importance attached, many of our Churches were among the founding members of the WCC - although on that matter I admit my thinking is more in line with the Catholic Church.

However in the end we recognise that we won’t change doctrine and any reunion must be by other parties who are willing to accept our doctrine.
At one time we were quite close to reunion with the Anglican Communion, however that was scuttled by their acceptance of female priests.

 

[Magnanimity]

However in the end we recognise that we won’t change doctrine and any reunion must be by other parties who are willing to accept our doctrine.

Fascinating. That language doesn’t sound like the language of re-unification; more like assimilation.

I’m also wondering whether there is an equivalent to Walter Kasper-or of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? Is there any such established body within Orthodoxy?

 

[jimmy]

Fascinating. That language doesn’t sound like the language of re-unification; more like assimilation.

Well, it is a question of truth. Is there a particular Church that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that was established by Christ? Or are all Churches true and all we must do is to heal the wounds within the Church? Is there a particular Church that is true or are all churches just parts of the invisible Church? Is the Church visible or is it invisible? The Orthodox profess that they are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and filled with the Spirit. Consequently all other churches must conform to the faith present within the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church makes the same claim as the Orthodox. Rome expects all churches to conform to the faith of Rome. They might admit that there are multiple ways of approaching the truth or of expressing it, but in the end all ways must conform to the faith of Rome.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Fascinating. That language doesn’t sound like the language of re-unification; more like assimilation.

Perhaps, but we will not sacrifice Truth for Unity. Truth out weighs unity! If we did sacrifice Truth, then the Gates of Hell would prevail and we would make Jesus a lier. It’ll never happen the Holy Spirit wouldn’t stand for it just like He didn’t stand for it after the Council of Ferrara-Florence.

 

[Magnanimity]

Well, it is a question of truth… The Orthodox profess that they are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and filled with the Spirit. Consequently all other churches must conform to the faith present within the Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church makes the same claim as the Orthodox. Rome expects all churches to conform to the faith of Rome. They might admit that there are multiple ways of approaching the truth or of expressing it, but in the end all ways must conform to the faith of Rome.

What’s interesting here, I think, is that I could agree with your thoughts here. That is, they could be interpreted in an ecumenical light, except you begin by saying it’s a question of truth. Not sure exactly what that means here. “conform to the faith of” doesn’t necessarily have to mean something reduced to propositional truth, right?

 

[Magnanimity]

Perhaps, but we will not sacrifice Truth for Unity. Truth out weighs unity!

That is not obviously true (ba-dum-chee) for a number of reasons.

First, although it sounds incredibly noble to talk this way, like you would fall on a sword for the sake of truth, the most profound aspect of Christianity is your deepest connection to a person-the person of Christ. Not your intimacy with various propositions.

Second, as we both know the Niceno-Constantinoplan creed gives four marks of the Church, not one of which mentions truth. But, it certainly mentions one-ness, right?!

Third, a person having the attitude you express above with this huge emphasis on truth (orthodoxy) runs the very real risk of having an insulated faith turned inward on itself, rather lacking in catholicity (another mark of the Church, right?)

If we did sacrifice Truth, then the Gates of Hell would prevail and we would make Jesus a lier. It’ll never happen the Holy Spirit wouldn’t stand for it just like He didn’t stand for it after the Council of Ferrara-Florence.

Interesting you should bring up our Lord Jesus in this context. The Church is flatly scandalized by the reality of his prayer in John 17 and the present state of disunity.

 

[Nine_Two]

Fascinating. That language doesn’t sound like the language of re-unification; more like assimilation.

I’m also wondering whether there is an equivalent to Walter Kasper-or of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? Is there any such established body within Orthodoxy?

From our perspective we aren’t the ones who need unification, it is any other. While we demand adherence to Orthodox doctrine as a precondition for reconciliation with any other church body, we can be much more flexible on practice. The Antiochan Archdiocese of North America even has parishes which use liturgies based on pre-VatII and older Anglican liturgies.

This is also the exact same position Rome has taken (which is one of the reasons we don’t have unity), anyone who wants reunion with them must fall in line with Catholic doctrine, while there is flexibility on practice.

I don’t think we have an equivalent. I know the Greeks used to have a body established in England, but as I said, any chance of unity with Anglicans died the second they ordained their first female priest.

 

[Magnanimity]

From our perspective we aren’t the ones who need unification, it is any other.

