Posted on 04/19/2006 10:16:30 AM PDT by x5452
The Orthodox Churches that remain associated with the WCC need to follow the path of their brethren and leave this organization, along with any association with the NCC in the United States.
I still think they need to leave but it was an interesting perspective/counterpoint.
The stuff about Rome was spot on in my opinion.
ping
Let me make sure I understand this. A ROCOR website is publishing an interview with an MP bishop in which he not only fails to blame Rome for liberal Protestant apostasy but calls her "our strategic partner" ... ???
[crashing noises as pictures fall from the walls spontaneously]
This is clearly yet another sign of the impending Apocalypse. ;-) Seriously, a very good sign.
In the meantime, have a blessed Holy Week and Pascha.
Interesting in that I had a similar (if in a different view) conversation with a good friend the other day. He is currently a member of the ELCA, and wanted to be a pastor until he saw what they taught in seminary.
I hesitate to call the ELCA Christian any more. There are a good number of Christians in it, but the more aware ones are fleeing. My friend remains mainly because he doesn't know were to go yet.
I pray for some sort of visible reunion in my lifetime, but there are a lot of forces working against it.
:)
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I am in agreement that all Orthodox churches need to withdraw from the WCC and its daughter organizations. The argument for continuing to belong is a valid one, but it hangs by a thread, at best. The WCC will, of course, bend over backwards to give the *appearance* of addressing Orthodox concerns, but there will be no real change.
The goals of the Orthodox churches belonging are no longer attainable, because there is really no dialogue. To use Metr. Hilarion's words, there is no-one listening on the other side.
I think that strategic alliances with the Roman Catholic Church on things like abortion, homosexual unions, and other matters of traditional morality would be most helpful.
On the other hand, one wonders if Metr. Hilarion really knows the situation on the ground in the West as well as he seems to think he does. There are two problems with his analysis.
First, anywhere that I have lived in America (and that is a lot of places over the years), the Catholic church has been a liberal mess -- both theologically and morally. I can tell you for certain that if Catholics in our town were to pick the other church closest to them in faith and practice, it certainly wouldn't be us Orthodox -- and we are hardly a "traditionalist" parish. Neither would we pick them as being closest to us.
The backbone of the pro-life movement out here is evangelical Protestant, and the majority of Catholics I know are pro-choice. Catholics certainly aren't playing much of a role in any issues regarding homosexual unions out here.
The official positions of the Catholic church are correct, but the problem is that the laity tend to be quite liberal and ignore those recommendations. On the other hand, many evangelical churches have no official position about abortion, but their churches are filled with pro-lifers. Sort of like the parable of Christ regarding the two sons that the father send to the field. For a strategic alliance to be of any use, the Catholic church first has to convince her own members of the truth of her moral positions, since any real social and political influence comes from the grassroots.
Secondly, to expand on what I touched on above, is Metr. Hilarion aware that there not only *are* conservative Protestants, but that in most places, they greatly outnumber the dying ranks of the liberal "mainline" churches? To ignore a strategic alliance with conservative Protestants is foolish, if one wants to get something done. Furthermore, if Orthodoxy wants to have a witness of some sort to the truth of the faith, one tends to find a more receptive audience amongst conservative Protestants than amongst a mostly liberal Catholic clergy and laity.
Very true, from my Catholic perspective. Any serious ecumenical effort between the Catholics and the Orthodox is premature and can be harmful until the Catholic Church either converts or expels its faithless nominal members.
We need a great purge of the faithless "Catholics" who are nothing but spiritual deadwood.
There is a bit of that. Catechesis is quite bad, and there are quite a few priests and sisters who will tell people whatever they want to hear. But I would caution against overestimating the prevalence of it.
I am in no position to make any declarations on the prevalence. I'm just relating my experiences and observations, and a couple of Catholic posters such as annalex have seconded my observations.
If your personal experience is that most Catholics devoutly assent to the moral and doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, then you are blessed.
Given the "top-down" nature of Catholicism, the fact that catechesis is "quite bad" indicates a deep rot that goes beyond the laity. How hard could it be for the American Catholic bishops to issue unambiguous, doctrinally correct, morally strict, Scripturally sound, patristically based catechetical materials, instructing priests to use them? Even if these teachings were roundly ignored, they should be taught. Left to their own devices, most Catholic clergy and laity haven't done very well.
Again, what Catholicism does is your own business, I don't mean to be an Orthodox Christian telling Catholics what to believe or do. The point at issue in this article was that strategic alliances should be pursued. My point was to say that such alliances would be quite difficult in most of the situations I have been exposed to.
Oh, wait a second. If "strategic alliances" means pro-life work, religion in public square, or other reasonable political goals, of course they should be pursued. They should be pursued with the Muslim, who are staunchly pro-life. What I think is premature is any ecumenical work toward intercommunion, etc., given the liberal disposition of the significant segment of the Catholic laity.
I also think that theological dialog between the Orthodox and the Catholics is a good thing inasmuch as it exposes (few) disagreements but also discovers commonality. We need to understand each other's theological language better.
*shrug* there are Catholics and there are Catholics. It varies country to country, parish to parish. The Catholics I go to daily Mass with are one thing. The "Catholics" who seek to create a Church in their own image are another thing. After a time those people tend to give up and leave. It's partly a function of the strong cultural and religious bond of the Church, which is a strength despite the side effects (you end up with a lot of people "Catholic in name only" as they say, as there are many nominal Baptists, Orthodox, etc); and partly due to the constant struggle to chase straying sheep without compromising the faith, which can in fairness be a very difficult task.
maybe in the strategic partership American Orthodox churches can preach to American Catholics on these topics. ;p
you say there's catholics then there's catholics.
Not really.
n the case of the Orthodox and the Catholics, there are the faithful and then there are apostates who by numerous canons are not really part of the church regardless of their donations and assertions; they've removed themselves from the faith.
From the article: "We do not need union with the Catholics, we do not need "intercommunion," we do not need compromise for a doubtful "rapprochement." ".
Us orthodox could stand to loose the ties on a few as well.
Yup.
The uncompromizing conservatism of the Orthodox is a gift for the entire Chruch, East and West.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.