One needs to quantify and define what "fundamental differences" are. Christology is not one of those fundamental differences. Maybe historical accuracy is but I wouldn't consider it fundamental. Maybe the EO's position to completely accept Chalcedon and the seven ecumenical councils - which has more to do with ecclesiology and not christology - is a fundamental difference. I would think this is easy to reconcile if an open heart is found among both families.
I think unity is being hindered because of "non-fundamental differences". Things like "who is going to be 'first among equals', "calling their saints ours", "do we have the authority to recant the condemnations of previous generations", "do we follow our current hierarchy whom we sometimes see as too liberal", etc. These amount to reluctance and preference, not theology and fundamental differences. These are all concerns found among people who don't have true Christian love would act. These people are still looking to uphold divisions, not unity.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13852.msg161692#msg161692 date=1354655877] One needs to quantify and define what "fundamental differences" are. Christology is not one of those fundamental differences. Maybe historical accuracy is but I wouldn't consider it fundamental. Maybe the EO's position to completely accept Chalcedon and the seven ecumenical councils - which has more to do with ecclesiology and not christology - is a fundamental difference. I would think this is easy to reconcile if an open heart is found among both families.
I think unity is being hindered because of "non-fundamental differences". Things like "who is going to be 'first among equals', "calling their saints ours", "do we have the authority to recant the condemnations of previous generations", "do we follow our current hierarchy whom we sometimes see as too liberal", etc. These amount to reluctance and preference, not theology and fundamental differences. These are all concerns found among people who don't have true Christian love would act. These people are still looking to uphold divisions, not unity.
I am not sure where are you getting your information. The monks of Athos are the most powerful authority in the EO family and they disagree with your position.
Why you would resort to the view of the athonite monks against ecumenism to show why ecumenism is Rem's ecumenist views are false is beyond me, seeing as they are EO and the most adamant of them. If as you say, they are in schism from Orthodoxy, why on earth would you resort to them?
Secondly, since when do we take something based on the fact that holy people said it? What happened to analyzing what is said by those people. Ever thought that these monks are simply wrong?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13852.msg161690#msg161690 date=1354652400] [quote author=arsenios link=topic=13852.msg161590#msg161590 date=1354234973] What I mean is this: Instead of seeing how much we (EO and OO) have in common, I would love to see the things we DON'T have in common. I would love for those things and differences to be so stark and clear that they give me a clear and rational reason to start permanently attending the local Coptic church. But for the life of me, I don't really see where we're all that different, which, in ecumenical terms is a good thing. I wish I would be truly convinced that there is no salvation outside the OO Church.
I don't really want to be made "upset." But I would like to be given very solid reasons why I should stop being EO, and to start being OO. But I've not been given any. So here I am.
There is a difference between looking for and accepting or rejecting differences and using these differences to justify unnecessary proselytizing. I'll give you an example. My children are completely different from my brother's children, just like I am completely different from my brother. We are physically, psychologically and spiritually different. Let's assume I found out that my entire brother's family's favorite color is blue and my family's favorite color is red. I would not use the difference to justify removing my nephew from my brothers house. I would be guilty of trying to proselytizing my nephew and breaking up God's family. If, on the other hand, my nephew is constantly looking for reasons to leave his family because he no longer likes blue, I think it's my obligation to instruct my nephew to look at the bigger picture. Blue and red are both colors. Technically, there is a difference. But it is more beneficial to look for things that unite rather than divide. This is ecumenism and it is a commandment from God (John 17:21)
If you personally are looking for reasons to stop being EO, I would first question if there are deeper psychological reasons that have nothing to do with theology. If on the other hand, God is guiding you to the Coptic Church than there is no reason to find a difference to begin with. Returning back to my hypothetical family situation, if my nephew wanted to live in my town and live with me, I don't need to find a fault with my brother to justify removing my nephew. My nephew would always be welcomed and I would work something out with my brother. That's how true Christian brothers do things. It is a function of finding unity and not letting division grow among families.
