a past Bishop of the OCA decried OCA's rampant Ecumenism

[romiosini]

Lord Have Mercy!

[尼古拉前执事]

From that page:

The present bishops of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA, formerly known as the Metropolia) and the instructors at St. Vladimir's Seminary, Yonkers, New York, should be held accountable to follow that which has been laid down by their Church in previous years. Read the recent statements and articles in Saint Vladimir's Quarterly by these men and you will see, first hand, how they have deviated from the Orthodox faith.

May the faithful laity awaken to their responsibilities and demand their bishops and teachers adhere to the Orthodox faith. Ask your bishop or priest in the OCA why he no longer follows the guidelines once given by the hierarchs? Let me ask again the question, "Who has changed their Orthodox faith, those who follow the Julian calendar or the New Calendarists."

Actions speak louder than words.

[Грешник]

Ok, so a past Bishop of the OCA decried Ecumenism. This is laudable.

The OCA "venerates" this man but at the same time turns their backs on his wisdom and does exactly the opposite of what he warned them not to do.

How exactly should this change my mind about the OCA? I am supposed ot look at them now as Hierarchs who dispise holiness and turn their backs on wisdom...

Interesting, but this does more for me. I pity them. For they had a chance at repentance and they did not take it. Instead they did just the opposite and continue to this day to deny the Truths of the Church.

Juvenaly

[Anastasios]

Seems like more spin to me. What articles are problematic? What actions of the OCA are problematic? I agree that some things that have happened are problematic but I won't deal with vague accusations. I am taking an ecumenism class and we have watched both pro-and con presentations of ecumenism so far. We even were showed Metropolitan Cyprian's group's famous video against Ecumenism (of course certain mistruths were pointed out). Some people in the class think things have gone too far, some think everything is fine. Even the professor who was a member of the WCC staff said it was frustrating being there but he felt called by God to witness Orthodoxy. Ecumenism is such a complex issue that it can't be reduced to cut and paste jobs and pot-shot comments. Such is not charitable.

Also, we have to be aware that people change over time. For instance, Iakovos is often assailed as a vile ecumenist (of course no one ever mentions how CHristian he was to stand up with Dr King in the 1960's) but last year he gave a talk at Holy Trinity Church in Rye, NY where he said that "Orthodoxy is the ONLY faith brought down to us from the apostles" (emphasis his).

In troubled times, the first step was NOT breaking communion as some here suggest. The first step is brotherly correction. And that is happening within the "World Orthodox" Church. Just look at the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, who derided Ecumenism. Some point out that "well they are still a member of the WCC" to which I answer, "GOOD!" St Mark of Ephesus was at Florence; the Orthodox need to be at the WCC offering correction.

One would do well to read the following quote from Fr Seraphim Rose:

“Some would-be zealots of Orthodoxy use the term [ecumenism] in entirely too imprecise a fashion, as though the very use of the term or contact with an ‘ecumenical’ organization is itself a ‘heresy.’ Such views are clearly exaggerations. ‘Ecumenism’ is a heresy only if it actually involves the denial that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. A few of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have gone this far; but most Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement have not said this much; and a few (such as the late Fr. Georges Florovsky) have only irritated the Protestants in the ecumenical movement by frequently stating at ecumenical gatherings that Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ. One must certainly criticize the participation of even these latter persons in the ecumenical movement, which at its best is misleading and vague about the nature of Christ’s Church; but one cannot call such people ‘heretics,’ nor can one affirm that any but a few Orthodox representatives have actually taught ecumenism as a heresy. The battle for true Orthodoxy in our times is not aided by such exaggerations.”

“The excessive reaction against the ecumenical movement has the same worldly spirit that is present in the ecumenical movement itself.”

Fr. Seraphim Rose

Hieromonk Damascene, Father Seraphim Rose, His Life and Works, p. 997.

In Christ,

anastasios

[Justin Kissel]

anastasios

I'm not looking to get into a long discussion on ecumenism at this point, when we areespecially (more than any other time in the year) called to remember our own faults and to not even look at the faults of others (let alone judge them). However, I would like to add a few comments of hopefully a non-confrontational nature, and would love to hear your response.

