[quote author=Stavro link=topic=13788.msg161064#msg161064 date=1352576830] True ecumenism is the same as preaching the faith to the unbelievers and heretics. You present the Truth to them, embrace them, and baptize them in the name of the Trinity and admit the to communion for their salvation. You love them but you are able to make a distinction between your love for them and their heretical belief that will lead them to Hades if they do not become part of the one and only Church, the bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the ark of Noah and the only path for salvation.
False ecumenism is the one we are immersed in now and are practicing with all heretical groups who are outside the Church, being so coward to proclaim the Truth and express true love to these groups by giving them a false sense of hope in salvation in the heresy they live in. Our approach is one of " it is all good and all eshta" and our divisions are only different forms of worship. Our heresy led us to embrace their teachings, songs, faith as our own. Our participation in the World Church council and Mediterrainian Church Council is an admission of the sound faith of the participants as per the bylaws of these organization . No Orthodox bishop or priest involved in this ungodly assemblies for the sweet money they distribute ever stood up for the faith and proclaimed the Truth to the unbelievers. Never. All of them hug the rest and proclaim a false unity with heretical groups against which anathemas have been pronounced. This applies to all heretical groups such as the Protestants or the Chalcedonian, Latin and specifically the Byzantines, also known as EO. We have multiple anathemas against Chalcedon and the thugs like Leo. We scrap all that aside and spit on the memory of the saints who defended the faith when we are so stupid to state : " it was all a misunderstanding". I must ask what level of hypocrisy this false ecumenist feels when he commemorates Cyril, Dioscoros, Severus, Theodosious, and every Pope since Chalcedon till Pope Kyrillos VI, while confessing in the same breath that Leonists are Orthodox.
As for the Holy Synod and the departed Pope or the new one, you can ask those living among them and make your own mind about the ones who departed.
Do they have the right to judge saints more honorable than they are? Not only one or two, virtually all post Chalcedon saints are canonized for defended the faith against Nestorianism of Chalcedon.
Is the Holy Synod who approved of and the Pope who signed the joint agreement Orthodox to begin with? Did they abide by the basic Orthodox beliefs such as deification, for example?
Who is to be trusted? Anba Samuel who list an eye for the Orthodox faith or The secretary of the Synod? Are we to trust politicians in the age of political correctness over martyrs and confessors?
Stavro,
I appreciate your definitions of true and false ecumenism. Can you refer me to any English source or sources for this definition. I have been subjective in the use of the term "ecumenist," to mean those who don't clearly question the compromise of various specific traditional Orthodox principles and practices for the sake of appearing to be superficially agreed on a minimum of comfortable issues. I haven't been shown an actual modern (except possibly Paulos Mar Gregorios) Orthodox "true"ecumenist, so I have been using the term ecumenist when I mean "false" ecumenist.
The problem, that concerns me, is in the common understanding of the terms related to the word "ecumenism," to mean "those who hug and embrace" everyone else, who will "hug and embrace" them. I think that the use of the very term "ecumenical," is dialectically chosen in order to compromise the essential concept of absolute obedience to God's strict patriarchal, "Fatherly" and "fatherly," Commandments and commandments. In common usage, Christian Ecumenism means "World Council of Christian Churches," which, in patriarchal terms , means NOTHING: "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS NEGOTIABLE." Webster's defines "ecumenical" as promoting or tending toward Worldwide Christian unity or cooperation. What value does this give to Orthodox Tradition and tradition? NONE, THAT I CAN SEE!
It occurs to me that it is illegitimate to use the modern Western term "ecumenical," in all of its forms, in the context of a true Orthodox discussion. Trying to relate its meaning in relation to the agreed Three True Holy Orthodox Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils is equivalent to naming the latest meeting of the WCC (or WCCC) as the 1687th holy ecumenical (Protestant) council. We surely have a holy majority consentual vote of Tasbeha ecumenism commentators on this question. It is so held, and thereby becomes another premise of NEW (EO/OO) ORTHODOXY! St. Peter, the True Orthodox, Christ chosen, father/leader/head of the Apostles, has summarized his letter to us with vital fatherly council: Be sober, be watchful, Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. 1 Peter 5:8-9. Those who oppose and ignore this, choose their own eternal consequences. Should we confuse and dilute this patriarchal Apostolic caution with meaningless modern "ecumenical" terminology? I don't think so. My conclusion is that the terms "ecumenism" and Orthodox "theology" are senseless oxymorons. Only used together by theology morons, or sometimes, by dishonest, slandering text manipulators (doctors). To each, his own, ie., birds of a feather flock together. Honesty is always the best policy. Trying to cover lies is eternal futility. Etc..
I have not studied and I do not understand the "prayer for the dead," "theosis," and "deification" questions. I do feel uncomfortable and inadequate in detailed speculative discussions of God's nature. Hopefully Reminkemi feels better equipped to reconstruct and dialectically explain this subject.
I hope that I can speak without coming across as antagonizing or any less Orthodox than you. If I do, forgive me, and offer me rebuke.
I would certainly agree with you that the over-ecumenism of some of the "modernists" can be crazy. I think we can both agree that the idea of "ecumenism at all costs" is a dangerous, unholy, and vile rejection of the blood of the fathers, and ink they put to paper. I certainly do not promote a blind following of just anyone, but a loving and committed following of the fathers. I think that this much, we can agree on regardless of our past disagreements. I, also, disagree with false-ecumenism.
I don't think that you are an "anti-ecumenist" since to be this, you would have to be against the verse "That they may be one as we are one." (John 17:22) So I give you that as well, that as a true Christian, yo would love to see all coming to God in the purity and fullness of the Orthodox faith. I think where me and yourself differ is in what degree we can participate in ecumenism without forming a rejection of the patriarchal lineage of our fathers. We both do not want to reject it, but we both want to see unity. The reality of the matter is that a split occurred, an the fathers (whom we revere) were at the base of this split. So in any case, an undoing needs to be done. When I say undoing, I do not mean a rejection, but an analysis.
I heard an interesting statement that I would like to quote here about holy tradition, and I would love some opinions. It says, "It should be noted that holy Tradition is a dynamic thing that is critical of its past vices. It is not a blind assertion that all who came before us are always correct (it is 'giving our ancestors a vote' vs. 'a tyranny of the dead.')" How much would you say you agree with this. I'm not saying I whole-heartily take it, but I just want you perspectives.
Basically, what I am alright with is that we should do what St. Cyril did when he met with John of Antioch. After the problem of Nestorianism was solved, St. Cyril wisely decided that there need not be splits over wording once the theology itself was safe. Cyril made a "compromise" with wording and terminology with John of Antioch, once he decided that theology was safe. Could/should we not also do the same? Being sure that our theology is the same, should we not then be willing to look past mere words? I'm wondering how much you would agree with this.
I hope that I have not offended you, but I must say that I take exception to being called a "theology moron." I am not dishonest, nor a text-manipulator. I am, however a child of the holy Orthodox church. I simply believe that the Spirit of God is a spirit of unity. There seems to be many bible verses regarding evil sneeking being brought up. People bringing up verses like, " Be sober, be watchful, Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." I would like to offer a verse from the mouth of Christ himself. He tells us how to combat this evil. "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16) I want to suggest that while we may be shrewd, calling people morons and deceptive (without much evidence) is not the solution which Christ gives to us.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13788.msg160662#msg160662 date=1351130134] Ok well I never said that living a virtuous and 'Orthodox' life makes one Orthodox and neither did RO for that matter, you have just simply chosen to make a straw man out of RO's arguments and attach my name to it.
