Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Ecumenism
[center]Before I begin, I will ask for one request. This thread must be kep absolutely respectful. It is a touchy issue. I ask you, in the name of Christ, not to be disrespectful to ANYONE in your posts, and to make this a discussion, rather than an argument. There are great minds on this site, let it not go to waste in anger. Please, Please, Please, check your posts before you publish them. No name calling, heresy labeling, or anger. [/center]
The Topic of Ecumenism is growing. There are many who are wondering about what is happening between the EO and the OO. Personally, I consider myself an ecumenist, and I know that there are others who disagree. What I would like to see is the opinions of others, ecumenist or anti, and to understand what points there are. Much can come of this.
First, if we my begin with a discussion on Chalcedon. It is a shame Father Peter is no longer here, but we can try to make do.
Stavro and imikhail, and Severian, and Remnkemi, you all seem understanding of this topic. I would love you inputs especially.
ReturnOrthodoxy
The Topic of Ecumenism is growing. There are many who are wondering about what is happening between the EO and the OO. Personally, I consider myself an ecumenist, and I know that there are others who disagree. What I would like to see is the opinions of others, ecumenist or anti, and to understand what points there are. Much can come of this.
First, if we my begin with a discussion on Chalcedon. It is a shame Father Peter is no longer here, but we can try to make do.
Stavro and imikhail, and Severian, and Remnkemi, you all seem understanding of this topic. I would love you inputs especially.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Comments
I do NOT mean that all churches are imperfect and that no one church holds absolute truth. I believe that the Orthodox church holds this truth.
I do NOT mean that we search for unity at all costs, since this idea is an idol itself, in which we put feel-goods above the truth of Christ.
Basically what I mean is how Orthodox can we consider the EOs being OOs. How much brotherhood is there? How much of our differences are just misunderstandings? What can be done to attain a unity which is founded on Christ and thereby truth?
I hope that narrowed it down?
ReturnOrthodoxy
Here:
http://youtu.be/AX470zoKWIo
:o
EO and OO ecumenical dialogue at its best!
Here:
http://youtu.be/AX470zoKWIo
:o
A disgrace to the Church, and to Christianity in general, really.
My own thoughts are Christ sent the apostles out into the world to start his church. So for me that was the starting point. From there, he gave them authority to bind and loose, so each apostle had different accecptances and rejections, saints and so on. So for me different apostles, possibly different churches. They all came from Christ. Protestants the exception as they don't have saints or have the real body and blood of Christ. This is my own opinion. I'm for ecumenism as Christ gave authority for his church and it wasn't just Saint Mark. Can we say we have the Holy Spirit's guidance in our church? Most definitely. Do we have the lineage from Christ or in relationship with God before Christ? Most definitely.
We can start by defining who is the Church is.
We are (the OO).
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=13681.msg159771#msg159771 date=1347422389]
We can start by defining who is the Church is.
We are (the OO).
I would disagree and say the O. I find the EO to be truly Orthodox.
I would say the Church also has to have the true Apostolic teaching on the Eucharist and the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church and what they are. I think the EO and OO hold those correct views. I believe Cyrillic Christology gives us a correct theology of the Mysteries/Sacraments.
The Church should also teach the correct things about Who leads the Church (Ecclesiology). I believe the Orthodox understanding, which both EO and OO hold to, is that Christ actually leads the Church, not the Pope of Rome and not a bishop/s. I believe this form of leadership plays out in numerous ways, such as through synods of bishops of local churches, ecumenical councils, etc.
I believe this also about the Pope of Rome, but if the Apostlic succesionwent astray that like any mistake you go back to the beginning and start again. Since we were at the beginnning, then it is up to them to come back to orthodoxy. I pray they see the truth in us, and if not, then it doesn't change us but that we live in hope for their return. Ecumenical work should be about seeking their return. Repentance is the key for me.
The last time EO and OO were in communion was some time before 451, yet we are closer to one another than the EO are with Rome. I find that to be encouraging.
Apostolic succession is not the issue. The try Church is the one that still holds on to the faith and the holy tradition she received.
True, it might not be the only issue, but one of the only ways the Church can hold on to the faith and Holy Tradition She received is through Apostolic Succession, is it not?
The only way to know you are in the Church, if you are a priest or bishop, is to have a bishop lay hands on you and ordain you. And the only way to know the bishop laying hands on you is within the Church is to look at who laid hands on and ordained him, and so on and so on, right down the line to Christ. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria were (and still are) within the Church, because, I would assume, they were ordained by saints and bishops that were indirectly blessed and ordained by Christ himself through His apostles and disciples, one of whom being St. Mark. So I am saying that this makes the Coptic Orthodox Church, "the Church."
