Nicholas wrote:Daniel, Welcome aboard! Glad to see you delurk and come to the posting side of forum life. I appreciate your post and look forward to many more in the future!
Thank you! I hope I don't disappoint you, I usually am fairly quiet though.
Daniel
OOD,
Thank you for the link (I'll be sure to read it tonight). I read the Orthodox-Catholic joint statement (and other documents) last night, and when I read the conclusion of this joint statement right next to the anathema of ecumenism of 1983 I couldn't help but fall into a stunned (inner) silence. The situation is frustrating and sad to a terrifying degree.
Paradosis,
It is sad and very terrifying.
Whenever I see "unofficial" documents like this I can never help but remember the most terrifyingly insidious statement I have ever heard; it is by "Patriarch" Athenagoras:
"Why do we not automatically return to Mysteriological (Sacramental) communion? Because it is necessary for us to prepare our peoples for it, both theologically and psychologically. During the nine hundred years that have elapsed since 1054, we, the two worlds of East and West, have come to think that we belong to different Churches and different religions. And, as a result, the purpose of dialogues becomes quite evident. It is to prepare our peoples psychologically to understand that there is one Church and one religion, that we all believe in the same God-the Savior Christ. You and we respect all religions and we esteem the place and the time in which we live" (from a homily given by the Patriarch in the chapel of Lambeth Palace, London, November 13, 1967)
Isn't this exactly the purpose of all these joint statements and decrees, which are repeated over and over again to a point where you have "that they all may be one" ringing in your ears, to prepare the people? What other purpose could all of these useless "unofficial" decrees and joint services have? The ecumenists only carefully reveal themselves as the conditions rippen.
The Orthodox became aware of their heresy little by little as it advanced and became more apparent. And the responsibility of the new-calendarists increased right along with this growing awareness until the mutual lifting of the anathemas in December of 1965 left them with no excuse. How much time did the seed of the Latin heresy need before it became the horrible tree we see today? Not only that, but how much time did it take for the schism between East and West to take place? Many will say the schism of the West from the Church, which began during Photius’ time, was completed during the patriarchate of Michael Cerularius in 1054. In other words, it needed two whole centuries to become complete. Even so, the Western Church was potentially heretical long before Saint Photius. But even during Saint Photius’ time, and possibly after, there were instances of sobriety, there were in the West men with discernment. When did the West completely die? Who can say? But what is the importance of knowing? The West was sick; it was a ship whose hull was breached and was taking on water and sinking. Death comes to him who sees that the ship he is on is sinking, yet he remains complacent and does not hasten to board a lifeboat.
Today, in the new-calendarists, the seed of heresy has blossomed and has become a plant which is apparent even to the least informed. Not one of them can profess ignorance unless they are willfully blind.
I'll cry whenever I see people going further into apostasy or heresy 
