The Catholic Pope said Orthodox churches were 'defective.'

[Michael G]

Now, as for my opinion of ecumenical movements, I shall direct you to Protoevangel's post above. We appear to share the same opinion and he posted in a manner much more eloquent than what I could hope for.

You post it far more eloquently than I could, so I guess it is good I did not give my opinion of the ecumenical movement.

 

[Anglian]

It may be necessary to distinguish between types of ecumenism. That which seeks to ignore the causes of want of unity in a call for all 'to be one', proceeds by means of a lowest common denominator; but how low can that be when there are some who claim the name 'Christian' and yet deny that Christ was wholly divine as well as wholly human? Down such a road lies only further schism, since many Christians from all Churches will not go there.

The other form of ecumenism consists of exploring what it is divides us. In the case of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, these talks have been going on in their modern form for half a century, and whilst we are still far from united, we now all have access to a much more accurate account of what divided us, and what, of that, still does so. This is true ecumenism, for its objective is that we understand each other, not that we reach a consensus; if, as a result of a more perfect understanding, moves towards union happen, that is a happy by product - not the end of the talks.

As others have said more eloquently than I, the Pope's views on these matters are not news. They are a welcome restatement of the Roman position and allow conversations to continue with no falseness on either side.

The will of God is what will be done. For our part, we can contribute to a better climate by concentrating upon our own journey towards theosis, and upon the beam in our own eye. If, as the Orthodox believe, we have the fullness of the Faith, then the responsibility lies all the heavier on us to show that love which Christ said would mark us out as His children.

Peace be upon this Holy house,

Anglian

 

[Michael G]

The Ecumenism which exists between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, namely the ongoing discussions about what divides us and how to overcome these differences is true ecumenism. There actually might be fruit that comes from these discussions, namely a hopeful end to the schism. However, the other type of ecumenism as was so eloquently stated is a dead end road and a pointless endeavor.

 

[Hoankan]

It may be necessary to distinguish between types of ecumenism. That which seeks to ignore the causes of want of unity in a call for all 'to be one', proceeds by means of a lowest common denominator; but how low can that be when there are some who claim the name 'Christian' and yet deny that Christ was wholly divine as well as wholly human? Down such a road lies only further schism, since many Christians from all Churches will not go there.

The other form of ecumenism consists of exploring what it is divides us. In the case of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, these talks have been going on in their modern form for half a century, and whilst we are still far from united, we now all have access to a much more accurate account of what divided us, and what, of that, still does so. This is true ecumenism, for its objective is that we understand each other, not that we reach a consensus; if, as a result of a more perfect understanding, moves towards union happen, that is a happy by product - not the end of the talks.

As others have said more eloquently than I, the Pope's views on these matters are not news. They are a welcome restatement of the Roman position and allow conversations to continue with no falseness on either side.

The will of God is what will be done. For our part, we can contribute to a better climate by concentrating upon our own journey towards theosis, and upon the beam in our own eye. If, as the Orthodox believe, we have the fullness of the Faith, then the responsibility lies all the heavier on us to show that love which Christ said would mark us out as His children.

Peace be upon this Holy house,

Anglian

Very well put. I don't think I've seen a better description of the differences between the two.

 

[Michael G]

Very well put. I don't think I've seen a better description of the differences between the two.

Agree, he deserves reps from all of us!

 

[Protoevangel]

Agree, he deserves reps from all of us!

Hear! Hear!

 

[Philothei]

I am glad to find a thread of RC and EO that everyone is in.....agreement

I wil also agree with Anglian ...He has a way about him ... that it seems to stand out of such good example for all... I hope I see you posting more in TAW Anglian

Your posts always a breath of fresh air...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,,

Thank you for your welcome and your kind words. Any moves towards better understanding between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are a welcome reminder of the truths which are to be found only in the fullness of Orthodoxy.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[E.C.]

I am glad to find a thread of RC and EO that everyone is in.....agreement

That doesn't happen often!

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,,

Thank you for your welcome and your kind words. Any moves towards better understanding between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are a welcome reminder of the truths which are to be found only in the fullness of Orthodoxy.

Peace,

Anglian

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if there are any two groups within Christianity that would reunite with each other, they are our two respective Churches.

The Ecumenism which exists between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, namely the ongoing discussions about what divides us and how to overcome these differences is true ecumenism. There actually might be fruit that comes from these discussions, namely a hopeful end to the schism. However, the other type of ecumenism as was so eloquently stated is a dead end road and a pointless endeavor.

We can only pray.

 

[Till]

The only reason for the Orthodox to participate in the ecumenical movement, is to bring the schismatic faiths back into the arms of Holy Orthodoxy, which is the birthright of all Christians. This is true ecumenicism, carrying out the desires of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He prayed "that they may be one as We are one", to the Father, in His High-Priestly Prayer.

CAREFUL! Bitter, disappointed sarcasm in this post!!

Ok, I have understood. You are another one of these "The One, true church" churches. Boring! I came here because I wanted to learn a bit more about Orthoxy and because I was interested in the political discussions which were more sophisticated then anywhere else on this forum.