The EO and OO are both Orthodox and together they comprise the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, atleast in my humble opinion. The Orthodox Church believes in an active dynamic working relationship with the Holy Spirit through synergia (synergy) and that by this the Holy Spirit directs the active life of the Church. Moreover the Orthodox Church believes that one's salvation stems far beyond the crucifix as we believe Christ renewed humanity and destroyed death and thus we are to constantly towards our deification. We must continually strive to reach unto the heights of the Divine and we must become "Partakers of the Divine nature" as St. Peter has said in his second epistle. We must strive for this state BUT Christ has given us His body and His blood to enable us to ascend unto to this height that we may be united to God incarnate by His body and blood as it is said in the fraction on page 459-461 of the SUS liturgy book, "At the turning of the bread and wine into Your body and blood, our souls shall be turned unto fellowship with your glory, and our souls shall be united to your divinity".
This is our sacramental theology. We must strive for our deification and being molded into the image of Christ day by day. If you follow this, this makes you Orthodox atleast in practice. But there is a caveat. Who has been given the authority to administer these mysteries? The apostles were. And the apostles ordained worthy men to be able to stand at the altar and offer the Eucharist and this authority they have been given has been perpetuated through them from Christ down to us. It is through apostolic succession that we find ministers who have the ordination of Christ, who come to the altar worthily to offer up the 'bloodless sacrifice'. Protestants do not have this. Protestants do not believe in deification, they do not believe in a true synergy between man and God (even if they pay lip service to it). Your comment about muslims is irrelevant and will be disregarded as they dont even believe in Christ's divinity and thus it is probably self explanatory that they are outside the scope of this conversation.
The Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church, both EO and OO. We are a family, and we will be united soon, by the grace of God. Those who live their Orthodox theology are those who can be Christians proper and not just some group which came thereafter and took the moniker of being called Christian but not being what a Christian was understood to have always been. Evagrius of Pontus said, "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian". We live and practice our theology and are not simply scholastic in the approach to our faith.
The EO have safeguarded the faith of the Fathers and thanks be to God, we have numerous blessed priests and hierarchs who have kept the faith albeit we have more confusion on the OO side in my opinion with numerous catholic and protestant thoughts being taken as the status quo.
The EO are Orthodox as are the OO
The Least of All,
You've covered a lot of detailed and complex theology here and made some seemingly decisive conclusions. Which conclusions, if any, are based upon your own long term experience in EO communities? Which communities? For how long? What are the sources, if any for the statements that you have made? How can I obtain access to each of your outside sources.
I agree with your recommendations of some EO theological publications. In general, because of their longer residence in English speaking cultures and the resulting increased opportunity for education and participation in English communications, they would have more volume and higher technical quality of publications than those of the recent OO immigrant churches. The downside of this situation is that the EO have fallen into and taken on more Western culture philosophies and heresies, such as rebellious anti-patriarchy, feminism and freudianism. These unorthodox beliefs have inherently crept into the apparent or implied content of their theology and publications.
If your thoughts are based on other works and, in turn, on their sources, I will be better able to follow your thought by reference to these sources. You have briefly mentioned several seemingly complex theological concepts. None of us should be able to reach an informed agreement on belief, without understanding. The EO seem to be in a similar situation. How does a formal hierarchal declaration inform our individual beliefs. How will the Pope's beliefs and signature help or harm my salvation, without my understanding and practice? I think that it is clear, just from this discussion, that both branches have many shortcomings and errors that they should be better able to correct without the complications of new involvement with the errors of the other branch. Of course, we can, and do, use the resources and faith of the other to help correct our own errors. For example, I believe that the EO resources on the theology of iconography can greatly benefit all of the OO churches' clergy and laity.
I hope that I can speak without coming across as antagonizing or any less Orthodox than you. If I do, forgive me, and offer me rebuke.
I wasn't even thinking of you, in particular, in the post that we are discussing. As I recall, without any ill, you may have misunderstood and misrepresented the statements that I was trying to make, in the long gone past. You have referred to it, and it is done. Gone. Thank you, please forgive me. Now, I'll try to respond.
I would certainly agree with you that the over-ecumenism of some of the "modernists" can be crazy. I think we can both agree that the idea of "ecumenism at all costs" is a dangerous, unholy, and vile rejection of the blood of the fathers, and ink they put to paper. I certainly do not promote a blind following of just anyone, but a loving and committed following of the fathers. I think that this much, we can agree on regardless of our past disagreements. I, also, disagree with false-ecumenism.
I have just had the thought that the modern term "ecumenism" should never be used in a true Orthodox context. As I just realized, its universal understanding, today, is non-judgmental, warm and fuzzy, hugs and kisses, which isn’t any of God's business, unless we ask Him. We can all see the spiritual definition that you are trying to give to the word "ecumenism," but the word doesn't seem to have any spiritual meaning, in truth. It just seems to mean worldwide or general in extent. In the Christian world, today, "ecumenism" is unquestionably associated with the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC has negotiated (I think deviously) associations with many Orthodox Christian jurisdictions, including, I believe, most EO and OO jurisdictions. This puts Orthodoxy, the true, Apostolic Christian Church in the subordinate, guest status in the worldwide protestant headquarters. How can Orthodox catechesis and evangelism be effectively conducted in the protestant headquarters. You Orthodox! Sit quietly, drink our booze, smoke our cigars, eat our fast mockery, listen to our propaganda and our ridicule of your old fashioned, outdated, unpopular, irrelevant, failed beliefs and funny looking delegation. You won't believe this, but the WCC agenda is rebellion against God's patriarchal order, feminism and freudianism. All of the heresies that I hate. Just look at WCC's fruit. Lesbian bishops, psychological counseling, belittle and denigrate men/fathers. A few months ago, Fr. Patrick related a WCC conference on woman abuse and spousal rape that he attended. Will there ever be any balance with scriptural criticism of rebellious, disobedient, aborting, divorcing wives? Of course not, this will never happen. I often wonder if Pope Shenouda's feminism/freudianism bias was based on WCC women leaders' ridicule of patriarchy. They are unrelenting. I have personally seen and heard it. In summary, anything that handicaps Orthodox freedom to present its full message, which seems to be the exact purpose of WCC ecumenism for example, should be avoided and discouraged, not hugged. The word, “ecumenism” is almost a perfect basis for the Hegelian dialectical attack on Orthodox Christianity. Look at its deceptive effects on this Tasbeha Orthodox community. The word sounds so good that it is defended without thought of compromise. No one of faith should oppose or criticize it. But, in reality, it has no Orthodox spiritual meaning. It just means “worldwide.” Worldwide what? Deception. Just another Godless, rational worldwide “religion.” This time, led by the Protestant WCC.
I don't think that you are an "anti-ecumenist" since to be this, you would have to be against the verse "That they may be one as we are one." (John 17:22) So I give you that as well, that as a true Christian, yo would love to see all coming to God in the purity and fullness of the Orthodox faith. I think where me and yourself differ is in what degree we can participate in ecumenism without forming a rejection of the patriarchal lineage of our fathers. We both do not want to reject it, but we both want to see unity. The reality of the matter is that a split occurred, an the fathers (whom we revere) were at the base of this split. So in any case, an undoing needs to be done. When I say undoing, I do not mean a rejection, but an analysis.
