|
0 members (),
1,799
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
At the time the agenda was created at Constantinople's Chambesy Centre in the 1970s many of the Churches were under the heel of Communist and Socialist regimes. It was expected that their participation in the proposed Great and Holy Council (possibly to be accepted as the 8th Ecumenical) would be fairly minimal and their delegates wouls be selected and controlled by their home governments.
Now the situation is much different. The once unhappy situation of Russia and Serbia and Bulgaria has been reversed. These are now Churches bouncing with a new vitality and Russia in particular has increased its membership by millions of faithful, tens of thousands of churches and priests and hundreds of bishops.
There is a possibility that Russia will mount a strong challenge at the Council to the ranking of the Churches in the diptychs. I would not expect it to go for first place, supplanting Constantinople, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tries for second place, pushing Alexandria down to 3rd place.
Moscow will also want to closely examine the whole question of "primacy" in Orthodoxy. Constantinople has made this inevitable since it promoted it so strongly in Ravenna in 2007 at the 10th meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Two years earlier at the 9th meeting in Belgrade it was also pushing the primacy issue.
Russia will also place the matter of the Bp Basil Osborne affair on the agenda. This will involve hard decisions being adopted about the scope of Constantinople's claimed right of "eccliton" in the modern world.
All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches. This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council. It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church. I agree with Fr Justin. Let sleeping dogs lie. We don't need this Council.
People in the New World get upset with the idea of abandoning the proposed Council. They expect it to resolve the administrative overlapping in America. It may and it may not. The American Church constitutes less than 1% of global Orthodoxy. Its problems simply do not need the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. They can be handled on a much lower level.
Why do we need this Council?
We have convened Great Councils in the past ONLY in response to a serious heresy threatening the Church - Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. Our Churches have not faced any such major heresies since the last Council in 787 AD. Yes, there have been minor heresies (e.g., the early 20th century "Nameworshipping" heresy among some of the Russians) but these have not affected the whole Church and were able to be dealt with successfully on a local level.
And there is another point which would indicate the perils of calling a Council without any greatly pressing need - we only need look at Vatican II and its not always happy results. Aggiornamento has not been without its down side. "Better to let sleeping dogs lie" as they say. The Holy Spirit has brought us to where we are today. That is enough for us.
Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse (the Pope's words) has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:
"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~
Well, there you are... thoughts from a nobody monk in Middle Earth. Dear Father Ambrose, Bless! You are *not* a nobody monk! You are *our* respected forum monk from Middle Earth!  I agree with everything you say. I think we best leave well enough alone in the Orthodox world!  Respectfully, In Christ, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Father Bless!
I don't understand. If a bishop is a bishop is a bishop as I've read over and over again by Orthodox posters, from the titular bishop of Pergamon to the practically Papal Patriarch of Moscow*, then why fight over Primacy? May the Lord bless! The crux of the matter is that Constantinople, ably assisted by Cardinal Casper, has been pushing for the acceptance of what the 2005 Belgrade and 2007 Ravenna documents call a universal "Protos." It's a neologism but maybe they thought that people would warm to the concept if they used a Greek word. :-) Some of us, including Moscow, see this as an innovation and one which will distort Orthodox ecclesiology. It is also seen by some as a way of softening up the Orthodox for bringing us into obedience to the Roman Pontiff. After all, if we have our own "Protos" in Constantinople it's not much more of a step to accept another and more superior one in Rome. So the matter does not centre on a fight beyween Constantinople and Moscow for the "Proto-ship." It concerns the struggle to keep the whole concept out of the Church. Given Orthodoxy's innate conservatism, given that the concept of a universal "Protos" is not found in the Canons or the Fathers, I think Constantinople has already lost the battle. What's the difference besides being last in line in the procession and the different head gear? *(I wish it was Pavel of Patagonia so I could continue with the alliteration!  ) We have convened Great Councils in the past ONLY in response to a serious heresy threatening the Church - Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. Our Churches have not faced any such major heresies since the last Council in 787 AD. Yes, there have been minor heresies (e.g., the early 20th century "Nameworshipping" heresy among some of the Russians) but these have not affected the whole Church and were able to be dealt with successfully on a local level. It seems to me that there were great heresies threatening the Orthodox Church in the 20th Century. It seems that Communism swallowed practically every Orthodox stronghold in the world except Greece. Your unworthy son, Dr. Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Also, (just my personal opinion and this is pure speculation), I think that it is possible that God has limited the number of councils to seven, since seven is the numerical symbol for completeness and perfection. The ancient councils defined what was crucial for all Christians believe, namely the Holy Trinity and the truth about Jesus Christ. Later councils have tended to deal more with secondary (though still important) matters.