I’m guessing you mean all Christian bodies who have any chance of being considered original (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, and certain versions of Anglican) need to all be unified, right? Like I said earlier, the attitude of some exclusive possession of truth and “you can come over here, but we aren’t going to budge,” isn’t likely to achieve any unification. That attitude presents only the option of assimilation (or uniformity); not (re)unity.

While we demand adherence to Orthodox doctrine as a precondition for reconciliation with any other church body,

Rather, what I imagine the Orthodox churches might ‘demand’ is adherence to that which is true, whether or not the Orthodox understanding of this or that particular truth is the best expression.

This is also the exact same position Rome has taken (which is one of the reasons we don’t have unity), anyone who wants reunion with them must fall in line with Catholic doctrine, while there is flexibility on practice.

Not really. The Catholic Church has for ages sought out the light wherever it can find it. If a truth is expressed better elsewhere (e.g., within Greek or Sufi philosophy) then that expression can be adopted into the Church’s teaching. This attitude of “you can come over here, but we aren’t going to budge,” is rather…, Evangelical, if anything. Which is pretty ironic, I think. This exclusivist Orthodox attitude, if is really is representative of Eastern Orthodoxy, is so much closer to Protestant Evangelicalism than to Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, come on…I’m not even Orthodox and I know that’s a bunch of hooey, Magnanimity! It is so fashionable around here to throw out lines like “(thing I don’t like) sounds Protestant/Evangelical”, but it’s not like the Orthodox just came up with this idea of all churches within their communion holding the same doctrine in response to some particular point of doctrine with which they disagreed with Rome - this was also the idea when Rome was part of the same communion! That’s what “Orthodoxy” is - “Ortho” (straight, correct, true) + “doxa” (opinion). So now they’re supposed to abandon the fundamental unifying principle of their church because you think it sounds too “Evangelical”?

Better theological unity than mere corporal unity, I say. We can be united when we share the same faith, but not if we’re only dressing alike. It is not a matter of “the best expression” of any “particular truth”, as you’ve put it. Whatever is expressed, however it is expressed, must BE the truth. That is what is best. For the Orthodox, those things that are not acceptable from churches seeking to commune with it (the RC, the Anglicans, etc.) are not merely “different expressions” of the same truth, but actually untruths no matter HOW they’re expressed. I don’t know why this seems to be a hard idea to grasp, other than the fact that it makes you unhappy. Well, it makes me unhappy that the idea that truth is better expressed somewhere outside of Christianity than within it, if I’m reading your aside about Sufism and Greek philosophy properly, is acceptable within the RC. Remember that Christianity is not just one of many vehicles for producing beautiful poetry, art, philosophy or other cultural artifacts and ideas - it is not a truth, it is the truth and there is nothing that is “better” than it in conveying any idea that a Christian church ought to base itself on. I love Rumi as much as the next guy, but we’re talking about God here, and I seem to remember reading a famous extract from him that said: “I searched for God among the Christians and on the Cross and therein I found Him not.”

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Church has for ages sought out the light wherever it can find it. If a truth is expressed better elsewhere (e.g., within Greek or Sufi philosophy) then that expression can be adopted into the Church’s teaching.

If you are right about this (which I really hope you are not) they are in worse shape than I thought.

You cannot take ideas from philosophy of any tradition and graft it onto your belief system. The most one can do is recognize when something outside happens to parallel your beliefs, such of in “the agnostos theos” of the Areopagus.

Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: "You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything. He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us. For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’

Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination. God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent because he has established a day on which he will ‘judge the world with justice’ through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.

When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff. But others said, “We should like to hear you on this some other time” and so Paul left them.
Acts 17 22:33
Philosophy does not teach Christ and his church. Philosophy can only be correct by coincidence.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\I’m also wondering whether there is an equivalent to Walter Kasper-or of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity? Is there any such established body within Orthodoxy?\

**Your question assumes that Orthodoxy is just like the Catholic Church, except without the pope.

You’ll get horribly confused if you make that assumption.**

 

[Magnanimity]

Oh, come on…I’m not even Orthodox and I know that’s a bunch of hooey, Magnanimity! It is so fashionable around here to throw out lines like “(thing I don’t like) sounds Protestant/Evangelical”, but it’s not like the Orthodox just came up with this idea of all churches within their communion holding the same doctrine in response to some particular point of doctrine with which they disagreed with Rome - this was also the idea when Rome was part of the same communion! That’s what “Orthodoxy” is - “Ortho” (straight, correct, true) + “doxa” (opinion). So now they’re supposed to abandon the fundamental unifying principle of their church because you think it sounds too “Evangelical”?