I don't think that John 17:22 has the meaning that you attribute to it. What/who is the source of your understanding of this verse. I tried to get St. Chrysostom's explanation, but the ccel commentary on John's gospel doesn't have any explanation of the verse. I tend to think (without any help from the Fathers), that this verse is referring to the unity of Jesus's disciples who believe in Him and in the Father. In verse John 17:9, Jesus states, I am praying for them (His disciples); I am not praying for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; ... . I think that our struggle for true Orthodox understanding and belief is the legitimate goal. Everyone has to choose to individually seek this goal. The Orthodox Church has to make this true Orthodox understanding and belief available for those who choose to seek the goal. The Protestant WCC can't be of any help, even if they wanted to be. Which they don't. What good is unity without the understanding and belief that only the Orthodox Church has truly ever had, but has, at times, nearly lost or forgotten.
I heard an interesting statement that I would like to quote here about holy tradition, and I would love some opinions. It says, "It should be noted that holy Tradition is a dynamic thing that is critical of its past vices. It is not a blind assertion that all who came before us are always correct (it is 'giving our ancestors a vote' vs. 'a tyranny of the dead.')" How much would you say you agree with this. I'm not saying I whole-heartily take it, but I just want you perspectives.
I don't fully understand the meaning of the statement. It could mean that I can change anything in Tradition and tradition that I chose to change. I don't believe that the statement is truly Orthodox, by far.
Basically, what I am alright with is that we should do what St. Cyril did when he met with John of Antioch. After the problem of Nestorianism was solved, St. Cyril wisely decided that there need not be splits over wording once the theology itself was safe. Cyril made a "compromise" with wording and terminology with John of Antioch, once he decided that theology was safe. Could/should we not also do the same? Being sure that our theology is the same, should we not then be willing to look past mere words? I'm wondering how much you would agree with this.
Of course I agree with St. Cyril. But, this incident also has a Chalcedonian life. My closest EO theologian explains this incident as being proof that St. Cyril saw the error of his earlier "one incarnate nature ..." statement and changed his belief, in writing.
I hope that I have not offended you, but I must say that I take exception to being called a "theology moron." I am not dishonest, nor a text-manipulator. I am, however a child of the holy Orthodox church. I simply believe that the Spirit of God is a spirit of unity. There seems to be many bible verses regarding evil sneeking being brought up. People bringing up verses like, " Be sober, be watchful, Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." I would like to offer a verse from the mouth of Christ himself. He tells us how to combat this evil. "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16) I want to suggest that while we may be shrewd, calling people morons and deceptive (without much evidence) is not the solution which Christ gives to us.
Thank you for your sensitivity and loving concern. This is a general Coptic characteristic that I have always admired and envied. Please keep chiding me to convert to this Copticism. I haven't made it yet. Please pray more.
Thank you for understanding and letting go of the past. Hopefully, we can begin a new page, and if we disagree, may we be able to do this with cordiality, love, and no name calling.
I'm not sure that many would want a warm-fuzzy feeling of ecumenism which you detest so much. I think the only people who want that are fools. There must be an holy understanding of unity. This, we must be sure of, and I assure you, I would like to protect this idea as much as you would. I may even accept your rejection of the world council of churches, which seems to present Orthodoxy as another church among the other churches, when in fact, I cannot consider Protestantism a true church. However, my rejection of the WCC is not a rejection of dialogue and understanding, but a rejection of the illusion that Orthodoxy is "just an option." A christian must be Orthodox. And I certainly agree with you that such abominations as lesbian clergy, female clergy etc. is a disgrace and should not be respected. May God protect his Holy Church from such attacks of the enemy.
The statement which I posted is not to show that we can do away with what we don't like, but rather, that we should not simply say, "I hate the EO because Dioscoros hated them!" We should respect Dioscoros enough to consider what his problem with them was, and see if we can resolve the problem.
Of course I agree with St. Cyril. But, this incident also has a Chalcedonian life. My closest EO theologian explains this incident as being proof that St. Cyril saw the error of his earlier "one incarnate nature ..." statement and changed his belief, in writing.
I would be wary of considering your EO friend's view as the EO view. To quote Fr. John McGuckin in his introduction to "On the Unity of Christ" by SVS press, "[Cyril] had given ground on vocabulary, but had not moved on matters of principal," and "With John, he would negotiate and compromise, because the faith was not at issue..." (Page 29) So while some may echo the thoughts of your friend, it is not necessarily the view of all. They may view that the wording in the contract of reconciliation was better, but they would not say that Cyril steeped back from his original Christology. They may prefer the wording of the reconciliation, but they must respect the wording of the original.
I do have a few questions for you, though. Firstly, I have participated in many antiochian services which are held in the archdiocese headed by Met. Phillip Saliba, and I have experienced both Orthros, and Vespers (which you claim have been made illegal.) I am sort of confused. How do we have these differing experiences? Secondly, in your talk against much of the EO, you seem to make an exception for ROCOR, whom I also respect. But ROCOR is still eastern in it's theology. Is your problem with the EO a problem of Chalcedonian theology, or is it a problem with some of the modernization? The EO are extremely traditional. So are your problems christological in nature? or are they relating to such things as feminism, freudianism, etc. It may help if we could narrow the topics down, and address them since, as we have both noted, the word ecumenism itself is extremely vague.
Thank you for your sensitivity and loving concern. This is a general Coptic characteristic that I have always admired and envied. Please keep chiding me to convert to this Copticism. I haven't made it yet. Please pray more.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13788.msg161220#msg161220 date=1353218091] I'm not sure that many would want a warm-fuzzy feeling of ecumenism which you detest so much. I think the only people who want that are fools.
RO,
Does that mean that you want this warm-fuzzy feeling?! ;):) ;D lol
Lol, Joker is a good name for you. Let me try to point out your logic.
Your argument (a logically invalid one):
1) If A, then B 2) B 3) Therefor A
You say:
1) All who want a warm fuzzy feeling are fools 2) I am a fool 3) I want a warm fuzzy feeling.
The conclusion does not logically follow, because the fact that all who want fuzzy feelings are fools does not imply that all fools want fuzzy feelings. Does that make sense? So yes I am a fool, but nope, I don't want warm fuzzy feelings. :D
Thought I'd use some logic to refute your joke lol.
I do have a few questions for you, though. Firstly, I have participated in many antiochian services which are held in the archdiocese headed by Met. Phillip Saliba, and I have experienced both Orthros, and Vespers (which you claim have been made illegal.) I am sort of confused. How do we have these differing experiences? Secondly, in your talk against much of the EO, you seem to make an exception for ROCOR, whom I also respect. But ROCOR is still eastern in it's theology. Is your problem with the EO a problem of Chalcedonian theology, or is it a problem with some of the modernization? The EO are extremely traditional. So are your problems christological in nature? or are they relating to such things as feminism, freudianism, etc. It may help if we could narrow the topics down, and address them since, as we have both noted, the word ecumenism itself is extremely vague.
I'm fuzzy on the EO liturgical terminology. Mikhael has also referred to attending Antiochian Orthos, which I don't understand clearly. I'm referring to the prayers related to the regular weekly Sunday Divine Liturgy. The only such Antiochian prayers that I have experienced are a short (15-20 minute) Vesper service on Saturday evening and the similar duration Matins service immediately before Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning. These are essentially in sync with those of all Orthodox jurisdictions that I have attended. I have never known of the service similar to the Coptic Midnight Praises, or ROCOR All-Night Vigil in a "canonical (Philippian)" Antiochian parish. I also recall an incident when some zealous Antiochian and Greek chanters began praying some extended Saturday night prayers that were reported to Philip, who ordered no further Antiochian participation. My understanding is that the regular conduct of similar extended prayers, during the week and on weekends, was at the "heart" of the Philippian Ben Lomond "disgrace." I wasn't there, but I have friends who were, and still are, close to the deposed and robbed (spiritually and financially) Orthodox Ben Lomond "saints." At the time of the incident, I read the on-line detailed account of the holy "victims'" attempts to retain and preserve their ordinations, consecrated property, services and community. Here, it seems to me, that we would all welcome and benefit from unity with the deposed community, but certainly not with their Chalcedon-like "officials." Talk about "robbers!" I guess that I have to confess to being an "Orthodox Fundamentalist," in Philip's philosophy, but not in mine. Just struggling to become simple Orthodox.