There was actually a really good post over at OC.net that might apply to our discussion. However, it would bring up a whole list of subjects to discuss that might sidetrack us. Or maybe it won't. It was in the thread about what you do if you miss a Divine Liturgy on Sunday, and the particular post I'm referring to was about defining "The Church." Maybe I'll cut and paste it.
Then the question for me is: Where did the faith originate because it has been received?
I would say our Faith originated with God the Father, then through Christ become man, and then the Holy Spirit on and after the day of Pentecost.
I would like to echo RO, the EO have upheld the faith even in modern times and in some OO circles we have had a bit of a divergence from what the fathers actually believed. Having said that, if we have a renaissance of patristic teaching and teach as the OO and EO have classically taught then i would say WE THE ORTHODOX (regardless of ethnicity, oriental or eastern, etc etc) are The Church
I actually see this renaissance happening right now. I am a huge fan of orthodoxsermons.org, and there are a handful of abounas that are preaching/teaching things and topics through very patristic lenses. It's really nice to see.
BUT with fathers like Abouna Athanasius, Abouna Kyrillos Ibrahim (from this site), Abouna Peter Farrington, Abba Seraphim, Abouna Tadros Malaty and a few others on that list we have a bright hope, we just need to keep pushing this renaissance forward
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13681.msg159823#msg159823 date=1347494634]
Then the question for me is: Where did the faith originate because it has been received?
I would say our Faith originated with God the Father, then through Christ become man, and then the Holy Spirit on and after the day of Pentecost.
That is what I think also. I can see the historic relationship. Even the position of the church in Eygpt like adopted, a stranger in its own land.
Surely we haven't solved this issue in just a few pages! ;)
In the OT, God entrusted His statutes to the Levites, His chosen tribe from which priests were consecrated. Yet those priests did not keep His statutes.
Likewise, in the NT, we read in the book of Revelations about the bishop of Pergamus who let foreign doctrines enter his church.
In our modern times, the bishop(s) of Rome let foreign doctrines enter the church of Rome.
All of that with apostolic succession.
The question then is not which church has apostolic succession. Rather which church still holds on to to the correct faith as it was handed from Christ through the apostles.
If it is sin that a church has because it is not prefect, then I think myself that pride is one that is most damaging and hardest to overcome, as pride says 'I know,' and when it is at it's worse it says 'I know better than you.'
We talked about King Constantine in another thread and on him I agree you with in some ways, but he wasn't prefect and pride, I guess would of being a sin he may of had being a king, so having a ruler supporting the Catholic church, it wasn't perfect.
The apostles weren't prefect and some weaker than others, but that is no reason not to claim succession from them or to say another church is wrong because it is not as truthful as ours. Athanasios was big for truth and in that we were well blessed.
I understand where you are coming from imikhail, but because a church has a weakness doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. Jesus Christ was prefect in that he had no sin, but his apostles were not, therefore, the church wasn't perfect, but that we shall gain that perfection once the bride is united with the bridegroom.
If it is sin that a church has because it is not prefect, then I think myself that pride is one that is most damaging and hardest to overcome, as pride says 'I know,' and when it is at it's worse it says 'I know better than you.'
We talked about King Constantine in another thread and on him I agree you with in some ways, but he wasn't prefect and pride, I guess would of being a sin he may of had being a king, so having a ruler supporting the Catholic church, it wasn't perfect.
The apostles weren't prefect and some weaker than others, but that is no reason not to claim succession from them or to say another church is wrong because it is not as truthful as ours. Athanasios was big for truth and in that we were well blessed.
I do not follow this logic.
Wrong dogma means wrong church period.
The Church is the body of Christ and members of the Church are the branches. When a member claims what Christ had not, then he becomes a branch that does not bear the right fruit and needs to be cut off.
This is why shisms take place. Some proclaim what Jesus has not and they cut themselves from the body of Christ.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13681.msg159884#msg159884 date=1347652765]
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13681.msg159883#msg159883 date=1347651737]
I understand where you are coming from imikhail, but because a church has a weakness doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. Jesus Christ was prefect in that he had no sin, but his apostles were not, therefore, the church wasn't perfect, but that we shall gain that perfection once the bride is united with the bridegroom.
If it is sin that a church has because it is not prefect, then I think myself that pride is one that is most damaging and hardest to overcome, as pride says 'I know,' and when it is at it's worse it says 'I know better than you.'
We talked about King Constantine in another thread and on him I agree you with in some ways, but he wasn't prefect and pride, I guess would of being a sin he may of had being a king, so having a ruler supporting the Catholic church, it wasn't perfect.
The apostles weren't prefect and some weaker than others, but that is no reason not to claim succession from them or to say another church is wrong because it is not as truthful as ours. Athanasios was big for truth and in that we were well blessed.
I do not follow this logic.
Wrong dogma means wrong church period.