So what I have learnt about the Orthodox now is: They are the one and only true church and that is why many of them feel that the state in Orthodox countries should suppress Protestant churches. Well, great. And rather disappointing I must admit. One question: Is there any, essential difference to the American Evangelicals? They are also convinced that only Evangelicals are REAL christians and some of them also feel that the state - as in the US government - should support their case. So does Rome. Any more candidates for the one, true church?

 

[Michael G]

CAREFUL! Bitter, disappointed sarcasm in this post!!

Ok, I have understood. You are another one of these "The One, true church" churches. Boring! I came here because I wanted to learn a bit more about Orthoxy and because I was interested in the political discussions which were more sophisticated then anywhere else on this forum.

So what I have learnt about the Orthodox now is: They are the one and only true church and that is why many of them feel that the state in Orthodox countries should suppress Protestant churches. Well, great. And rather disappointing I must admit. One question: Is there any, essential difference to the American Evangelicals? They are also convinced that only Evangelicals are REAL christians and some of them also feel that the state - as in the US government - should support their case. So does Rome. Any more candidates for the one, true church?

The difference is our bishops can trace their episcopal lineage to the Apostles without break. Rome can not do that, it can only go back to the Great Schism. The Protestants make no attempt at doing that. So, yes, there is a very big difference. We hold to the original deposit of faith given to the Apostles, nothing more, nothing less. No other church does that. Rome has added much to the faith of the Apostles and Protestantism has stripped much away from the faith of the Apostles.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Till,

I would not presume to speak for other Orthodox, least of all on this forum which is the home of what is, for conveniences' sake called Eastern Orthodox; for one thing, they are more than capable of speaking for themselves; for another, I know how easy it is for the holding of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology to come across in the way you have described it, almost as an equivalent of that Protestant or Catholic declaration that they are the one true Church.

My own bishop is fond of the formulation one often sees in Orthodox literature, which is that whilst one can be sure where the Church is not, only God is sure where it is. It may well be that sometimes, in the sheer joy of the encounter with the Risen Christ in the Orthodox Church that we do sometimes give the impression that He is only with us; if we do that, then we fail in humility - or at the very least, in clarity of expression.

We know the Holy Ghost is with us, and we know that despite the many travails through which the Orthodox Church has passed and is passing, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it; but that ought not to lead us into prideful attitudes; we should boast in naught save the name of Christ, and Him Crucified and Risen. To those to whom much has been given, much is expected, and there is none of us, no, not even one, who is righteous. So, if an impression of pride has been created, it is meet and right that we should say that any pride is only in Christ.

That said, the Orthodox do, of course, hold what others do in their turn, which is that the fullness of the Faith is to be found within the living Holy Tradition of the Church; but I hope we do that not in a spirit of denigrating others, but in one which simply expresses the hope that the healing which we have found, might also be found by others. And, of course, we can only be sure that that healing is found within the spiritual hospital which is the Orthodox Church. But we are not, I hope, unmindful that others may hold the same of the place where they encounter the Risen Lord.

My own personal hope is that others find what I have found in Orthodoxy; if they find that where they are, who am I to think I can set a limit to the work of the Spirit? We can know only what we experience; but we ought not to forget the same is true of others.

What does make us wary, and that was what Protoevangel was, I suspect, getting at, is the notion of syncretism. However unfashionable it may be in parts of the Western world, there is a revealed Truth, and it is a person, the Risen Christ. Any attempt to water down to a lowest common denominator the 'faith once given', does threaten the means of salvation; this is why 'false ecumenism' meets such a fierce response from the Orthodox.

That true ecumenism, which consists in finding what others who confess the name of Christ hold, does not seek unity as its goal, although it may, if it is God's will, find it as a consequence of straight talking - and listening to the same.
Peace,

Anglian

 

[Michael G]

Dear Till,

I would not presume to speak for other Orthodox, least of all on this forum which is the home of what is, for conveniences' sake called Eastern Orthodox; for one thing, they are more than capable of speaking for themselves; for another, I know how easy it is for the holding of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology to come across in the way you have described it, almost as an equivalent of that Protestant or Catholic declaration that they are the one true Church.

My own bishop is fond of the formulation one often sees in Orthodox literature, which is that whilst one can be sure where the Church is not, only God is sure where it is. It may well be that sometimes, in the sheer joy of the encounter with the Risen Christ in the Orthodox Church that we do sometimes give the impression that He is only with us; if we do that, then we fail in humility - or at the very least, in clarity of expression.

We know the Holy Ghost is with us, and we know that despite the many travails through which the Orthodox Church has passed and is passing, the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it; but that ought not to lead us into prideful attitudes; we should boast in naught save the name of Christ, and Him Crucified and Risen. To those to whom much has been given, much is expected, and there is none of us, no, not even one, who is righteous. So, if an impression of pride has been created, it is meet and right that we should say that any pride is only in Christ.

That said, the Orthodox do, of course, hold what others do in their turn, which is that the fullness of the Faith is to be found within the living Holy Tradition of the Church; but I hope we do that not in a spirit of denigrating others, but in one which simply expresses the hope that the healing which we have found, might also be found by others. And, of course, we can only be sure that that healing is found within the spiritual hospital which is the Orthodox Church. But we are not, I hope, unmindful that others may hold the same of the place where they encounter the Risen Lord.

