twas simply a suggestion considering it has been asked before.
Never took it as anything less than a suggestion and I responded with that in mind, brother
, considering where others have already said before it was not necessary to address when a lot was already adjusted for years (especially with regards to length generally being 2 to 3 paragraphs and referencing in leaving a breadcrumb trail via hyper-linking for others to follow/examine sources if they wanted to examine more).
I don't mind suggestions, nor do I mind criticism (Proverbs 18:13, Proverbs 18:15, Provers 18:17, etc.), but if all one chooses to be is critical, that's when I pause and consider how much weight a 'suggestion' carries. No different than one only able to say "You know what your problem is?!!" in any discussion instead of equally saying "I really value how you always bring this to the table" - and those Orthodox showing real concern or having real relationship with me outside of here are the ones who will always have my attention.
I don't nor will I ever write for everyone and those preferring the way I respond are who I keep in mind always. I bear in mind (in the same way others continually insisting upon their suggestions at every opportunity were previously encouraged to be who they were in differing ways) where others have reminded me to be good with where I am since it is appreciated. Some are detailed, visual (i.e learn through picture/art) and like structure akin to allowing footnotes for others to follow your development of thought, while others do not prefer that so much as differing patterns of illustrating their thoughts.
Regardless, it has been stated before by multiple people that it was fine where it was...that they had zero difficulty understanding/following (and that no one here was perfect anyhow in their own grammar since this is an informal discussion board rather than a place for writing like we're doing formal English papers in every exchange
). But more importantly, they have repeatedly noted to me how they recognized bringing up suggestion often seemed to be a bit of a misdirection on the part of others when they wouldn't even address other posters fitting their own suggestion of writing style.
It will always stand out to me that others (here or offline on phone or forums like Facebook) have pointed out to me that trying to nit-pick on grammar or paragraphs when not being as vocal on themselves tends to illustrate a high level of insincerity and gross partiality/bias by going back/doing the same as they critique in others (showing it's really not so much an issue as much as it is an issue when others in disagreement with them do it). This is also illustrated when there's celebrating the writings of others doing the same things they claimed to have issue with as if there's difficulty, illustrating it's really a matter of agreement that tends to make you either more prone to critique or not.
I'd rather be for consistency since I'll read something, regardless of where I'm at, if I want to read - and if I don't, I don't. But I won't bring up an argument on it that isn't consistent since that wouldn't be honoring the Lord.
I've seen others way more in-depth many times - and it can be hard to keep up at points, although I can follow rather easily. Just a quick processor. I just tend to remind myself of how we're all wired to respond differently and keep going. For I'd rather be good letting people be who they are in their differing styles/focus on myself and not grumble:
If there's not consistency, I can never go with that and I'll honor what other Orthodox have encouraged me to be wise on with regards to knowing that God never goes with partiality and contentment being who we are in Christ, all different in our responses and wired to see things uniquely.
personally like a lot of what you say on here Gxg.
Never doubted that for a second, as the sentiment is mutual of course and it's always a pleasure going back and forth
And some of us, and myself included, do not think that the Orientals are Orthodox. and the statement for this page listed that this forum is for the faith group (until the site was taken down) are those in the canonical Eastern Orthodox Church and are in communion with our bishops. the Orientals do not.
As it concerns the issue, it's understood that some feel OOs are not Orthodox. That does not, of course, line up with official statements or the practice of what has happened repeatedly in Orthodoxy on both sides, be it EOs taking communion at OO parishes they have family at or vice versa. This is why it cannot ever be claimed with accuracy, no matter how much it is zealously believed that Orientals do not have communion wit canonical Eastern Orthodoxy. As said before, that was already something noted by the leadership at CF on several occasions, including those who identify with the OO Tradition on specific aspects even when going to EO parishes and identifying as such. The statement for the page was never in question since other EO already noted long before the site was taken down that it did not mean other OOs with intercommunion could not be present, especially when speaking with the staff years in advance. In light of the work of the Bishops and the priests for some time, it is not a cut-and-dry issue and others who were on staff have pointed this out when it came to how the statement was interpreted in practice with numerous EOs referencing OOs as Orthodox just like the Bishops have said.
The history of Orthodoxy is rather complicated when seeing how extensively detailed every group is. For reference, a
s noted best elsewhere, on the differing variations:
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PENTARCHY
AUTOCEPHALOUS ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
AUTONOMOUS ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN EPARCHIES
Many places with Intercommunion occurring are places in the Church others do not know of due to geography and simply disconnection - and this is the case with regards to Antiochians as one example among many when it comes to intersections/connection.
