Michael, please, use double spaces for paragraph breaks. It is very hard on the eyes to read long postings with no paragraphs or spaces. Thank you!
Saying Non-Chalced. are Orthodox does not = branch theory
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
-
mwoerl
In my previous post on this topic, I mentioned participation in ecumenism and agreements with Rome undertaken by the Oriental Orthodox. I would like to supply a bit of documentary evidence for both. The following information comes from an article entitled, "Union With the Monophysites: What Comes Next?," which appeared in the Number four, 1995 issue of "Orthodox Tradition." While this will be long, I feel it is worth the attention of any Orthodox Christian who has either positive or negative feelings about the proposed union with the Oriental Orthodox.
". . . Many Orthodox Christians have been disturbed-and rightly so-by the fervid participation of "World Orthodoxy" in the ecumenical movement. Unfortunately for those Orthodox Christians who will be a party to this union [that is, of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox] the torchbearers of "World Orthodoxy" are mere novices in the ecumenical arena in comparison to their soon-to-be Monophysite brethren. An example of the Monophysite enthusiasm for ecumenism, above and beyond the call of duty, is the speech prepared by Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, Metropolitan of Delhi, India, of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church (a Monophysite church in India, autonomous under the Monophysite Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch). This Monophysite hierarch is also President for Asia of the World Council of Churches; his speech was prepared for opening festivities celebrating the centennial of the eighteen ninety-three Parliament of the World's Religions, and also publicizing the nineteen ninety-three Parliament. The remarks of Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios are long-winded, but shed a good deal of light on ther ecumenist and pan-religious agenda of the Non-Chalcedonians:
'. . . Our purpose shall be to provide a multifaceted foundation on which,
in mutual respect, the cultures of the world can come together and live
in a global concourse of religions . . . Marxists have recognized that the
values which shall unite humanityand shall make it possible for all
nations to live together in peace cannot come out of secular ideology,
but will have to come from a moral vision of humanity . . . I would like to
see a concourse-a flowing together, a running together-of all religions
. . . if religion is not relevant to justice in this world, religion is not worth
having . . . the reason why the secular humanist movement had to arise
in the West was because the Christian religion lost its humanist vision
. . . we don't need to fight secularism, but rather should learn from it
. . . history is pushing us to move out of national parochialism and into
universal humanism . . . out of nation patriotism to patriotism of the
globe-the love of humanity, planetary patriotism . . . the various
religions of the world have honored and cherished the experience of the
transcendent throughout human history . . . we have done so through
our doctrines and practices . . . through our prayers and rituals, through
our mystic quests and experiences, through our compassion for
humanity and our devotion to the Source and Ground of all being. Of
course, in religion too, we have made a mess of things . . . Relgion, too,
needs an emancipation . . . Let us move also to common prayer, that
all humanity may be brought into a single concourse and all of us
acknowledge together in various idioms the Transcendent Love, Wisdom,
and Power that really unites us all.' [Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, "The
Vision Beckons: From Parliament of Religions to Global Concourse of
Religion," in "A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions," Chicago,
The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, nineteen ninety-
three, pp. 15-17]
"The ecumenism of "World Orthodoxy" seems rather tame when contrasted to this speech. While "World Orthodoxy" has hastened to emulate the policies of ecumenism, the author of the speech quoted above
seems to be an architect of such policies . . .
"Another hidden snare of unity is that the Monophysites have not been so naive as to place all of their "unity eggs" into one basket. It has been noted above that the Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue has been going on for decades [this reference to a previous statement in the article not quoted here]. But Monophysite dialogue with Rome has also been going on for decades. This dialogue has resulted in agreements-both finalized and pending-that surpass any Orthodox agreements with Rome thus far. The old adage tells us that 'All Roads Lead to Rome.' The road of union with the Monophysites will not prove to be an exception.