I also experienced the initial freudianization of the centralized Antiochian "education" department. They seem to have been about twenty years ahead of the similar current Coptic "misadventure." We don't need any further "unity" here. It appears to me that the Coptic, Antiochian and Greek freudians are already incestuously united. They're helping to destroy our young fathers and their children by increasing our rebellious young wife divorce (and probably abortion) rate to reach disgraceful parity, with the general U. S. culture.
I don't have any problems, except my inability to understand and practice it, with any published EO theology that I am aware of. I think it should be, and probably is, required reading, if competently translated, for ALL OO. This is our belief. But, my incompetent, unqualified belief is that our fragile, preoccupied, intentionally naive OO churches would not spiritually benefit from official (public) unity with the politics, philosophies, moralities, etc. of any EO jurisdiction (except, probably, ROCOR).
I think Joker, ReturnOrthodoxy uses the term fool as an accusation against pride, refuting pride. He is putting forth a humble opinion, being respectful to others.
I think Joker, ReturnOrthodoxy uses the term fool as an accusation against pride, refuting pride. He is putting forth a humble opinion, being respectful to others.
Sorry Joker. I did need to feel as though I should clarify. I know it's not good to clarify a joke, but it was because in the bible we are not to be the fool.
I did think your joke about the warm-fuzzies was good. Forgive me.
I also have a wee laugh when ReturnOrthodoxy signs off - I am a fool. He is repenting pride and I wish I could do the same.
[quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=13788.msg161219#msg161219 date=1353216436] I don't think that John 17:22 has the meaning that you attribute to it. What/who is the source of your understanding of this verse. I tried to get St. Chrysostom's explanation, but the ccel commentary on John's gospel doesn't have any explanation of the verse. I tend to think (without any help from the Fathers), that this verse is referring to the unity of Jesus's disciples who believe in Him and in the Father. In verse John 17:9, Jesus states, I am praying for them (His disciples); I am not praying for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; ....
1. Here is St Augustine's Tractates 110, Chapter 2 found in NPNF1, Vol 7 (St Augustine clearly correlates the unity of the Father and the Son is the same unity Christ has with all mankind in John 17:22 with the exception that the latter is not a union of natures but a union of faith) "2. But then after saying, “That they also may be one in us,” He added, “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.” What does He mean by this? Is it that the world will then be brought to the faith, when we shall all be one in the Father and Son? Is not such a state the everlasting peace, and the reward of faith, rather than faith itself? For we shall be one not in order to our believing, but because we have believed. But although in this life, because of the common faith itself, all who believe in one are one according to the words of the apostle, “For ye are all one in Christ Jesus ;” even thus we are one, not in order to our believing, but because we do believe. What, then, is meant by the words, “That they all may be one, that the world may believe”? This, doubtless, that the “all” are themselves the believing world. For those who shall be one are not of one class, and the world that is thereafter to believe on this very ground that these shallbe one, of another; since it is perfectly certain that He says, “That they all may be one,” of those of whom He had said before, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on me through their word,” immediately adding as He does, “That they all may be one.” And this “all,” what is it but the world; not certainly that which is hostile, but that which is believing? For you see here that He who had said, “I pray not for the world,” now prayeth for the world that it may believe."
2. Here is St John Chrysostom's Homily 82 NPNF1, Vol 14. (St John Chyrsostom clearly believes the "they" in verse 21 refers to all mankind, not Christ's disciples) "Verse 21. “That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee.”
Here again the “as” doth not denote exact similarity in their case, (for it was not possible for them in so great a degree,) but only as far as was possible for men. Just as when He saith “Be ye merciful, as your Father." (Luke 6:36) But what is, “In Us”? In the faith which is on Us. Because nothing so offends all men as divisions, He provideth that they should be one. “What then,” saith some one, “did He effect this?” Certainly He effected it. For all who believe through the Apostles are one, though some from among them were torn away. Nor did this escape His knowledge, He even foretold it, and showed that it proceeded from men’s slack-mindedness. “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.” As He said in the beginning, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another,” And how should they hence believe? “Because,” He saith, “Thou art a God of peace.” If therefore they observe the same as those of whom they have learnt, their hearers shall know the teacher by the disciples, but if they quarrel, men shall deny that they are the disciples of a God of peace, and will not allow that I, not being peaceable, have been sent from Thee. Seest thou how, unto the end, He proveth His unanimity with the Father?"
3. St Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on John. Vol 2. Homily 11. "Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, prays not for the twelve Apostles alone, but rather for all who were destined in every age to yield to and obey the words that exhort those who hear to receive that sanctification that is through faith, and to that purification which is accomplished i n them through partaking of the Spirit. And He thought it not right to leave us in doubt about the objects of His prayer, that we might learn hereby what manner of men we ought to show ourselves, and what path of righteousness we ought to tread, to accomplish those things which are well-pleasing to Him. What, then, is the manner of His prayer? That, He says, they may be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us. He asks, then, for a bond of love, and concord, and peace, to bring into spiritual unity those who believe; so that their unitedness, through perfect sympathy and inseparable harmony of soul, might resemble the features of the natural and essential unity that exists between the Father and the Son."
As I said, ecumenism=theology. We are commanded to unite to each other as the Father and the Son are united.
Thank you Remnkemi. But I thought the unity would come with the receiving of the Holy Spirit and that this was done by the disciples. The cause for unity is the Father and the Son, but is done by the Holy Spirit with the disciples.
Thank you Remnkemi. But I thought the unity would come with the receiving of the Holy Spirit and that this was done by the disciples. The cause for unity is the Father and the Son, but is done by the Holy Spirit with the disciples.
Yes unity comes with the Holy Spirit because the Spirit brings the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). In the Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave us power and boldness and in turn unity to God through the disciples. However, the incarnation also gives us unity through Christ. Christ united anthropologically with all humanity, not just the disciples, when the Word took flesh. St Cyril of Alexandria makes a big deal about it. Through the incarnation, Christ sanctified all mankind by taking the same flesh. He united with humanity. And just as Christ is hypostatically united with the Father by nature, we are united to Christ by adoption simply because he took our flesh. In St Gregory's liturgy we say, "You blessed my nature in You" simply because He took our flesh. And knowing we have a special bond with Christ, Christ asks the Father to make us have spiritual unity of love and peace with all people who believe. In this human unity to each other, we resemble the Trinitarian unity of the Father and the Son. We are not united to the Father by essence and nature as Christ is, we are united to the Father by the adoption we received in the new birth of baptism when we are saved and believe in the incarnation and resurrection. (By the way, in John 17:3, Christ says it will take eternity to know the Father whom we are united to through Christ)
It does make sense. I know it because I am adopted. Most people are not. It is role reversal for them to act like a stranger in the world, seeking one you don't know. Wanting to go back to to the true parent. In this case the parent of humanity. Moses adopted into the pharoes son. Jesus into the lineage of David. It is the case of us knowing our true lineage and to go back to it. It is through the Holy Spirit in which we do it and theology is how we know the Father and Son, but surely salvation must come by a true communion with the Holy Spirit and our understanding of God. Everyone has the Holy Spirit in them, but it doesn't mean everyone is saved. Proestants have the Holy Spirit in them, but are they in true communion?