Joe And, where do you reckon the Council of Trullo? As the Fathers at Trullo thought: Ecumenical Councils Five and Six (hence Quinisext).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 787 |
That is very cool that you can trace your family back to the Dutch settlers! How do you find it that you are now immersed in Russian culture, dear Father, and would you want it any other way? Dear Alice, After twelve generations of living in America and intermarrying with English (and now other) families, what is left is my Dutch derived last name (an Anglicised form or the Dutch Straatmaker). So I am really just a native American. When I came to Holy Orthodoxy, that truly became my identity. I feel closer to an Orthodox Greek or Arab or Russian or Serb in many ways than Protestants of my own ethnic background. I take my Orthodoxy straight up. As long as I can hear the Divine services in my native language, I am more comfortable in the Russian Church than in the Jurisdictions who make a point of being "American." What they often mean by American is making Orthodoxy more palatable to Protestant sensibilities (New Calendar, Festal Vesperal Liturgies, shorter services, seating in pews, infrequent or non-existent Confession, etc.) I am also quite comfortable with traditional Byzantine forms of Orthodoxy, like that on the Holy Mountain and many places in Greece. With warmest regards, Fr David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
I take my Orthodoxy straight up. As long as I can hear the Divine services in my native language, I am more comfortable in the Russian Church than in the Jurisdictions who make a point of being "American." I can certainly understand that dear Father David... Kissing your right hand, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Bill from Pgh Member
|
|
Bill from Pgh Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704 |
Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse (the Pope's words) has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:
"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~
The quotes above are to me, to borrow the phrase, "sound bytes".
What does Orthodoxy have to fear in such a convocation?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse (the Pope's words) has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:
"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI The quotes above are to me, to borrow the phrase, "sound bytes". What does Orthodoxy have to fear in such a convocation? [/quote] Opening a can of worms. Actually, several cans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505 |
Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse (the Pope's words) has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:
"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~
The quotes above are to me, to borrow the phrase, "sound bytes".
What does Orthodoxy have to fear in such a convocation? Dear Bill, There is a small article by Frank Schaeffer explaining Orthodoxy's anxieties on this score http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Orthodox/2000/10/Lets-Keep-Our-Distance.aspxAnd, amazingly enough, such a staunch Catholic apologist as James Likoudis agrees that Schaeffer has some legimitate points. http://credo.stormloader.com/Liturgy/liturgy1.htmBy JAMES LIKOUDIS
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Father, bless. I skimmed both articles. Frankly, I disagree with their conclusions: that liturgy, to be successful, has to be traditional. Traditional liturgy can be successful, and it is appropriate in the Orthodox Church. It is also appropriate in some quarters of the Catholic Church. But a traditional form of liturgy is not a magic formula for ecclesial success. There are several tiny and withering Eastern Catholic parishes and Orthodox churches; they have traditional liturgy, but they are declining. Simultaneously, there are several tiny Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes that have traditional liturgy and which are thriving. Also, non-traditional liturgy can be successful. That is shown by several Catholic parishes that attract hundreds or even thousands of people per weekend for contemporary worship. It is also shown by the many Evangelical Protestant churches which offer traditional theology and traditional morality but a contemporary form of worship . . . often attracting former Catholics and former Orthodox. Ecclesial success seems to require three things: (1) an emphasis on God's transcendence, (2) a personal encounter with God in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, and (3) a life changing commitment to the Gospel: commandments and prayer, virtues and fasting, love of God and neighbor through almsgiving. But the forms for expressing that are many and varied. If the Orthodox Church wants to safeguard its traditions, then by all means it should do so. But there are different models for expressing the Gospel that are successful too. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
John
Very well said. I strongly advocate a conservative theology.
Hold fast to the truth.
