Deacon Nikolai wrote:The term is just a more gentle way of saying that.
Dear in Christ, Fr. Dcn. Nicholas,
Then we must not condemn those "World Orthodox" Churches for using diplomatic and 'gentle' words when dialoguing with the heterodox. Perhaps we have simply misunderstood the Balamand Aggreement which was also simply phrased in a 'gentle' way? 
George
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
Deacon Nikolai wrote:I do not agree with the Cyprianites, but neither do I call them 'World Orthodox'. However when ROCOR-L does go in to union with the MP I will ask that new threads will go in this thread. The old threads would not be moved as it was a bout a ROCOR before they succumbed.
Dear in Christ OOD,
I have three questions.
1) Are you saying by this that "World Orthodox" is defined by what you consider to be "World Orthodox"?
2) Do you consider the Jerusalem Patriarchate and/or the Serbian Patriarchate to be "World Orthodox"? After all, these two Patriarchates are in Communion with the MP, the EP, the Antiochian Patriarchate, the Church of Greece, etc.
3) If your answer to question (2) is 'yes', then isn't ROCOR already 'World Orthodox' for being in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia? Why don't you move the ROCOR posts now?
George
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
Justin Kissel wrote:As worded, it does not say that people within Orthodoxy have to fall into the heresies listed, for it is enough if they merely "sought communion with" those heresies. Certainly, some Protestants are iconoclasts. Therefore, when he mentions iconoclasts, I believe that Dcn. Nikolai was speaking of those Protestants who participate in the WCC and who some Orthodox (from one perspective) have sought communion with (given all the agreed-statements and whatnot). Not saying I agree or disagree with this, that's just what comes to mind.
Fair enough, but then I have to ask which Orthodox are seeking communion with (and here's the important part) which Protestants? I am not aware of mainline Protestant churches formally denying the theology behind icons, whether or not they use them, and I'm reasonably sure Anglicans have images, two-dimensional and three-dimensional. Who are the "iconoclast Protestants" with whom "the Orthodox" are seeking communion?
Mor Ephrem wrote:Justin Kissel wrote:As worded, it does not say that people within Orthodoxy have to fall into the heresies listed, for it is enough if they merely "sought communion with" those heresies. Certainly, some Protestants are iconoclasts. Therefore, when he mentions iconoclasts, I believe that Dcn. Nikolai was speaking of those Protestants who participate in the WCC and who some Orthodox (from one perspective) have sought communion with (given all the agreed-statements and whatnot). Not saying I agree or disagree with this, that's just what comes to mind.
Fair enough, but then I have to ask which Orthodox are seeking communion with (and here's the important part) which Protestants? I am not aware of mainline Protestant churches formally denying the theology behind icons, whether or not they use them, and I'm reasonably sure Anglicans have images, two-dimensional and three-dimensional. Who are the "iconoclast Protestants" with whom "the Orthodox" are seeking communion?
Ephraim, actually, there was a couple of years ago, amongst Traditionalists in Greece who provoked Schism regarding a contreversy about several Icons that depicted Divinity in Symbolism. (If you can recall, George of Australia and Paul (Azkoul) had quite an engaging post when I open conversation about it.) Icons such as the Holy and Life-giving Trinity depicting the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as an elderly Father in the human form, the Son as He is, and the Holy Spirit as a Dove. Another Icon issue was the Icon of the Ascension of the Lord and his depiction going up in the Heavens aside Him with two Angels. And other Divine (invisible to the human eye), depicted in human symbolism.
pjhatala wrote:George Australia wrote:3) If your answer to question (2) is 'yes', then isn't ROCOR already 'World Orthodox' for being in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia? Why don't you move the ROCOR posts now?
George
That's what I was getting at originally.
Dear Servant of God,
And despite what OOD says, we whom he calls "Cyprianites" must also, by definition be "World Orthodox" for currently being in Communion with ROCOR. See what I mean by the arbitrary application of the term "World Orthodox"? Like I said, I wouldn't worry about it- the term is meaningless.
George
"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."
Dcn Nicolai wrote:
Every person's line in the sand is different, some have left earlier and some will not leave until the ink has dried on the union papers, but it is never an easy thing to do.
The question that comes to mind is whether or not we drew the line too soon..... Did we give up to fast or was there something more that we could have done? Did we follow the dictates of God or the dictates or man? Yes, we need to run from the heretical, but maybe God has something in mind and we did not trust in him... It's all very difficult to know for sure....
A further comment on the union vs con-celebration.
Funny that the whole world is calling this a union, yet all the documents I have seen call this a rapproachement....defined in Websters as...
the establishment of or state of having cordial relations
.... In Russian it is refered to as "межправославным отношениям" ...roughly translated as inter-Orthodox relations.
Confusing as all get out, but to me that does not sound like a re-unification.
Katya