Joshuaa, I see what you are saying. I will respond a little later. I'll just say that the main point of the patristic references I gave was to show that unity, as described in John 17, does not refer to the disciples only. It refers to a unity among all people in the world who live in righteousness and believe in the Trinity (not a society of sinners who have no intention on living according to God's commandments). It also refers to unity among all the followers of the disciples and not just the disciples themselves. Finally, John 17:21 shows Orthodox ecumenism is a scripture-based, patristic, Orthodox theological concept, not a "senseless oxymoron(s) only used together by theology morons, or sometimes, by dishonest, slandering text manipulators (doctors)."
You have said it a lot better than me. I have always believed that. For me, it was God created us so that made us on the same side, one family. What pulls us apart? Deception. The truth is simple and once it becomes not simple then it is too complicated for those who need to follow it. Orthodox is a common opinion, and it is agreed by all.
Your method of argument will probably win the popular vote here, too. It won all of the votes in the Garden. 2-0. It, however, lost all of its points and failed miserably against the truth of Christ. 0-3. Today, your method is variously referred to as Hegelian dialectic, Diaprax, purpose driven, ecumenism, agenda 21, new world order, and even Orthodox Ecumenism. New Name, same author. Haven't had time to run the necessary detailed fact check on your "quotations" of the Fathers. Accurate irrelevant citations are an important element of the method. Eve took the bait. So did Adam. Hopefully not the heart of the Coptic Church, we have Christ's example of true exegesis. God help us follow His truths.
Having an actual argument is not Helagian dialectic. Incalculable repetitious opinionated accusations are. Claiming the patristic references I gave about John 17:21 regarding ecumenism is irrelevant while rebutting my argument with a score card of sin vs. truth in the Garden of Eden on a thread about ecumenism is by definition irrelevant. But what do I know, apparently I'm just the dishonest, freudian, feminist serpent of the Genesis 2.
I applaude your efforts Remnkemi. Using scripture to show we can have unity is not a wasted effort, as peace was the first thing on your mind. The first thing on your mind irishpilgrim maybe a defensive hardness in which nothing moves without your approval. Hence, the unfairness toward someone moving for unity or peace. Eve was the weaker sex, however Adam never left her. Satan always attacks the weaker to burdon the stronger. Through Jesus Christ's gospel we are strong, so therefore we look after the weaker. Keep them away from satan by God's word. Remnkemi quoted a gospel passage of strength and unity. How is the gospel quoted meant to deceive?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13788.msg161331#msg161331 date=1353448114] Having an actual argument is not Helagian dialectic. Incalculable repetitious opinionated accusations are. Claiming the patristic references I gave about John 17:21 regarding ecumenism is irrelevant while rebutting my argument with a score card of sin vs. truth in the Garden of Eden on a thread about ecumenism is by definition irrelevant. But what do I know, apparently I'm just the dishonest, freudian, feminist serpent of the Genesis 2.
Remnkemi,
You repeatedly use incomplete, fabricated, edited (and even slanderous) references to support your "arguments" for your theological innovations, such as "orthodox ecumenism." You claim that your references regarding John 17:21 are "patristic." I have to question whether these "references" are just further fabrications to support your "orthodox ecumenism" innovation? I don't find any specific reference to "orthodox ecumenism" in these texts. WCC unity seems to be more like compromised agreement in apostacy. Your repeated fabrications to support some of your "arguments," lead me to doubt the credibility of all of your "arguments." This is just my choice. I don't think that many of your innovations represent established traditional orthodox theology. The serpent in the Garden and Hegelian dialectic, etc. also misuse "truth" to establish errors and deceptions. Christ's examples (Mt. 4:1-11; Mk. 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13) showed us how to accurately discern the differences.
This desiring to pretend you know exactly God mind is harmful to the world.
The only thing we can be sure of is that Jesus is Lord by our personal relationship with Him and work of His Spirit in us
If we study how can we know if catholic or orthodox are right or that the sacraments have always been valid even when performed by Protestants or that the sacraments means something else
Paul said the things you have heard from me commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also knowing who you received it because of witness's
It could be the faith and not the office of apostle transmitted
The only hope it seems if we repent God will show us because study leads to a conclusion but one can never know for sure he got it right
Until I can prove God certainly wants people to be orthodox I consider myself Protestant and I am loyal to them even to be counted among them on the day of judgement because otherwise I think I am harmful
I was in confession talking to Abouna and I made the comment that faith was like a seed that goes on the inside and when we do works that was on the outside and that was the fruit Later after I thought more about it, I was thinking works can be on the inside as well. That God has changed something in you that is unifying you to Him. I thought of you as well Mike and I thought of the person whom was very afraid about his sin and then I thought about the person you are now. One who knows alot of scripture and can quote the Church Fathers and do it with a degree of confidence. I was thinking these are works God has done on your inside and has changed you and made you stronger in your faith and in your case faith and works go hand in hand. God bless you Mike.
Comments
True ecumenism is the same as preaching the faith to the unbelievers and heretics. You present the Truth to them, embrace them, and baptize them in the name of the Trinity and admit the to communion for their salvation. You love them but you are able to make a distinction between your love for them and their heretical belief that will lead them to Hades if they do not become part of the one and only Church, the bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, the ark of Noah and the only path for salvation.
False ecumenism is the one we are immersed in now and are practicing with all heretical groups who are outside the Church, being so coward to proclaim the Truth and express true love to these groups by giving them a false sense of hope in salvation in the heresy they live in. Our approach is one of " it is all good and all eshta" and our divisions are only different forms of worship. Our heresy led us to embrace their teachings, songs, faith as our own.
Our participation in the World Church council and Mediterrainian Church Council is an admission of the sound faith of the participants as per the bylaws of these organization . No Orthodox bishop or priest involved in this ungodly assemblies for the sweet money they distribute ever stood up for the faith and proclaimed the Truth to the unbelievers. Never. All of them hug the rest and proclaim a false unity with heretical groups against which anathemas have been pronounced.
This applies to all heretical groups such as the Protestants or the Chalcedonian, Latin and specifically the Byzantines, also known as EO.
We have multiple anathemas against Chalcedon and the thugs like Leo. We scrap all that aside and spit on the memory of the saints who defended the faith when we are so stupid to state : " it was all a misunderstanding". I must ask what level of hypocrisy this false ecumenist feels when he commemorates Cyril, Dioscoros, Severus, Theodosious, and every Pope since Chalcedon till Pope Kyrillos VI, while confessing in the same breath that Leonists are Orthodox.
As for the Holy Synod and the departed Pope or the new one, you can ask those living among them and make your own mind about the ones who departed.
Do they have the right to judge saints more honorable than they are? Not only one or two, virtually all post Chalcedon saints are canonized for defended the faith against Nestorianism of Chalcedon.
Is the Holy Synod who approved of and the Pope who signed the joint agreement Orthodox to begin with? Did they abide by the basic Orthodox beliefs such as deification, for example?
Who is to be trusted? Anba Samuel who list an eye for the Orthodox faith or The secretary of the Synod? Are we to trust politicians in the age of political correctness over martyrs and confessors?