Better theological unity than mere corporal unity, I say. We can be united when we share the same faith, but not if we’re only dressing alike. It is not a matter of “the best expression” of any “particular truth”, as you’ve put it. Whatever is expressed, however it is expressed, must BE the truth.

Nothing like a good horse laugh to humble me in the morning! There is an exclusivistic tendency within (especially American) Evangelicalism that the attitude I critiqued above resembles. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about the claim that Evangelicl Christianity tends to be exclusivist. Who would dispute it? And what I claimed above was not how that attitude of the poster was Protestant, but how it fit well with an Evangelical exclusivistic framework. It’s an interesting parallel, I think, but if it greatly bothers you then I gladly drop it.

Regarding the idea that the Orthodox abandon a fundamental unifying principle around truth, I guess I have a few responses. First, I can only assume you mean propositional truth. That is, group X gives assent to these particular propositions, all of which are thought by group X to correspond to reality. It is hghly problematic to claim either that this is in fact the most fundamental thing which unites all Orthodox or even that it should be.

You couldn’t possibly think for a moment that all Orthodox individuals in this world are even aware of all the claims of the Othodox Church, much less give assent to them. That would be terribly naive. So, if that is not, nor even could be, that which unifies all Orthodox, then what could be that which unifies? Well, a number of things-the breaking of bread together in the liturgy; common prayers; a common understanding of God (however refined), etc.

Regarding your final comment I quote above, I don’t know what your particular theory of truth is, but I imagine it’s some sort of correspondence theory. That is, the propositional content of claim X corresponds to the reality it attempts to express. However, what is most crucial in Christianity, as I said earlier in this thread, is not “are you assentig to all the correct propositions?” Rather, it is the reality of your commnion with Christ that makes you distinctively Christian.

 

[Magnanimity]

**Your question assumes that Orthodoxy is just like the Catholic Church, except without the pope.

You’ll get horribly confused if you make that assumption.**

no, it was simply another way of asking whether Orthodoxy has any significant representatives doing ecumenical work-an equivalent to Kasper (leave aside the Pontifical Council, if you like).

 

[Magnanimity]

If you are right about this (which I really hope you are not) they are in worse shape than I thought.

You cannot take ideas from philosophy of any tradition and graft it onto your belief system. The most one can do is recognize when something outside happens to parallel your beliefs, such of in “the agnostos theos” of the Areopagus.

Thanks for sharing that. That was interesting. However, the history of thought, and yes of religious thought, including Christianity, is filled with examples that counter your claim, so much so that I’m not sure exactly how to understand you. Let’s just take one example though. Would you claim that the philosophy of Plato did not inform the theology of the early Church fathers that the Orthodox and Catholic have in common?

 

[Luvs2Learn]

To answer your question, since it seems like all other threads this is starting to go off track, I took a moment and copied this link from the Orthodox SCOBA website for you. yes the Orthodox have positions in place to conduct Ecumenical relations. Read the attached link.

scoba.us/articles/2759.html

And then For the Internationl Ecumenical dialogue see here:
patriarchate.org/documents/joint-international-commission-for-the-theological-dialogue-2008?searched=Catholic+joint&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1+ajaxSearch_highlight2

 

[Magnanimity]

Thank you very much for the links. I will follow them.

 

[dzheremi]

Nothing like a good horse laugh to humble me in the morning! There is an exclusivistic tendency within (especially American) Evangelicalism that the attitude I critiqued above resembles. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about the claim that Evangelicl Christianity tends to be exclusivist. Who would dispute it? And what I claimed above was not how that attitude of the poster was Protestant, but how it fit well with an Evangelical exclusivistic framework. It’s an interesting parallel, I think, but if it greatly bothers you then I gladly drop it.

It doesn’t bother me so much as it is not much of an argument. From what I’ve seen, it is most often resorted to when no more substantive response can be made.