"The "Catholic-Syrian Orthodox [Monophysite] Statement" was signed on July twenty three, nineteen eighty-four, by Pope John-Paul II and Patriarch Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka Iwas I of Antioch. This statement declared that the Roman Pope and the Monophysite Patriarch
'kneel down with full humility in front of the exalted and extolled
heavenly throne of our Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks for this glorious
opportunity which has been granted to us to meet together in His love
in order to strengthen further the relationship between our two sister
churches-the relationship already excellent through the joint initiative
of their holinesses of blessed memory, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran
Mar Ignatius Jacoub III . . . Their holinesses Pope John-Paul II and
Patriarch Zakka I wish solemnly to widen the horizon of their
brotherhood and affirm herewith the terms of deep spiritual communion
which already unites them and the prelates, clergy, and faithful of both
their Churches . . . and to advance to find a wholly common ecclesial
life . . . hence we wish to reaffirm our common profession of faith . . .
as Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran Mar Ignatius Jacoub III did in
Our identity in faith, though not yet complete, entitles us to
envisage collaboration between our churches in pastoral care . . . It is
not rare, in fact, for our faithful to find access to a priest of their own
church materially or morally impossible. Anxious to meet their need
and with their benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for
the sacraments of penance, the eucharist, and the anointing of the sick
from lawful priests of either of our two sister churches . . . It would be a
logical corollary of collaboration in pastoral care to cooperate in priestly
formation and theological education . . . thanking the Lord Who has
allowed us to meet and enjoy the consolation of the faith that we hold
in common.' ["Catholic-Syrian Orthodox Statement," in NADEO
Handbook, nineteen eighty-four]"More recent is the "Agreement between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on Inter-Church Marriages," finalized on January 25, nineteen ninety-four. This statement was 'prepared taking
into account' the Catholic-Syrian Orhtodox Statement quoted above . . .
Noting the 'common profession of faith of the Pope and the Patriarch,' the
parties . . . agree that
' . . . both churches should facilitate the celebration of the sacrament of
matrimony in either church, allowing the bride/bridegroom the right and
freedom to retain his/her own eclesial communion . . . On the occasion of
these celebrations, the couples, as well as thier family members
belonging to these two churches are allowed to participate in the holy
eucharist in the church where the sacrament of matrimony is being
celebrated.' ["Agreement between the Catholic Church and the
Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church on Inter-Church Marriages," Rome,
Information Service of the PCPU, nineteen ninety-three]"The Coptic Church was near to a similar agreement on sharing the eucharist after an agreed statement of faith," [The Rev. Ernest R. Falardeau, S.S.S., Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Archdiocese of Santa Fe, letter, January, 1995] but that agreement has not yet been finalized.
" . . . what could be next?
'The Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, His Holiness Mar
Dinkha IV [Nestorian], and Pope John-Paul II signed an agreement on
November 11, nineteen ninety-four, that moved beyond the christological
divisions that marked the Council of Ephesus in four thirty C.E. The text
includes a commitment to move toward full communion.' [Jeffrey Gros,
F.S.C., "Christological Agreement Celebrated in Rome," Washington,
D.C., Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, nineteen
ninety-four]"And, after all these 'sad divisions of ancient Christianity' have been 'healed' by the realization that the Holy Fathers were in error, and that modern man, from the vantage point of the spiritually bankrupt and apostate twentieth century, is wiser by far than the Holy Fathers, we ask again, and with trepidation: What comes next?"
---------------------------------
I hope this information is of interest to all on the Forum! I also apologize that some of my numeral keys are not functioning-it is probably as much of a pain to read it as it is to type it! I have not really pursued following up on whether or not the agreement between Rome and the Copts was ever finalized, nor am I aware of any further agreements. If the 'deal' with the Copts was indeed finalized, or if there have been other and more far-reaching agreements-after seeing what has been presented here-would it be a surprise?
michael woerl
if someone on here could please explain to me how to use the "quotes" thingy, i would greatly appreciate it, probably even more than anyone else who would care to wade thriugh any of my future posts...
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Michael,
...or negative feelings about the proposed union with the Oriental Orthodox.
Proposed? It is done. And being enacted to a much greater extent than I fear you realize.
There are even people on this forum who have Monophysites communed in their church. We don't even need to bring up Antioch or Alexandria.
-
mwoerl
union with monophysites a done deal?
OOD write: "Proposed? It is done. And being enacted to a much greater extent than I fear you realize. There are even people on this forum who have Monophysites communed in their church. We don't even need to bring up Antioch or Alexandria."
I will repeat how I ended my last post on this subject: I did not follow up at all on further Orthodox-Monophysite agreements, or Roman-Monophysite agreements after the appearance of the article quoted, which appreared in 1995.