Stavro,
I appreciate your definitions of true and false ecumenism. Can you refer me to any English source or sources for this definition. I have been subjective in the use of the term "ecumenist," to mean those who don't clearly question the compromise of various specific traditional Orthodox principles and practices for the sake of appearing to be superficially agreed on a minimum of comfortable issues. I haven't been shown an actual modern (except possibly Paulos Mar Gregorios) Orthodox "true"ecumenist, so I have been using the term ecumenist when I mean "false" ecumenist.
The problem, that concerns me, is in the common understanding of the terms related to the word "ecumenism," to mean "those who hug and embrace" everyone else, who will "hug and embrace" them. I think that the use of the very term "ecumenical," is dialectically chosen in order to compromise the essential concept of absolute obedience to God's strict patriarchal, "Fatherly" and "fatherly," Commandments and commandments. In common usage, Christian Ecumenism means "World Council of Christian Churches," which, in patriarchal terms , means NOTHING: "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS NEGOTIABLE." Webster's defines "ecumenical" as promoting or tending toward Worldwide Christian unity or cooperation. What value does this give to Orthodox Tradition and tradition? NONE, THAT I CAN SEE!
It occurs to me that it is illegitimate to use the modern Western term "ecumenical," in all of its forms, in the context of a true Orthodox discussion. Trying to relate its meaning in relation to the agreed Three True Holy Orthodox Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils is equivalent to naming the latest meeting of the WCC (or WCCC) as the 1687th holy ecumenical (Protestant) council. We surely have a holy majority consentual vote of Tasbeha ecumenism commentators on this question. It is so held, and thereby becomes another premise of NEW (EO/OO) ORTHODOXY! St. Peter, the True Orthodox, Christ chosen, father/leader/head of the Apostles, has summarized his letter to us with vital fatherly council: Be sober, be watchful, Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. 1 Peter 5:8-9. Those who oppose and ignore this, choose their own eternal consequences. Should we confuse and dilute this patriarchal Apostolic caution with meaningless modern "ecumenical" terminology? I don't think so. My conclusion is that the terms "ecumenism" and Orthodox "theology" are senseless oxymorons. Only used together by theology morons, or sometimes, by dishonest, slandering text manipulators (doctors). To each, his own, ie., birds of a feather flock together. Honesty is always the best policy. Trying to cover lies is eternal futility. Etc..
I have not studied and I do not understand the "prayer for the dead," "theosis," and "deification" questions. I do feel uncomfortable and inadequate in detailed speculative discussions of God's nature. Hopefully Reminkemi feels better equipped to reconstruct and dialectically explain this subject.
I hope that I can speak without coming across as antagonizing or any less Orthodox than you. If I do, forgive me, and offer me rebuke.
I would certainly agree with you that the over-ecumenism of some of the "modernists" can be crazy. I think we can both agree that the idea of "ecumenism at all costs" is a dangerous, unholy, and vile rejection of the blood of the fathers, and ink they put to paper. I certainly do not promote a blind following of just anyone, but a loving and committed following of the fathers. I think that this much, we can agree on regardless of our past disagreements. I, also, disagree with false-ecumenism.
I don't think that you are an "anti-ecumenist" since to be this, you would have to be against the verse "That they may be one as we are one." (John 17:22) So I give you that as well, that as a true Christian, yo would love to see all coming to God in the purity and fullness of the Orthodox faith. I think where me and yourself differ is in what degree we can participate in ecumenism without forming a rejection of the patriarchal lineage of our fathers. We both do not want to reject it, but we both want to see unity. The reality of the matter is that a split occurred, an the fathers (whom we revere) were at the base of this split. So in any case, an undoing needs to be done. When I say undoing, I do not mean a rejection, but an analysis.
I heard an interesting statement that I would like to quote here about holy tradition, and I would love some opinions. It says, "It should be noted that holy Tradition is a dynamic thing that is critical of its past vices. It is not a blind assertion that all who came before us are always correct (it is 'giving our ancestors a vote' vs. 'a tyranny of the dead.')" How much would you say you agree with this. I'm not saying I whole-heartily take it, but I just want you perspectives.
Basically, what I am alright with is that we should do what St. Cyril did when he met with John of Antioch. After the problem of Nestorianism was solved, St. Cyril wisely decided that there need not be splits over wording once the theology itself was safe. Cyril made a "compromise" with wording and terminology with John of Antioch, once he decided that theology was safe. Could/should we not also do the same? Being sure that our theology is the same, should we not then be willing to look past mere words? I'm wondering how much you would agree with this.
I hope that I have not offended you, but I must say that I take exception to being called a "theology moron." I am not dishonest, nor a text-manipulator. I am, however a child of the holy Orthodox church. I simply believe that the Spirit of God is a spirit of unity. There seems to be many bible verses regarding evil sneeking being brought up. People bringing up verses like, " Be sober, be watchful, Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." I would like to offer a verse from the mouth of Christ himself. He tells us how to combat this evil. "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16) I want to suggest that while we may be shrewd, calling people morons and deceptive (without much evidence) is not the solution which Christ gives to us.
Pray for me,
Ray
Ok well I never said that living a virtuous and 'Orthodox' life makes one Orthodox and neither did RO for that matter, you have just simply chosen to make a straw man out of RO's arguments and attach my name to it.
The EO and OO are both Orthodox and together they comprise the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, atleast in my humble opinion. The Orthodox Church believes in an active dynamic working relationship with the Holy Spirit through synergia (synergy) and that by this the Holy Spirit directs the active life of the Church. Moreover the Orthodox Church believes that one's salvation stems far beyond the crucifix as we believe Christ renewed humanity and destroyed death and thus we are to constantly towards our deification. We must continually strive to reach unto the heights of the Divine and we must become "Partakers of the Divine nature" as St. Peter has said in his second epistle. We must strive for this state BUT Christ has given us His body and His blood to enable us to ascend unto to this height that we may be united to God incarnate by His body and blood as it is said in the fraction on page 459-461 of the SUS liturgy book, "At the turning of the bread and wine into Your body and blood, our souls shall be turned unto fellowship with your glory, and our souls shall be united to your divinity".
This is our sacramental theology. We must strive for our deification and being molded into the image of Christ day by day. If you follow this, this makes you Orthodox atleast in practice. But there is a caveat. Who has been given the authority to administer these mysteries? The apostles were. And the apostles ordained worthy men to be able to stand at the altar and offer the Eucharist and this authority they have been given has been perpetuated through them from Christ down to us. It is through apostolic succession that we find ministers who have the ordination of Christ, who come to the altar worthily to offer up the 'bloodless sacrifice'. Protestants do not have this. Protestants do not believe in deification, they do not believe in a true synergy between man and God (even if they pay lip service to it). Your comment about muslims is irrelevant and will be disregarded as they dont even believe in Christ's divinity and thus it is probably self explanatory that they are outside the scope of this conversation.
The Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church, both EO and OO. We are a family, and we will be united soon, by the grace of God. Those who live their Orthodox theology are those who can be Christians proper and not just some group which came thereafter and took the moniker of being called Christian but not being what a Christian was understood to have always been. Evagrius of Pontus said, "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian". We live and practice our theology and are not simply scholastic in the approach to our faith.
The EO have safeguarded the faith of the Fathers and thanks be to God, we have numerous blessed priests and hierarchs who have kept the faith albeit we have more confusion on the OO side in my opinion with numerous catholic and protestant thoughts being taken as the status quo.
The EO are Orthodox as are the OO
The Least of All,
You've covered a lot of detailed and complex theology here and made some seemingly decisive conclusions. Which conclusions, if any, are based upon your own long term experience in EO communities? Which communities? For how long? What are the sources, if any for the statements that you have made? How can I obtain access to each of your outside sources.