Regarding the idea that the Orthodox abandon a fundamental unifying principle around truth, I guess I have a few responses. First, I can only assume you mean propositional truth. That is, group X gives assent to these particular propositions, all of which are thought by group X to correspond to reality. It is hghly problematic to claim either that this is in fact the most fundamental thing which unites all Orthodox or even that it should be.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. My point is that this idea that everyone hold to orthodox ideas of Christianity is not “exclusivistic” or particularly “Evangelical”. It was the operating principle behind the whole church from the beginning, wherever you stand regarding the Great Schism. It is not something that those wrascally wrabbits in the Orthodox communion have come up with in order to snub other people. It is what makes any communion work (those in communion with Rome included, unless you want to start advocating that the RC commune with anybody no matter what they believe).

You couldn’t possibly think for a moment that all Orthodox individuals in this world are even aware of all the claims of the Othodox Church, much less give assent to them. That would be terribly naive. So, if that is not, nor even could be, that which unifies all Orthodox, then what could be that which unifies?

And why, may I ask, do you assume that I should agree with you that this is impossible? Why, for that matter, do YOU feel that it is impossible? I only know a limited number of Orthodox Christians, but all that I have met seem to be quite knowledgeable about their faith, and that goes for Armenian Orthodox students in their 20s as much as Greek Orthodox professionals in their 50s. Maybe you mean some peasants in the Russian countryside or wherever who are not educated. Guess what? Such people are the BACKBONE of all Christianity around the world, and you’re insulting most of the world’s Christians by assuming that they’re too uneducated to understand what they believe. I’ve been to tiny rural Catholic churches in Mexico, and they certainly understood their faith just as well as the larger Catholic churches I’ve been to in America. I’ve been to the small Orthodox church in my home area, and it seems to me (as an outsider, anyway) to be completely orthodox, even while made up of many nationalities and generational groups, not all of whom may understand the mostly English-language services. Funnily enough, when all understand the bedrock of their faith (as expressed in common theological principles via the Creeds which were written by the ancient councils of the world’s gathered Christian bodies), this is not a problem. So I am really understanding where you get off by just making the claim that not all Orthodox could possibly understand their own faith. It’s THEIR faith. Why can’t they understand it?

Regarding your final comment I quote above, I don’t know what your particular theory of truth is, but I imagine it’s some sort of correspondence theory. That is, the propositional content of claim X corresponds to the reality it attempts to express.

Huh? Again, I don’t know what you mean. “Correspondence theory”? I am not pushing a particular “theory of truth”. Enough with the philosophizing bologna, please.

However, what is most crucial in Christianity, as I said earlier in this thread, is not “are you assentig to all the correct propositions?” Rather, it is the reality of your commnion with Christ that makes you distinctively Christian.

That’s nice, but that’s not what this thread is about, is it? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood it, but I thought it was about the ecumenical tendencies (or lack thereof) of the Eastern Orthodox, not whether or not the Orthodox are in “communion with Christ” or whatever it is you’re trying to say here. Of course the Orthodox are distinctively Christian - they are Orthodox Christians! Maybe I’m not understanding you again…sorry.

 

[Magnanimity]

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. My point is that this idea that everyone hold to orthodox ideas of Christianity is not “exclusivistic” or particularly “Evangelical”…It is what makes any communion work (those in communion with Rome included, unless you want to start advocating that the RC commune with anybody no matter what they believe).

There is probably something supernatural at work in the various Christian communions (at least the ones with significant historical presence, like Catholic, Orthodox…) which makes them work, wouldn’t you think? You seem to give way too much credit to “knowing all the right things” as being able to accomplish so much unity throughout Church history.

And why, may I ask, do you assume that I should agree with you that this is impossible? Why, for that matter, do YOU feel that it is impossible? I only know a limited number of Orthodox Christians, but all that I have met seem to be quite knowledgeable about their faith, and that goes for Armenian Orthodox students in their 20s as much as Greek Orthodox professionals in their 50s. Maybe you mean some peasants in the Russian countryside or wherever who are not educated.

Yes, this would be the very type of person I had in mind who doesn’t (and couldn’t and won’t ever) know as much about his Orthodox faith as, say, some patriarch or prominent Orthodox theologian or an Orthodox priest. But, who cares if the peasant won’t ever know as much (or even know all the right things)? This is the heart of my criticism of your remarks. You make it seem as if “knowing all the right things” (ie, being ‘orthodox’) is what it’s all about in Christianity. But, says who? Christ? The Church fathers? Where did you get this idea? Like I said, among the four marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic, apostolic) I don’t see truth, or knowledgeable of the truth, in there anywhere. There seems to be a strong overemphasis on knowledge and truth in your understanding of what it means to be a Christian, and this is also, I must add (sorry), strongly parallel to American Evangelicalism.