If the union is indeed "done," I would like very much to know about dates, agreements, documents, etc. The only thing I really heard after the article appeared was that the Orthodox and Monophysite Patriarchates of Antioch did, indeed sign an agreement that went pretty far; however, I was told that the agreement could not be acted upon until it was "approved" by all the Orthodox Churches ("World Orthodoxy"). Just yesterday, in fact, a friend told me that there is practically intercommunion between the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Coptic Patriarchate, but knew of no official agreements. Again, if a union has been "done," and enacted to "a much greater degree" than I realize, I would certainly also like to know to exactly what degree it has been enacted.
As far as people in this forum who have monophysites communed in the parishes they attend, I would have to ask a question: is this being done as "official policy," or is this being done because their priest thinks it is a swell thing to do, regardless of what his bishop says? If this is happening, say in an OCA, Greek Archdiocese, Antiochian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian parish-it would be "official" policy if EVERY parish of that jurisdiction was asked: "Do you commune Oriental Orthodox?", and the answer was, "Yes, we do." It would be "official" if you contacted all Diocesan headquarters, as well as "Archdiocesan" headquarters, and asked, "Does your Church commune Oriental Orthodox?," and the answer was, "Yes, we do." It would be "official" if you contacted the Patirarchates over these Churches (or in the case of the OCA, Metropolitan Herman or the Syosset, N.Y. headquarters) and asked, "Does your Church commune Oriental Orthodox?," and the answer was, "Yes, we do."
If this question would elicit a "No, we do not" answer from parishes, Dioceses, Bishops, Patriarchs, etc., then it would not be an "official" policy.
Undoubtedly, one would wonder why I make this distinction. It is because I have seen repeated instances where an errant priest does things totally of his own accord, without any approval from his Bishop, and then whatever jurisdiction he may be in is accused of "officially" sanctioning such acts, and that jurisdiction is therefore denounced as "ecumenist," "nazi sympathizers," "anti-semitic," what have you. This was a favorite tactic of the Boston Monastery, both in the days that they belonged to the Russian Church Abroad, and in their subsequent re-incarnation as "HOCNA." What individual errant priests do does not make an "official" policy, nor does it "blacken the name" of an entire Church.
A good example of such behavior on the part of priests is the recent "homosexual wedding" performed by a priest of the Moscow Patirarchate. I am by no means an apologist for the Moscow Patriarchate, but, one must be fair. Therefore, the "wedding" performed by this priest can in no way be interpreted as a "wrong" of the Moscow Patriarchate; we cannot say, "see, we can't have anything to do with them because they perform homosexual weddings." Or, "of course homosexual weddings are impermissible by the canons, so the Moscow Patriarchate is now condemned . . ." That would be ridiculous.
If people on this forum attend parishes where communion is given to Monophysites, I would ask: Does your Bishop know about this? What did he say when he was told? Has he been told? Does this situation prevail in all the parishes of your jurisdiction? Does your Bishop also do this?
I went to an OCA parish in Milwaukee once to meet a friend. I got there just as the priest had begun to give communion. I noticed several people at this Liturgy who were obviously Ethiopian. I saw some of them receive communion. I was prepared to become righteously indignant, when I realized that I did not know for certain that these Ethiopians were Monophysites, or if they had converted to Orthodoxy. So, I figured I had better save my righteous indignation for a time when I was exactly certain of what was going on. I know that at some times, in some parishes of the OCA, communion has been given to Monophysites. I also know that it is not an official policy of the OCA to do so.
If such an ignoring of an official policy is widespread, and ignored by a majority of the priests of this or that jurisdiction, that is another story. If a Bishop regularly participates in such actions, in spite of official policy, that is another story.
The point here is that if a few priests give communion to Monophysites, I do not think that can be used as evidence of a "union." I simply want to make that very clear, because, unfortunately, this kind of "zeal without knowledge" has resulted in the damaging of the traditionalist Orthodox position, where you have accusations flying, denunciations flying, and, it all turns out to be over basically nothing.
If some priests give communion to Monophysites, of course, it is wrong. Also, it seems there is a very unfortunate circumstance in many "World Orthodoxy" parishes, especially, I am told, large Greek Archdiocese parishes, where simply ANYONE who approaches the chalice is communed.
