www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Cyprus:Setting for Ecumenical Summit?

And so, where is his riassa? And at the very least, a scufia? And what gives with the haircut and groomed beard. Monks should look like monks. And bishops should look more like monks than other monks for they should set the example.

Alexandr, the old grump

Hey, I take offense!

I think Vladyka Ilarion looks absolutely Orhtodox and absolutely presentable...

Hrm...

Is that an oxymoron?

just kidding

:)

Here is Deacon Borislav doing his very best to look like Vladyka Ilarion - the hair.

:)

May I make a comment on the Orthodox statements of concern which are now starting to appear re the discussion and direction of the "Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church"....


In Belgrade in 2005 and in Ravenna in 2007 the thrust of the dialogue has been to try and establish within Orthodoxy a figure known as the "Global Protos" or the "Global Primus." Now this is something alien to Orthodox ecclesiology, but both of the Co-chairmen of the Commission Metropolitan Zizioulas (who wants his Patriarch to be the Global Protos) and Cardindal Kasper (who has lamented that Orthodoxy lacks a visible head) have done a masterful job in guiding the 9th and 10th Assemblies in that direction.

Orthodoxy is very often slow to react but the message is now coming home to us that there are some people who want to alter our ecclesiology. It won't fly. Tradtional theology will assert itself in the end. But it could do a lot of damage to our Church while the attempt to alter our church structure continues.

So we see that something is stirring and people are beginning to react. Here is another reaction from two weeks ago from one of the abbots of Mount Athos, from the monastery of Gregoriou.

"On the recognition of universal primacy for the Pope of Rome during the first millennium", by Archmandrite George, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of St. Gregory of the Holy Mountain

http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/universal_primacy.htm

Alice, this is not contributed to the Forum with the intention of flaming but because there are voices within Orthodoxy which are now beginning to analysis where the Internationl Theological Commission is taking us and they have a different view to the Commission. Their voices must be heard as well.

Any kind of dialogue must take into account the views of everyone involved. I trust we all understand that it is pointless for a Commission or even a Synod of Bishops to reach an agreement if this is not accepted and received by the vast majority of clergy, monastics and laity. However, the message from Mount Athos [oodegr.com] is so general as to be practically meaningless. It simply invokes the authority of Mount Athos without presenting any kind of theological argument. Indeed, the writers admit that they don't know "the exact content of the [...] Dialogue." How, then, can they make any meaningful statement? And how are we to make any kind of meaningful response?

The text "On the recognition of universal primacy for the Pope of Rome during the first millennium" [oodegr.com] by Archimandrite George is very informative and interesting. He states that "a true communion with the Orthodox Church presupposes a congruence of Faith." This echoes Pope John Paul II's admonition that "In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, 'the way, and the truth, and the life' (John 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?" (Ut unum sint [vatican.va] 18). Therefore, I would suggest that the work of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church needs to continue, not so that we can reach some kind of compromise, but so that we can arrive at a common understanding of the Truth.

This is the part that makes me pull my hair out in frustration. What part does the west not get? The Truth is already out there and has been there for 2000 years. Pick up any Orthodox catechism and it will spell it out so that any 7 year old can grasp it. The Truth does not need analyzed, broken down, reworded, modified or improved in any way. The Holy Spirit procedes from The Father, not the Father and the Son, or through the Son, or around the Son. All the other issues separating us are likewise simple. There is the Truth, and then there is modification, rewording, and redefining of the Truth, which is what Orthodoxy is so vehemently opposed to. Why does the West try to make this so difficult.

Alexandr

Alexandr,

You seem to have a very static view of our understanding of the Truth. You say that the "Truth is already out there and has been there for 2000 years." This is true in the sense that the Incarnation of Christ took place 2000 years ago, and Christ is the Truth. Nevertheless, the seven Ecumenical Councils took place between A.D. 325 and A.D. 787. If the Truth was already "out there," what was there for the Councils to discuss? We all know that our human languages cannot fully grasp the reality of God. Therefore, there is always a need for dialogue to arrive at the Truth, and there is always a possibility for a better understanding of the Truth. I think Pope John Paul II explains this very well in Ut unum sint [vatican.va].

"u seem to have a very static view of our understanding of the Truth. You say that the "Truth is already out there and has been there for 2000 years." This is true in the sense that the Incarnation of Christ took place 2000 years ago, and Christ is the Truth. Nevertheless, the seven Ecumenical Councils took place between A.D. 325 and A.D. 787. If the Truth was already "out there," what was there for the Councils to discuss?

The Truth has always been the Truth. It has always been out there. It has always existed without change. It was up to the councils however to try and distinguish this Truth from falsehood. It was up to the Holy Fathers who met at the councils to be able to explain in a fallible human language that which could never be fully explained...

The Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were not the Truth. Neither did they create the Truth. Rather they met to articulate the Truth to those who had ears to hear and eyes to see.

The Truth was ratified and coded by the Ecumenical Councils, the last being in 787. There has been no new Truth since then, so what is there to discuss? We have the Teaching handed down to us by our Fathers of old. What has changed? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and so is His Divine Will.

Alexandr

So, the Holy Spirit has deserted the Church? Or are you seriously saying that Orthodoxy has been static for 1222 years? Because if you are, you are seriously deluded. Never drink your own bathwater--it's not healthy.

When you say that "There has been no new Truth since then," do you mean to say that the Ecumenical Councils produced "new Truth"? I don't think so. New challenges and new situations require the one and only Truth to be more clearly understood or presented in new ways. That's what the Councils did, and that's what the Catholic Church continues to do. As individuals, we understand that the Truth is not something we can write down on a piece of paper and keep locked up somewhere; it is something we struggle to assimilate during a lifetime. I would suggest that the same is true for the Church as a whole.

What new Truth is there? All issues requiring interventions of local councils has been to apply the Truths defined at the Ecumenical councils to local aberrations. Where do you get that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church? Delusion, my friend, starts at home.

"So, the Holy Spirit has deserted the Church? Or are you seriously saying that Orthodoxy has been static for 1222 years? Because if you are, you are seriously deluded. Never drink your own bathwater--it's not healthy."

What would make you say a thing like that?

If you are talking about the lack of an Ecumenical Council I would submit that there has not been a need for one.

All the major heresies have been defeated. All the Christological controversies have been solved. Less vital issues along the lines of what kind of chant we are going to use in a given jurisdiction, how many pews we are going to set up in a particular parish and how many prostrations we are going to do every morning are issues that can be solved effectively on a local level, wouldn't you agree?

Or would you deny the fact that Local Synods of the Church are Grace Filled?

Anyway, why haven't the Orthodox tried to hold any more Ecumenical Councils? Simply because they know perfectly well that there cannot be an Ecumenical Council without participation or ratification by the Bishop of Rome. So, by not attempting to hold any more Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox acknowledge that Orthodoxy is incomplete without Rome.