Guess what? Such people are the BACKBONE of all Christianity around the world, and you’re insulting most of the world’s Christians by assuming that they’re too uneducated to understand what they believe.

It is the furthest thing from being insulting. Do you honestly think everyone is an academic when it comes to religion? That’s stretches credulity in the extreme. What I am being, in this regard, is realistic. Not everyone (not even most) in this world has the luxury of approaching their religious faith from an academic, “I gotta know all the right things,” perspective. Of course, that’s not to say that such ‘peasants,’ as you call them, are know-nothings. Let’s just be realistic about the way the world is.
And yes, the very large numbers of people in such circumstances who are, as you said, the backbone of their respective religions should be enough to demonstrate to you that it is naive and unrealistic to think that all Orthodox Christians in this world are aware of all the same Orthodox teachings as an informed Orthodox would be. Hence, it is unlikely that assent to truth could be that which unifies Orthodox Christians.

I’ve been to tiny rural Catholic churches in Mexico, and they certainly understood their faith just as well as the larger Catholic churches I’ve been to in America. I’ve been to the small Orthodox church in my home area, and it seems to me (as an outsider, anyway) to be completely orthodox, even while made up of many nationalities and generational groups, not all of whom may understand the mostly English-language services. Funnily enough, when all understand the bedrock of their faith (as expressed in common theological principles via the Creeds which were written by the ancient councils of the world’s gathered Christian bodies), this is not a problem. So I am really understanding where you get off by just making the claim that not all Orthodox could possibly understand their own faith. It’s THEIR faith. Why can’t they understand it?

First, you are equivocating. I never said they don’t understand their faith. They do. What I criticized was your “united around the truth” ideas as being the fundamental unifying principle of any branch of Christianity. And, thank you for these illustrations. They are perfect to establish my point. If you visited these places and interacted with the individuals you mentioned, then you did so in the very context which possibly could and does unify them–the liturgical context, the breaking of bread together and the recitation of common prayers and common creeds. Didn’t I refer to this earlier?

Huh? Again, I don’t know what you mean. “Correspondence theory”? I am not pushing a particular “theory of truth”. Enough with the philosophizing bologna, please…
That’s nice, but that’s not what this thread is about, is it? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood it, but I thought it was about the ecumenical tendencies (or lack thereof) of the Eastern Orthodox…,

Well that was the intent of the thread, but it seems I need to start another thread later with just what Orthodox Christians think keeps them together. Is it assent to a set of proposition, which they all believe to be true? Is that what holds them together? That seems so completely wrong-headed for numerous reasons I listed above, but perhaps that’s why they’re called “Orthodox.” The orthodoxy of the Orthodox vs. the catholicity of the Catholics is, more or less, what my thread here was about, it seems…

 

[Nine_Two]

Magnanimity, I think the issue you’re coming up against is you’re trying to look at the Orthodox Church through the eyes of someone with a Roman Catholic background.

Unlike Catholicism the Orthodox Church prefers not to define doctrine when it can help it. So for example for a Catholic to be knowledgable on the subject of the Eucharist they must understand transubstantiation, how it differs from consubstantiation, why the former is believed instead of the latter, etc. For an Orthodox Christian to be considered knowledgable on the Eucharist they simply have to know that Christ is truly present.

We don’t have long legal codes full of what we consider to be doctrine, as the Catholic Church does. Catechism is done simply by following under one who is more knowledgable regarding the faith.

Yes, there are some Orthodox who don’t know much about the faith, but that is a result of being away from the Church, for whatever reason.

As for exclusivity, yes we do teach that for the most part. We do not go so far as to say only Orthodox have salvation, but we do say that we don’t know where the church isn’t, but we do know where it is, and like the Roman Catholic Church we teach that there is no salvation outside the Church. Two mutually exclusive statements can not both be truth. One must be incorrect, or worse, an outright lie. This is how we know Islam is not the faith of Christ, for the words of their prophet contradict the teachings of Christ and his Church.
Finally on the issue of Plato, no he is not a source of Orthodox teaching, in fact Plato himself rejected the entire concept of “orthodoxy” (something the Catholic Church claims as well) in The Republic. Neoplatonism was an attempt to combine the teachings of Plato into the teachings of the church, however the religion which resulted from this was most certainly not Christian.