This brings up another question. If the New Calendarists have "no grace," then what would it matter WHO they gave communion to? Would it matter because THEY THOUGHT they have grace? If so, does that work the other way around-when a person approaching the chalice is pious, not involved in ecumenism, and THINKS the communion he receives is, indeed, the Body and Blood of Christ, is it? Certainly, if they have no grace, if the communion they give to their faithful is NOT the Body and Blood of Christ, then they could not be in violation of any canon, could they?
This is something that I have always sort of questioned within the traditionalist position. Believe me, by ten years ago I had seen all the photos and read all the accounts of ecumenist activities that I needed to. If these "World Orthodoxy" people have no grace, why do we continue to be concerned about it? If they are outside the Orthodox Church, why dont we go on to some more positive occupations than continually being aghast at Bartholomew going to see the Pope in St. Peter's, concelebrating with him? It has happened every year for the past how many-why does it surprise or outrage us again this time? Why will it yet again the next time? Why are these people ("World Orthodoxy") then, any different to us than Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses?
michael woerl
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
Michael,
I'm heading out the door and won't be back until late tomorrow but I wanted to say something.
"official policy", not "official policy", it is all the same when you follow Orthodox policy.
On paper the union has been made official. Not only that, but it has been followed up with "official" announcements such as the one where Alexandria announced they were going to start recognizing Monophysite "marriages". I hope someone can point you into the direction of these documents, I don't have the time.
In addition, it has been the long standing "official policy" of Antioch to commune Monophysites. They have said so themselves.
I don't know how else to say this Michael, but don't be fooled into waiting for "officialdom" to correct what is happening from the back door, the heretics are "officialdom", and they are simply waiting for the subversive instruments they are implementing these policies to be accepted at a grass roots level. Athenagoras said so himself.
Could someone please give Michael some links to some "official" documents? I have to go, sorry Michael for the shallow reply.
-
mwoerl
"official"???
again, i would be very interested to see any agreements, statements, "position papaers," whatever, on this subject.
as i mentioned, if communing monophysites is okayed by any bishops, or actually a widespread practice, then it is an entirely different story.
however, i have seen too many times myself incidents which were misunderstood by people who saw them, or incidents related by people who only "heard" about them, and the truth happened to be quite different from the mistaken impressions and from "well, i heard...."
such an incident was abp. (then bishop) alypy ATTENDING a sunday of orthodoxy (scoba-type) vespers some years ago. he ATTENDED, period, he did not serve, was not vested, etc. yet, some who "heard about it..." pronounced this as "evidence" that the church abroad had "joined with ecumenism," which was so ridiculous as to be laughable. all i am saying is it is much better to have evidence, not anecdotes such as " i think i saw .....," or, "someone told me....," etc., etc., etc. it is also not a good practice to make claims such as the one above concerning abp alypy-when people make ridiculous claim after ridiculous claim, if, at some time, they DO finally make a legitimate claim over a legitimate issue-no one pays attention because all they remember is the ridiculous! in other words, conspiracy theories, "the jews and masons are taking over the world," "bar codes are the mark of the beast"-stuff like this aint gonna get ya far!
accusations of HERESY are, after all, quite a serious matter-wouldn't all on here agree? i would not want to make such accusations based on hearsay is all i am saying.
and-i might ask again-if the "World Orthodoxy" jurisdictions are ALREADY without grace, how does any of these unions/agreements/intercommunion/recognizing marriages of the monophysites have any importance whatsoever? or do these things make them MORE without grace? you know, it would seem you can't have it both ways.......... i sincerely hope this question of mine does not offend anyone on here; this question has crosssed my mind from time to time-i am asking it seriously and sincerely. i have not really ever made up my mind on that question-some times i have thought, "no, they do not have grace," sometimes i have thought, "yes, they do have grace," sometimes i have thought "i do not know if they do or not..." but, again, if THEY DO NOT HAVE GRACE-with all that it implies-means to me that further concern about anything they do or do not do is basically much ado about nothing, as well as a waste of time and efforts. so, let me ask again-if "World Orthodoxy" is, inceed, without grace, why are they any different to us than the Jehovah's Witnesses?
michael woerl