If we are honest, we must contend with the fact that there really cannot be any escaping what has happened in practice with regards to canonical Eastern Orthodox since the Antiochians have never had any problem communing Copts, Ethiopians, etc., in their parishes--convert or cradle in composition. Antiochian priests commune Orthodox Christians only, meaning that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox who have been blessed by their priest or bishop to receive in an EO parish are allowed (and I've experienced that already as a Syriac Orthodox/one with Jewish background as part of the largest reason for identifying with the Syriac Orthodox in its Jewish roots). We already have official statements on the matter for verification and this is something I've seen consistently from EO aware:
Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches
November 12, 1991
http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19911112SOCRumOrthStmt.html
A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.
To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:
Beloved:
You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).
It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.
All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.
All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.
Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.
Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.
Thus, the following decisions were taken:
- We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
- The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
- Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
- Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
- Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
- If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom’s Church will preside.
- The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
- What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
- In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
- If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
- If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest’s parish.
- Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
- Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
- Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
We ask God’s help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.
Damascus
12 November 1991
Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church
Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
This has been pointed out before by other Orthodox here before in addressing the official statements that supercede any interpretation of a forum statement saying OOs are not EO since the statements reflect what's actually happening in cannonical Eastern Orthodoxy. My own background involves both the Syriac Tradition as well as the Antiochian tradition - and I already have friends/family in the Coptic tradition (which I already shared when speaking about being invited to visit His Holiness when he was in town, others knowing where I stand as I've shared before in
Prayers, as I'm looking Forward to Meeting the Coptic Pope Tomorrow and Pesach...something to think about). And there are already dioceses of the OCA allowing intercommunion so long as permission is given by the ruling hierarch. Additionally, there is also inter-communion arrangements between the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and the Eastern Orthodox EO reference the Syriac Orthodox tradition frequently in identification, even though the tradition is not rooted solely n the EO Tradition. Others such as
Dr. Sebastian Brock - the foremost scholar on Syriac Christianity - have done a rather excellent job on pointing that out in regards to the scholarship when it comes to the universality of others from the OO tradition and why others in the EO tradition have no issue with OO.
There really is MORE unity in the Church than many are willing to admit....
There's a need to remember that Blood has no boundaries with significance. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of all his saints (Psalm 116) and there's unity in the Faith that is present in more ways than one...
As an aside, it is the case historically that the
Greek Orthodox church is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox church:
Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)http://www.orthodoxunity.org/sta...
Moreover, for practice, we already have it where Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, congratulated His Holiness Patriarch Mor Ignatius Aphrem II on his election to the throne of Primate of the Syriac Orthodox Church. It was not a competition or a matter of saying "We cannot celebrate him, as he is OO!!" ...for in his words:
Your Holiness,
I wholeheartedly congratulate you on the election to the throne of Primate of the ancient Syriac Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church values good relations with the Syriac Church and thinks highly of the heritage of your demised predecessor – Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. He was always committed to the active inter-Christian dialogue and was a supporter of closer interaction between the Orthodox and the Oriental Churches.
Our Church is praying for the re-establishment of a longed-for peace in the Syrian land, sanctified by the feet of holy prophets and apostles. I sincerely wish you to be a preacher of truth and reconciliation in your homeland and a wise steerer of the church boat.
Many and good years to you!
With love in Christ,
/+Hilarion/
Metropolitan of Volokolamsk
Chairman
Department for External Church Relations
Moscow Patriarchate ( https://mospat.ru/en/2014/04/16/news101026/ )
What happens in canonical Orthodox has been quite clear when keeping up with the actual discussions, statements and what leadership has done.
As it concerns CF, I have to go with what other EO/those in leadership noted in example, as said before:
wait a minute here.... We are having serious dialogue with the O.O and you think that "allowing" the Holy Spirit guiding us into communion with a Church as old as the O.O is something wrong... IMO it is defenetely something good.
The modern ecumenical movement and modern historical scholarship have indeed helped bring our churches closer. They are now able to view both each other and their own histories in a new perspective. But we should not conclude from this that the present rapprochement is simply the result of modern relativism or the “pan-heresy of ecumenism,” as some self-styled traditionalists might charge. Even during the long centuries of division there were some on both sides who recognized that differences between the churches’ preferred Christological formulations were essentially verbal rather than substantive. And during those centuries there also were efforts to reach agreement and to restore communion. These early efforts are instructive and merit closer examination. They illustrate what both sides - at the time at least - regarded as the proper basis for reunion.
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/
This seems a very reputable web site also since it is OCA.
Other leaders have noted the same before, just as those who were not mods and they were always aware of the statement on the forum page/how to see it.
that said, please post away, cause I do enjoy them
Likewise with you, Bruh. Shalom