In troubled times, the first step was NOT breaking communion as some here suggest. The first step is brotherly correction. And that is happening within the "World Orthodox" Church. ...Some point out that "well they are still a member of the WCC" to which I answer, "GOOD!" St Mark of Ephesus was at Florence; the Orthodox need to be at the WCC offering correction.

How long should "brotherly correction" last? The Scripture suggests that, when it comes to serious errors, it should be done 2 or 3 times (depending on the passage). You bring up the wonderful Saint Mark of Ephesus, in that he participated (we thank the Lord!) in the Council of Ferarra-Florence. My question is, can St. Mark's dialogue be compared to that of today? It's my understanding that these false union councils that St. Mark participated in lasted but a short time, and that the way they went about things was essentially for theologians from both sides to get up and read papers to everyone, to which the other side would then write a paper and read in response.

This seems to be very different from the ongoing ecumenical dialogues, which are mixed with discussions about everything from female priests to homosexuality, having joint prayers together, and joint worship services (which admittedly the Orthodox for the most part do not attend). The Orthodox participation in the WCC has gone on for how many decades now? I've heard that Fr. Georges Florovsky started to regret, at the end of his life, his participation in the WCC. Can we say, even now in 2004, that the 2 or 3 times for seeking "brotherly correction" have not yet passed? I ask these questions of those outside of ROCOR.

On the other hand, from a ROCOR perspective--and admittedly a conservative one --the focus on ecumenism changed decades ago: the question I just asked of those outside ROCOR isn't really relevant at this point to those within ROCOR. I think that, with the Sorrowful Epistles of Met. Philaret (written with the ROCOR Bishop's approval), the focus of "brotherly correction" was taken off of the WCC and put squarely on Orthodox participants in Ecumenism themselves. I think that such a focus was solidified in 1983. I wholly accept this change in focus. So for me, it's not even a question of whether brotherly correction of the heterodox should continue (through the Ecumenical movement), but has now become a question of whether brotherly correction of those Orthodox who participate in the Ecumenical movement should continue. When does the 2nd or 3rd time for brotherly correction pass regarding how we relate to the OCA, Antiochian, GOA, etc.?

This is not a condemnation of any group or people--it is simply a question. It is a question which I think needs to be explored as ROCOR begins it's attempts to unify the Russian Church, which--even if the MP left the WCC--would put ROCOR in full and "direct" communion with those Orthodox who are still organic members of the WCC. This is not an attack on the OCA, or on you--I have no wish to get into a discussion (right now) where the perceived problems of the OCA (or another group) are discussed, or the problems of other such jurisdictions. However, if you'd like to engage in some "brotherly correction" of your own, I'll be more than willing to listen to any answers to the above questions you'd be so kind as to offer (or a response that shows why my questions aren't valid ).

One would do well to read the following quote from Fr Seraphim Rose:...

Well, but Fr. Seraphim said many things that one might quote in regards to Ecumenism. In the Preface to Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, for instance, Fr. Seraphim calls ecumenism "the chief heresy of the 20th century" (this book being published in early 1975--and written perhaps as much as a year before that; and things have gotten worse since then, which surely even most of those in favor of participation in the WCC would agree with?). I believe that Fr. Seraphim saw the Ecumenical movement (not just the WCC of course, but the movement as a whole) to be that which would pave the way for Anti-Christ. Fr. Seraphim did regret some of the misguided "zealotry" "on the right" which he believed that he had helped produce, but I don't think that Fr. Seraphim could be said to be in favor of participation in the WCC, and was actually much more "sectarian" in his thoughts than most people realise (with some notable exceptions, such as communing Orthodox from new calendarist jurisdictions).

Anyway, I'm sure I've come off much more confronational in this post that I meant to--many of the questions posed (on this thread and others) were ones that are running through my head at the moment. They're the muddled thoughts of a confused individual who is trying to seek answers.