My own personal hope is that others find what I have found in Orthodoxy; if they find that where they are, who am I to think I can set a limit to the work of the Spirit? We can know only what we experience; but we ought not to forget the same is true of others.

What does make us wary, and that was what Protoevangel was, I suspect, getting at, is the notion of syncretism. However unfashionable it may be in parts of the Western world, there is a revealed Truth, and it is a person, the Risen Christ. Any attempt to water down to a lowest common denominator the 'faith once given', does threaten the means of salvation; this is why 'false ecumenism' meets such a fierce response from the Orthodox.

That true ecumenism, which consists in finding what others who confess the name of Christ hold, does not seek unity as its goal, although it may, if it is God's will, find it as a consequence of straight talking - and listening to the same.
Peace,

Anglian

Very, very well said and much better said than I could have done.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

The Ethiopian Church is even older, it was established by the Ethiopian eunuch who was mentioned in the Gospel. Or maybe I am wrong.

Anyways, both Churches are far more ancient than Rome, which in its current form did not come to be until it was excommunicated at the Great Schism.

Officially the Ethiopean Church was established by the Alexandrian Church by our pope St. Athanasuis , for sure it has old jewish roots

 

[Michael G]

Officially the Ethiopean Church was established by the Alexandrian Church by our pope St. Athanasuis , for sure it has old jewish roots

When did St. Athanasius live?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Michael,

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (in transliterated Amharic:Yäityop'ya ortodoks täwahedo bétäkrestyan) dates its foundation to the early 4th century and to the activities of St. Frumentius (Ge'ez, ፍሬምናጦስ ) who died c. AD 383, and is said to have been the first bishop of Axum.

A hellenised Syrian, born in Tyre, his story is told in Rifinius; history, where we read how Frumentius and his brothere Edesius went with their uncle on a journey to Ethiopia, where they were captured and sold as slaves to the king of Axum. They soon became favourites of his, and he gave them their liberty before his death. But thee Queen prevailed on them to stay in Axum, where they helped educate the young heir, Ezana. They educated him and others in the Faith, and encouraged Christians from Egypt and elsewhere to come to Axum.

St. Frumentius himself went to Alexandria where he asked the Patriarch Athanasius to send a bishop and some priests to Axum. According to St. Athanasius' own account (in his letter to Constantius) he thought Frumentius himself the best choice. So he returned, with priests from Alexandria, converted the young king, andthus brought the Faith to Ethiopia. St. Frumentius is known in Ethiopia as Kesate Birhan (revealer of the light).

Hope that helps,

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Reader Antonius]

Article:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/10/pope-non-catholic-churches-defective/

Why did the Catholic Pope say Orthodox churches were defective?

(I don't understand how the OC could be defective)

The statement simply is noting what the Catholic Church believes and continues to believe, namely, the She posseses the fullness of ecclesial reality that Christ had in mind for the Church and which was implemented through the Apostles and their successors.

To be out of communion with Rome, in our view, means that the church(es) in question are not fully "Catholic."

Peace be with you.

 

[Michael G]

The statement simply is noting what the Catholic Church believes and continues to believe, namely, the She posseses the fullness of ecclesial reality that Christ had in mind for the Church and which was implemented through the Apostles and their successors.

To be out of communion with Rome, in our view, means that the church(es) in question are not fully "Catholic."

Peace be with you.

And our view of things is that when 1 Patriarch breaks communion with 4 Patriarchs the single Patriarch who broke communion is no longer Orthodox and has severed his Apostolic Succession.

 

[Michael G]

Dear Michael,

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (in transliterated Amharic:Yäityop'ya ortodoks täwahedo bétäkrestyan) dates its foundation to the early 4th century and to the activities of St. Frumentius (Ge'ez, ፍሬምናጦስ ) who died c. AD 383, and is said to have been the first bishop of Axum.

A hellenised Syrian, born in Tyre, his story is told in Rifinius; history, where we read how Frumentius and his brothere Edesius went with their uncle on a journey to Ethiopia, where they were captured and sold as slaves to the king of Axum. They soon became favourites of his, and he gave them their liberty before his death. But thee Queen prevailed on them to stay in Axum, where they helped educate the young heir, Ezana. They educated him and others in the Faith, and encouraged Christians from Egypt and elsewhere to come to Axum.

St. Frumentius himself went to Alexandria where he asked the Patriarch Athanasius to send a bishop and some priests to Axum. According to St. Athanasius' own account (in his letter to Constantius) he thought Frumentius himself the best choice. So he returned, with priests from Alexandria, converted the young king, andthus brought the Faith to Ethiopia. St. Frumentius is known in Ethiopia as Kesate Birhan (revealer of the light).

Hope that helps,

Peace,

Anglian

Thank you! That does help quite a bit!

 

[Reader Antonius]

And our view of things is that when 1 Patriarch breaks communion with 4 Patriarchs the single Patriarch who broke communion is no longer Orthodox and has severed his Apostolic Succession.

Exactly.