I agree with your recommendations of some EO theological publications. In general, because of their longer residence in English speaking cultures and the resulting increased opportunity for education and participation in English communications, they would have more volume and higher technical quality of publications than those of the recent OO immigrant churches. The downside of this situation is that the EO have fallen into and taken on more Western culture philosophies and heresies, such as rebellious anti-patriarchy, feminism and freudianism. These unorthodox beliefs have inherently crept into the apparent or implied content of their theology and publications.
If your thoughts are based on other works and, in turn, on their sources, I will be better able to follow your thought by reference to these sources. You have briefly mentioned several seemingly complex theological concepts. None of us should be able to reach an informed agreement on belief, without understanding. The EO seem to be in a similar situation. How does a formal hierarchal declaration inform our individual beliefs. How will the Pope's beliefs and signature help or harm my salvation, without my understanding and practice? I think that it is clear, just from this discussion, that both branches have many shortcomings and errors that they should be better able to correct without the complications of new involvement with the errors of the other branch. Of course, we can, and do, use the resources and faith of the other to help correct our own errors. For example, I believe that the EO resources on the theology of iconography can greatly benefit all of the OO churches' clergy and laity.
Pray for me,
Ray
Thank you for understanding and letting go of the past. Hopefully, we can begin a new page, and if we disagree, may we be able to do this with cordiality, love, and no name calling.
I'm not sure that many would want a warm-fuzzy feeling of ecumenism which you detest so much. I think the only people who want that are fools. There must be an holy understanding of unity. This, we must be sure of, and I assure you, I would like to protect this idea as much as you would. I may even accept your rejection of the world council of churches, which seems to present Orthodoxy as another church among the other churches, when in fact, I cannot consider Protestantism a true church. However, my rejection of the WCC is not a rejection of dialogue and understanding, but a rejection of the illusion that Orthodoxy is "just an option." A christian must be Orthodox. And I certainly agree with you that such abominations as lesbian clergy, female clergy etc. is a disgrace and should not be respected. May God protect his Holy Church from such attacks of the enemy.
The statement which I posted is not to show that we can do away with what we don't like, but rather, that we should not simply say, "I hate the EO because Dioscoros hated them!" We should respect Dioscoros enough to consider what his problem with them was, and see if we can resolve the problem. I would be wary of considering your EO friend's view as the EO view. To quote Fr. John McGuckin in his introduction to "On the Unity of Christ" by SVS press, "[Cyril] had given ground on vocabulary, but had not moved on matters of principal," and "With John, he would negotiate and compromise, because the faith was not at issue..." (Page 29) So while some may echo the thoughts of your friend, it is not necessarily the view of all. They may view that the wording in the contract of reconciliation was better, but they would not say that Cyril steeped back from his original Christology. They may prefer the wording of the reconciliation, but they must respect the wording of the original.
I do have a few questions for you, though. Firstly, I have participated in many antiochian services which are held in the archdiocese headed by Met. Phillip Saliba, and I have experienced both Orthros, and Vespers (which you claim have been made illegal.) I am sort of confused. How do we have these differing experiences? Secondly, in your talk against much of the EO, you seem to make an exception for ROCOR, whom I also respect. But ROCOR is still eastern in it's theology. Is your problem with the EO a problem of Chalcedonian theology, or is it a problem with some of the modernization? The EO are extremely traditional. So are your problems christological in nature? or are they relating to such things as feminism, freudianism, etc. It may help if we could narrow the topics down, and address them since, as we have both noted, the word ecumenism itself is extremely vague. Thank you, brother. Let's pray for each other!
Ray
I'm not sure that many would want a warm-fuzzy feeling of ecumenism which you detest so much. I think the only people who want that are fools.
RO,
Does that mean that you want this warm-fuzzy feeling?! ;) :) ;D lol
Your argument (a logically invalid one):
1) If A, then B
2) B
3) Therefor A
You say:
1) All who want a warm fuzzy feeling are fools
2) I am a fool
3) I want a warm fuzzy feeling.
The conclusion does not logically follow, because the fact that all who want fuzzy feelings are fools does not imply that all fools want fuzzy feelings. Does that make sense? So yes I am a fool, but nope, I don't want warm fuzzy feelings. :D
Thought I'd use some logic to refute your joke lol.
I also experienced the initial freudianization of the centralized Antiochian "education" department. They seem to have been about twenty years ahead of the similar current Coptic "misadventure." We don't need any further "unity" here. It appears to me that the Coptic, Antiochian and Greek freudians are already incestuously united. They're helping to destroy our young fathers and their children by increasing our rebellious young wife divorce (and probably abortion) rate to reach disgraceful parity, with the general U. S. culture.
I don't have any problems, except my inability to understand and practice it, with any published EO theology that I am aware of. I think it should be, and probably is, required reading, if competently translated, for ALL OO. This is our belief. But, my incompetent, unqualified belief is that our fragile, preoccupied, intentionally naive OO churches would not spiritually benefit from official (public) unity with the politics, philosophies, moralities, etc. of any EO jurisdiction (except, probably, ROCOR).
I think Joker, ReturnOrthodoxy uses the term fool as an accusation against pride, refuting pride. He is putting forth a humble opinion, being respectful to others.
I think Joker, ReturnOrthodoxy uses the term fool as an accusation against pride, refuting pride. He is putting forth a humble opinion, being respectful to others.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Sorry Joker. I did need to feel as though I should clarify. I know it's not good to clarify a joke, but it was because in the bible we are not to be the fool.
I did think your joke about the warm-fuzzies was good. Forgive me.
I also have a wee laugh when ReturnOrthodoxy signs off - I am a fool. He is repenting pride and I wish I could do the same.
I don't think that John 17:22 has the meaning that you attribute to it. What/who is the source of your understanding of this verse. I tried to get St. Chrysostom's explanation, but the ccel commentary on John's gospel doesn't have any explanation of the verse. I tend to think (without any help from the Fathers), that this verse is referring to the unity of Jesus's disciples who believe in Him and in the Father. In verse John 17:9, Jesus states, I am praying for them (His disciples); I am not praying for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; ....
1. Here is St Augustine's Tractates 110, Chapter 2 found in NPNF1, Vol 7 (St Augustine clearly correlates the unity of the Father and the Son is the same unity Christ has with all mankind in John 17:22 with the exception that the latter is not a union of natures but a union of faith)
"2. But then after saying, “That they also may be one in us,” He added, “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.” What does He mean by this? Is it that the world will then be brought to the faith, when we shall all be one in the Father and Son? Is not such a state the everlasting peace, and the reward of faith, rather than faith itself? For we shall be one not in order to our believing, but because we have believed. But although in this life, because of the common faith itself, all who believe in one are one according to the words of the apostle, “For ye are all one in Christ Jesus ;” even thus we are one, not in order to our believing, but because we do believe. What, then, is meant by the words, “That they all may be one, that the world may believe”? This, doubtless, that the “all” are themselves the believing world. For those who shall be one are not of one class, and the world that is thereafter to believe on this very ground that these shallbe one, of another; since it is perfectly certain that He says, “That they all may be one,” of those of whom He had said before, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on me through their word,” immediately adding as He does, “That they all may be one.” And this “all,” what is it but the world; not certainly that which is hostile, but that which is believing? For you see here that He who had said, “I pray not for the world,” now prayeth for the world that it may believe."
2. Here is St John Chrysostom's Homily 82 NPNF1, Vol 14. (St John Chyrsostom clearly believes the "they" in verse 21 refers to all mankind, not Christ's disciples)
"Verse 21. “That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee.”