The Church is the body of Christ and members of the Church are the branches. When a member claims what Christ had not, then he becomes a branch that does not bear the right fruit and needs to be cut off.
This is why shisms take place. Some proclaim what Jesus has not and they cut themselves from the body of Christ.
Then are you claiming our church is perfect so the branch is perfect like the tree.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13681.msg159884#msg159884 date=1347652765]
[quote author=Joshuaa link=topic=13681.msg159883#msg159883 date=1347651737]
I understand where you are coming from imikhail, but because a church has a weakness doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. Jesus Christ was prefect in that he had no sin, but his apostles were not, therefore, the church wasn't perfect, but that we shall gain that perfection once the bride is united with the bridegroom.
If it is sin that a church has because it is not prefect, then I think myself that pride is one that is most damaging and hardest to overcome, as pride says 'I know,' and when it is at it's worse it says 'I know better than you.'
We talked about King Constantine in another thread and on him I agree you with in some ways, but he wasn't prefect and pride, I guess would of being a sin he may of had being a king, so having a ruler supporting the Catholic church, it wasn't perfect.
The apostles weren't prefect and some weaker than others, but that is no reason not to claim succession from them or to say another church is wrong because it is not as truthful as ours. Athanasios was big for truth and in that we were well blessed.
I do not follow this logic.
Wrong dogma means wrong church period.
The Church is the body of Christ and members of the Church are the branches. When a member claims what Christ had not, then he becomes a branch that does not bear the right fruit and needs to be cut off.
This is why shisms take place. Some proclaim what Jesus has not and they cut themselves from the body of Christ.
Then are you claiming our church is perfect so the branch is perfect like the tree.
There is a difference between the Church as the body of Christ and the members who are part of that body; the branches.
Of course the body of Christ is perfect and will never have a defect. The problem is with the branch. The Copts are few branches, the Latins are others and so on.
When a branch becomes weakened because of wrong beliefs, it withers away and eventually falls off.
That is right imikhail and that is what is happening with the catholic church. We are seeing the weaknesses of it and that is why I pray for their return to othodoxy. Pride is hard to change because it says I know. It has to be done with an equel amount of tack or even more, but I can't see it happening because it is still the Holy Roman empire even though they wouldn't call themselves that. Are my prayers wasted? I don't think so.
I would like to sum up my thoughts on this.
1. The church can claim Apostlic succession because Christ gave the Holy Spirit and the authority to the Apostles in which they were able to bind and loose.
2. The action of binding and loosing has effected the dogma of the succession, thereby, weakering any of the churches that Christ had started them with.
If these are true for me then it is like the prodical son, where he has sent him out into the world with money, but sqaundered it. Did the Father accept him back? Yes.
As far as I,m concerned our church has used the money wisely and I wouldn't criticize other sons who have sqaudered theirs.
The protestants don't recoqnize the authority, so have lost the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
"The topic of the sermon is the Universal Church (tka;oliky ekklycia). The first part of the sermon is devoted to a description of those who do not belong to the Universal Church, as Shenoute defines and depicts her. In part of the sermon, Shenoute uses passages from the Song of Songs to describe the Church, and amplifies these passages with his own description of the Church‟s attributes, based on citations from the Old and New Testaments."
It should be noted from the preface who St Shenoute and the author of the sermon considers "outside the catholic church". "This is the sermon that our holy father, the prophet Apa Shenoute, delivered when a hellenizing philosopher (ouvilocovoc =nhelllyn) came to him, one who had come to him at other times. But [Shenoute] knew that his thinking about God was not correct. Now many among the officials and the wealthy who sat with the man, knew him; this sort of man they mocked when he came to hear the sermon." We can write a whole paper on this one paragraph. But there are a few points to consider:
1. A hellenizing philosopher is the one who is outside the church. St Shenoute will explain with more detail in a minute. But it is obvious whoever or whatever this hellenizing philosopher represents is not part of the church.
2. This hellenizing philosopher already came to St Shenoute multiple times. This is important to St Shenoute's definition of who is outside the church.
3. The elite (probably lay people who were part of the Church) mocked the hellenizing philosopher, yet the anonmyous philosopher continues to come back to St Shenoute to hear his sermon. This is also important to St Shenoute's definition of who is outside the church.
St Shenoute's own words starts with, "As I sat on the mountain". Keep in mind that St Shenoute was extremely harsh to those who are outside the church and used numerous biblical descriptions to illustrate his contempt for them. Secondly, this people who are outside the church, according to St Shenoute, are Satan's demons. They are on the road to hell because (here's the important part) they grieve the Holy Spirit. So who are those who are outside the church?