I hope this helps.
Thank you, sir. That's all I was looking for, really; someone to say "Come on over, we'll welcome you!" without necessarily condemning the Church whence I came.
Comments
I think unity is being hindered because of "non-fundamental differences". Things like "who is going to be 'first among equals', "calling their saints ours", "do we have the authority to recant the condemnations of previous generations", "do we follow our current hierarchy whom we sometimes see as too liberal", etc. These amount to reluctance and preference, not theology and fundamental differences. These are all concerns found among people who don't have true Christian love would act. These people are still looking to uphold divisions, not unity.
One needs to quantify and define what "fundamental differences" are. Christology is not one of those fundamental differences. Maybe historical accuracy is but I wouldn't consider it fundamental. Maybe the EO's position to completely accept Chalcedon and the seven ecumenical councils - which has more to do with ecclesiology and not christology - is a fundamental difference. I would think this is easy to reconcile if an open heart is found among both families.
I think unity is being hindered because of "non-fundamental differences". Things like "who is going to be 'first among equals', "calling their saints ours", "do we have the authority to recant the condemnations of previous generations", "do we follow our current hierarchy whom we sometimes see as too liberal", etc. These amount to reluctance and preference, not theology and fundamental differences. These are all concerns found among people who don't have true Christian love would act. These people are still looking to uphold divisions, not unity.
I am not sure where are you getting your information. The monks of Athos are the most powerful authority in the EO family and they disagree with your position.
Why you would resort to the view of the athonite monks against ecumenism to show why ecumenism is Rem's ecumenist views are false is beyond me, seeing as they are EO and the most adamant of them. If as you say, they are in schism from Orthodoxy, why on earth would you resort to them?
Secondly, since when do we take something based on the fact that holy people said it? What happened to analyzing what is said by those people. Ever thought that these monks are simply wrong?
Ray
[quote author=arsenios link=topic=13852.msg161590#msg161590 date=1354234973]
What I mean is this: Instead of seeing how much we (EO and OO) have in common, I would love to see the things we DON'T have in common. I would love for those things and differences to be so stark and clear that they give me a clear and rational reason to start permanently attending the local Coptic church. But for the life of me, I don't really see where we're all that different, which, in ecumenical terms is a good thing. I wish I would be truly convinced that there is no salvation outside the OO Church.
I don't really want to be made "upset." But I would like to be given very solid reasons why I should stop being EO, and to start being OO. But I've not been given any. So here I am.
There is a difference between looking for and accepting or rejecting differences and using these differences to justify unnecessary proselytizing. I'll give you an example. My children are completely different from my brother's children, just like I am completely different from my brother. We are physically, psychologically and spiritually different. Let's assume I found out that my entire brother's family's favorite color is blue and my family's favorite color is red. I would not use the difference to justify removing my nephew from my brothers house. I would be guilty of trying to proselytizing my nephew and breaking up God's family. If, on the other hand, my nephew is constantly looking for reasons to leave his family because he no longer likes blue, I think it's my obligation to instruct my nephew to look at the bigger picture. Blue and red are both colors. Technically, there is a difference. But it is more beneficial to look for things that unite rather than divide. This is ecumenism and it is a commandment from God (John 17:21)
If you personally are looking for reasons to stop being EO, I would first question if there are deeper psychological reasons that have nothing to do with theology. If on the other hand, God is guiding you to the Coptic Church than there is no reason to find a difference to begin with. Returning back to my hypothetical family situation, if my nephew wanted to live in my town and live with me, I don't need to find a fault with my brother to justify removing my nephew. My nephew would always be welcomed and I would work something out with my brother. That's how true Christian brothers do things. It is a function of finding unity and not letting division grow among families.
I hope this helps.
Thank you, sir. That's all I was looking for, really; someone to say "Come on over, we'll welcome you!" without necessarily condemning the Church whence I came.
You made my day. :)