Here again the “as” doth not denote exact similarity in their case, (for it was not possible for them in so great a degree,) but only as far as was possible for men. Just as when He saith “Be ye merciful, as your Father." (Luke 6:36) But what is, “In Us”? In the faith which is on Us. Because nothing so offends all men as divisions, He provideth that they should be one. “What then,” saith some one, “did He effect this?” Certainly He effected it. For all who believe through the Apostles are one, though some from among them were torn away. Nor did this escape His knowledge, He even foretold it, and showed that it proceeded from men’s slack-mindedness. “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.” As He said in the beginning, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another,” And how should they hence believe?
“Because,” He saith, “Thou art a God of peace.” If therefore they observe the same as those of whom they have learnt, their hearers shall know the teacher by the disciples, but if they quarrel, men shall deny that they are the disciples of a God of peace, and will not allow that I, not being peaceable, have been sent from Thee. Seest thou how, unto the end, He proveth His unanimity with the Father?"
3. St Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on John. Vol 2. Homily 11.
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, prays not for the twelve Apostles alone, but rather for all who were destined in every age to yield to and obey the words that exhort
those who hear to receive that sanctification that is through faith, and to that purification which is accomplished i n them through partaking of the Spirit. And He thought it not right to leave us in doubt about the objects of His prayer, that we might learn hereby what manner of men we ought to show ourselves, and what path of righteousness we ought to tread, to accomplish those things which are well-pleasing to Him. What, then, is the manner of His prayer? That, He says, they may be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us. He asks, then, for a bond of love, and concord, and peace, to bring into spiritual unity those who believe; so that their unitedness, through perfect sympathy and inseparable harmony of soul, might resemble the features of the natural and essential unity that exists between the Father and the Son."
As I said, ecumenism=theology. We are commanded to unite to each other as the Father and the Son are united.
Thank you Remnkemi. But I thought the unity would come with the receiving of the Holy Spirit and that this was done by the disciples. The cause for unity is the Father and the Son, but is done by the Holy Spirit with the disciples.
Thank you Remnkemi. But I thought the unity would come with the receiving of the Holy Spirit and that this was done by the disciples. The cause for unity is the Father and the Son, but is done by the Holy Spirit with the disciples.
Yes unity comes with the Holy Spirit because the Spirit brings the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3). In the Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave us power and boldness and in turn unity to God through the disciples. However, the incarnation also gives us unity through Christ. Christ united anthropologically with all humanity, not just the disciples, when the Word took flesh. St Cyril of Alexandria makes a big deal about it. Through the incarnation, Christ sanctified all mankind by taking the same flesh. He united with humanity. And just as Christ is hypostatically united with the Father by nature, we are united to Christ by adoption simply because he took our flesh. In St Gregory's liturgy we say, "You blessed my nature in You" simply because He took our flesh. And knowing we have a special bond with Christ, Christ asks the Father to make us have spiritual unity of love and peace with all people who believe. In this human unity to each other, we resemble the Trinitarian unity of the Father and the Son. We are not united to the Father by essence and nature as Christ is, we are united to the Father by the adoption we received in the new birth of baptism when we are saved and believe in the incarnation and resurrection. (By the way, in John 17:3, Christ says it will take eternity to know the Father whom we are united to through Christ)
Does this make sense?
It does make sense. I know it because I am adopted. Most people are not. It is role reversal for them to act like a stranger in the world, seeking one you don't know. Wanting to go back to to the true parent. In this case the parent of humanity. Moses adopted into the pharoes son. Jesus into the lineage of David. It is the case of us knowing our true lineage and to go back to it. It is through the Holy Spirit in which we do it and theology is how we know the Father and Son, but surely salvation must come by a true communion with the Holy Spirit and our understanding of God. Everyone has the Holy Spirit in them, but it doesn't mean everyone is saved. Proestants have the Holy Spirit in them, but are they in true communion?
I see what you are saying. I will respond a little later. I'll just say that the main point of the patristic references I gave was to show that unity, as described in John 17, does not refer to the disciples only. It refers to a unity among all people in the world who live in righteousness and believe in the Trinity (not a society of sinners who have no intention on living according to God's commandments). It also refers to unity among all the followers of the disciples and not just the disciples themselves. Finally, John 17:21 shows Orthodox ecumenism is a scripture-based, patristic, Orthodox theological concept, not a "senseless oxymoron(s) only used together by theology morons, or sometimes, by dishonest, slandering text manipulators (doctors)."
Your method of argument will probably win the popular vote here, too. It won all of the votes in the Garden. 2-0. It, however, lost all of its points and failed miserably against the truth of Christ. 0-3. Today, your method is variously referred to as Hegelian dialectic, Diaprax, purpose driven, ecumenism, agenda 21, new world order, and even Orthodox Ecumenism. New Name, same author. Haven't had time to run the necessary detailed fact check on your "quotations" of the Fathers. Accurate irrelevant citations are an important element of the method. Eve took the bait. So did Adam. Hopefully not the heart of the Coptic Church, we have Christ's example of true exegesis. God help us follow His truths.
I applaude your efforts Remnkemi. Using scripture to show we can have unity is not a wasted effort, as peace was the first thing on your mind. The first thing on your mind irishpilgrim maybe a defensive hardness in which nothing moves without your approval. Hence, the unfairness toward someone moving for unity or peace.
Eve was the weaker sex, however Adam never left her. Satan always attacks the weaker to burdon the stronger. Through Jesus Christ's gospel we are strong, so therefore we look after the weaker. Keep them away from satan by God's word. Remnkemi quoted a gospel passage of strength and unity. How is the gospel quoted meant to deceive?
Having an actual argument is not Helagian dialectic. Incalculable repetitious opinionated accusations are. Claiming the patristic references I gave about John 17:21 regarding ecumenism is irrelevant while rebutting my argument with a score card of sin vs. truth in the Garden of Eden on a thread about ecumenism is by definition irrelevant. But what do I know, apparently I'm just the dishonest, freudian, feminist serpent of the Genesis 2.
Remnkemi,
You repeatedly use incomplete, fabricated, edited (and even slanderous) references to support your "arguments" for your theological innovations, such as "orthodox ecumenism." You claim that your references regarding John 17:21 are "patristic." I have to question whether these "references" are just further fabrications to support your "orthodox ecumenism" innovation? I don't find any specific reference to "orthodox ecumenism" in these texts. WCC unity seems to be more like compromised agreement in apostacy. Your repeated fabrications to support some of your "arguments," lead me to doubt the credibility of all of your "arguments." This is just my choice. I don't think that many of your innovations represent established traditional orthodox theology. The serpent in the Garden and Hegelian dialectic, etc. also misuse "truth" to establish errors and deceptions. Christ's examples (Mt. 4:1-11; Mk. 1:12,13; Luke 4:1-13) showed us how to accurately discern the differences.
The only thing we can be sure of is that Jesus is Lord by our personal relationship with Him and work of His Spirit in us
If we study how can we know if catholic or orthodox are right or that the sacraments have always been valid even when performed by Protestants or that the sacraments means something else
Paul said the things you have heard from me commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also knowing who you received it because of witness's
It could be the faith and not the office of apostle transmitted
The only hope it seems if we repent God will show us because study leads to a conclusion but one can never know for sure he got it right
Until I can prove God certainly wants people to be orthodox I consider myself Protestant and I am loyal to them even to be counted among them on the day of judgement because otherwise I think I am harmful
Pray for peace and love that we all seek unity in the Glory of God.
God bless you Mike.