1. "The heretic of two minds" (cnau =nhyt). This is a direct assessment of James 4:8 "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you of two minds." In Shenoute's mind, anyone who is a hellenist (or a Greek philosopher) is a heretic. It has nothing to do with theology. We cannot apply this definition to our society today for obvious reasons but it is clear to see that the definition of a heretic means different things to different people.
2. What St Shenoute continues to say is that even the Christian who belongs to the Universal Church and does not let go of their heterodox beliefs and practices are "of two minds". Consequently, even some Christians are outside the Church. Again this has nothing to do with a specific theology, but rather refusing to abandon common pagan practices (Like Rachel in Genesis 31:19 and Lot's wife in Genesis 19:26).
3. Given St Shenoute's other sermons like "I am amazed", neo-platonizing theologans their follwers were specifically condemned by St Shenoute. These include followers of Origen and Evagrius Ponticus. In other places, St Shenoute condemns Arians as heretics. If this sermon was written after 431, like St Cyril, St Shenoute may be calling Nestorians "Arians" which equates to hellenizing philosophers. St Shenoute often fought against Gnosticis in Upper Egypt as well as Meletians and Manichaeans. So there are many groups that are outside the church because of heresy.
4. The last person on St Shenoute's list of those outside the Church are Jews. From here, St Shenoute uses the Song of Songs to explain and prove who is in the Church.
Song of Songs and the Church
St Shenoute begins with a question. “Who is she about whom He (the Holy Spirit) speaks through Solomon who says,"My companion, my fair dove,‟ unless it is the Church that gives birth to her Christian children who resemble her?” Songs 6:8. Then he adds, "who is she who comes up from the desert like a piece of incense, which, having been offered up, gives off fragrant smoke?‟ (Songs 3:6) Answer: "She is the Church of the Gentiles, which came up from idol worship (tm=ntrefs=mseeidwlon) and became "a sweet fragrance of Christ‟ (2 Cor. 2:15).” So here we see that the Church is both the Universal Church and the Church of the Gentiles at the same time.
The Church is an enclosed garden, "which bubbles up with knowledge and everything righteous" St Shenoute says. He continues, “Raise up your eyes and look at the fields that already have become white for the harvest (John 4.35).” St Shenoute then asks, “Was he really speaking about actual fields or not? No, it is about people that he is speaking.” Christ sends workers out to teach. “The time of the harvest has come, that is the time for teaching all mankind everything good. He came and filled the whole earth. (Here he quotes the Song): "The voice of the turtledove is heard in our land (Song 2.12).‟ So the Church is the teacher of knowledge that is heard throughout the world (ie, universal or catholic)
Now St Shenoute gets down to business to really describe the Church. She is litany of paradoxes: The Church is virgin and bride at the same time. The Church is one and a large multitude at the same time. (This is why I quoted this sermon. This is what pertains most to our discussion). The Church is the soil and the farmer. The Church is the pupil and the teacher. The Church is the sheep and the shepherd. The Church is a sister and a brother. The Church is a daughter and a mother. The Church is a mother and a father. The Church is young and old. The Church is light that walks in light. (An allusion to John 1, and Matthew 5:14). The Church is a wall with an external wall surrounding her, whose ramparts are silver (Songs 8:9). The Church is the way who walks on a way. As St Shenoute puts it "because she is the universal Church on the way of the Lord, and through her multitudes shall come to life."
Summary
1. It's not so easy to answer the question "What is the Church". The Church is many things, even paradoxes, all at once.
2. Those who don't believe in the Church's faith are clearly outside the church. These are heretics as defined by ecumenical councils and patristic history.
3. Those who have different expressions of that Orthodox faith are not outside the Church because there is no exclusivity in the Church. St Shenoute went to a great deal to illustrate the Church is two things at once. We can't say the Church is one and only one. Put another way, we can't say the Church excludes opposites. We can't say the Church is Oriental Orthodox only and excludes Eastern Orthodox. We can't say the Church includes children and not adults. We can't say the Church includes males and not females. There is no exclusivity.
4. (This is my conclusion, not St Shenoute's) The differences in theology between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are negligible in magnitude compared to the paradoxes St Shenoute describes. One would see old and young as polar opposites. Yet they are both included in the St Shenoute's description of the Church. The difference in theological formula between the two families, while appearing as polar opposites, are actually close as many modern day theologians and parishioners of the two families have described over and over. The obstacle that faces ecumenism is the select minority who endorses an exclusivity philosophy and claims the Church is X and anyone who doesn't recognize X absolutely are outside the Church. This should only apply to heresies. Anything outside of heresies should be viewed with the inclusivity position, as St Shenoute described the Church. In other words, to answer the initial question, "What is the Church". It is exclusive of heresies and "hellenizing philosophies" but inclusive "of all Christian knowledge and love" at the same time.
Sorry this is very long. But I thought it would help direct the discussion as ReturnOrthodoxy envisioned.