Ecumenist (con-)celebration of MP in Italy

[Savva24]

I'm glad to show you how the celebrant , after having incensed Metropolitan Kirill, then incenses the papist "archbishop" as a normal Orthodox Bishop , besides the incensig of the roman catholic clergy present by the sides of the altar (notice how RC clergy seems to actively partecipate to the prayers in this function!) ]

Most people are usually not so blatant about their gloating over such a misfortunate event. Why anyone would be ''glad'' to tell us about this is beyond me. :ohvey:

Nicholas (Savva)

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Even in ROCOR in the 1950's there were cases where visiting Roman Catholic hiearchs were invited to sit in the altar area. Seems like a common courtesy to me.

It was not "courtesy", it was feel-good ecumenism at the expense of the Will of God.

Only baptized Orthodox Christians are allowed in the altar area.

This only proves that whoever in the ROCOR did this, was in grave error. And an example of error should never be used to justify anything.

[Gregory]

Only baptized Orthodox Christians are allowed in the altar area.

Right. The common courtesy should be to treat them with respect, to listen attentively to their arguments and to work towards uncompromising reconciliation. But please, no more silly liturgical games.

When discussing the Faith with non-Orthodox, stick to an honest, constructive and uncompromising discussion OUTSIDE of the temple.

Only holy things are allowed inside the altar...these include those who have been illuminated through Chrismation.

Greg
OCAorDeath!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

There is this local new-calendarist priest who visits us for vespers every so often, sometimes with his wife. He is not afforded any kind of clerical recognition, and conducts himself like a layman.

I think people would be surprised how well he is treated: he is not tackled and locked in a room or anything like that.

[Anastasios]

Problem is, they have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds of years. Read the book Eustratios Argenti by Timothy (Bp Kallistos) Ware.

A good argument can be made that such activity is wrong, but the usual arguments that this brings about the usual deposition because of praying with heretics, etc. is absurd: if such were the case, all Orthodox bishops by 1700 would be condemned for either a) doing this sort of stuff or b) concelebrating with those who did.

I am not opposed to saying such actions are wrong (even though I don't think they're wrong: no big surprise there), but come on, let's not pretend that before 1924 this stuff never happened, and the Calendar Change is to blame for it all. :ohvey:

anastasios

[bogoliubtsy]

Even in ROCOR in the 1950's there were cases where visiting Roman Catholic hiearchs were invited to sit in the altar area. Seems like a common courtesy to me.

It was not "courtesy", it was feel-good ecumenism at the expense of the Will of God.

Only baptized Orthodox Christians are allowed in the altar area.

This only proves that whoever in the ROCOR did this, was in grave error. And an example of error should never be used to justify anything.

I still think it's kind of strange, but the fact is, in addition to the cases Anastasios mentioned, St. Tikhon allowed this to happen with the Angilcans.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

I am not saying this is "heretical" ect. It is in general just very wrong practice, which I believe a priest or bishop should generally be first instructed, censored, up to and including being deposed for (depending on the gravity). But if he is not, I am not going to say he is not a priest because of an error in practice.

On the other hand, I will even say that if a priest or a bishop well known for his holiness decides something different, then one should try to understand the reasonings. He is after all considered to know better, and some things are not always completly black and white.

To reinforce the general idea thought, and it sounds like you agree...

You know Anastasios that the only difference between a deacon, a priest, a bishop, and a layman, is the difference in Charismata. They are all members of the Church.

So if baptized Christians should only be in the altar out of nessesity, and even catechumans have to leave the liturgy when the words are spoken "catchumans depart" (and I know you probably disagree with this practice), and if the "secret prayers" are not to be heard and the altar area not even seen by the layman during this time, what does this say about heretic "bishops" being in the altar area!? Are they not even less privelged than a catechuman? By letting them in the altar, does that not say to faithful these men are worthy, giving legitimacy to their errors and separation from the Church?

Now I could start citing all the examples of the Saints who would not even share a bathhouse with a heretic "bishop", but I think it is abundantly clear what the Church teaches regarding this. And I think you agree Anastasios. It is your willingness to agree when your conscience tells you to that shows an honesty, and leads me to think you'll join the church one day, God willing.

But those minimalists who are constantly struggling to dissect, surgically remove, and hold up high examples of error are fighting Christ and His Church, they are "kicking against the goads".