Stephanos I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 638 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 638 Likes: 1 |
Father, bless. I skimmed both articles. Frankly, I disagree with their conclusions: that liturgy, to be successful, has to be traditional. Traditional liturgy can be successful, and it is appropriate in the Orthodox Church. It is also appropriate in some quarters of the Catholic Church. But a traditional form of liturgy is not a magic formula for ecclesial success. There are several tiny and withering Eastern Catholic parishes and Orthodox churches; they have traditional liturgy, but they are declining. Simultaneously, there are several tiny Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes that have traditional liturgy and which are thriving. Also, non-traditional liturgy can be successful. That is shown by several Catholic parishes that attract hundreds or even thousands of people per weekend for contemporary worship. It is also shown by the many Evangelical Protestant churches which offer traditional theology and traditional morality but a contemporary form of worship . . . often attracting former Catholics and former Orthodox. Ecclesial success seems to require three things: (1) an emphasis on God's transcendence, (2) a personal encounter with God in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, and (3) a life changing commitment to the Gospel: commandments and prayer, virtues and fasting, love of God and neighbor through almsgiving. But the forms for expressing that are many and varied. If the Orthodox Church wants to safeguard its traditions, then by all means it should do so. But there are different models for expressing the Gospel that are successful too. -- John I agree. In the end, so as long as we're keeping to the "spirit and truth" of the Faith of our Fathers, we'd be just fine. New forms can be looked into to achieve "lex orandi, lex credendi".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
There is a small article by Frank Also, non-traditional liturgy can be successful. That is shown by several Catholic parishes that attract hundreds or even thousands of people per weekend for contemporary worship. It is also shown by the many Evangelical Protestant churches which offer traditional theology and traditional morality but a contemporary form of worship . . . often attracting former Catholics and former Orthodox. The mere fact that Evangelical Protestant churches worship the way they do, already demonstrates that their theology is not traditional at all. Mere Christianity -- of which an extremely weak and even more "lite" version is what most Evangelicals have -- is not apostolic and traditional Christianity. And pray tell, what is our definition of success? That we can always attract more and more people to church regardless of the quality of the spiritual food given to them? In that case we are indeed surrendering to subjectivity. And, as the history of Protestant mass revivals show, these expressions of success are extremely fleeting. Even now, some Protestants are predicting the collapse of Evangelicalism [ csmonitor.com] and of the mega-church phenomenon and the revival of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The charismatic and semi-Pentecostal strain in Catholicism, it is true, is strong and getting stronger; but as more and more charismatic Catholics become outright Evangelicals and Pentecostals (which is what is happening in Africa and Latin America) or become Catholics in name only, I think that the time will come when the Holy See will rethink the premature acceptance of this kind of worship into our churches. Indeed, the Holy See's steps versus Lifeteen Masses and the recent ecclesiastical investigations launched against the Community of the Beatitudes (also known as Lion of Judah) in France are the first signs of this rethink. We can also point to the celebration of WYD in 2005 and 2008, where much of the rock and semi-charismatic tone of previous WYD's was abandoned. In the end, it is the traditional forms of worship handed down to us from the times of the Fathers, that have enduring power and the capacity to sanctify countless souls. Today, the apostolic Churches are going through hard times, but God asks of us that we be faithful, not successful. Hungry souls will eventually find their way to the traditional liturgy. Who would have thought in 1970 that the time will come in less than 40 years that countless young Catholics will be seeking out Gregorian chant and the Latin Mass in both old and new forms? Today, many of the Orthodox speak of accepting new (a.k.a Protestantized) worship forms in order to attract the young. The way I see it, they won't attract the young if they do this -- for why should the young go to the Orthodox copy when they can go to the real (Evangelical) thing? However, they will be pushing out the converts and the old people, who are in Orthodox churches precisely because they want the traditional Eastern liturgy. And then, who will be left? Cursed be the day when the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics get it into their head to turn charismatic.
Last edited by asianpilgrim; 03/18/09 03:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 442
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 442 |
Cursed be the day when the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics get it into their head to turn charismatic. I have to say I agree with Asian Pilgrim. Einar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Bill from Pgh Member
|
|
Bill from Pgh Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704 |
Dear Father Ambrose,
Thank you for the links you provided. I did not mean to turn this into a liturgical debate. My reference to "sound bytes" was meant that we can skew those points put forth by the Pope to our own thought or agenda. The Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was not implying we throw the baby (i.e. the "Novus Ordo") out with the bath water, though he was lamenting improper implementation. Though this is neither here nor there.
What does anything the Roman Church does or did have to do with the Orthodox Church convening a synod? The ten points in the original post didn't mention liturgy or changes to the liturgy.
This is my own opinion but I think it would be nice if Orthodoxy could state in one unified voice that this is how we approach "Subject A" and this is how we will approach "Subject B" and this/these is/are the Orthodox perspective(s) on said "Subject(s)". Being a Latin Catholic this all may sound too legalistic but if everyone is not on the same page what gets accomplished?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
