Against Ecumenism

WoodArch4033

WoodArch4033

Orthodox
Heritage
This is a good article against ecumenism: https://pravoslavie.ru/80888.html

And here is a recent example of the mind behind ecumenism, thinking that The Church must set aside our exclusivity and truth in order to proclaim a new gospel. They claim it's ancient, but it's really a step towards new world religion and eerily similar to Protestants in America having come together to celebrate "light" and "truth" and "The Great Architect" within free masonry, setting aside their hard to defend differences to reach a higher, unifying, "esoteric" truth. Rather than simply coming to The Church which has been preserved inviolate for 2,000 years, even after great divisions. I think that Met Alfayev Hilarion clarified "uniting as much as possible" because he knows there are limits that he will not cross and he has a different goal, but the Anglican Church is ok with unity lacking union in truth. To say that we need only to focus on "holy remnants" outside of the context of The Church and for those "holy remnants" to care only about basics of faith as if it's impossible or unnecessary to know the fulness of truth but yet possible to avoid secularism, is to say that there is no purpose in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Timothy 3:15, the one faith once delivered to the saints Jude 1:3.
 
I'm for ecumenism if it can convince the world's bishops. Won't be possible if ecumenism means accepting heresy. I'm not worried about it you shouldn't either. Vast majority of Apostolic Bishops I've met are hardcore.

Fun fact: Ecumenical is a loose translation of ancient Greek for "Belonging to the Emperor." Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople meant "The Emperor's Patriarch."

So, the logical question now that Greeks won't want you to ask: "How can you be a Patriarch of an Emperor that no longer exists?"
 
I think we think of different things when we say ecumenism. I agree that those who try to follow Christ should be closer together. I also think that you cannot truly follow Christ without the mysteries of The Church which are rooted and scripture, and Met Hilarion means something different than the Anglicans when they say ecumenism. I would humbly posit that what the writer in the first article addresses is a danger - surrendering our theology and exclusivity of being The Church for the sake of a union not yet in truth. It's too close to surrendering the truth that our Church structure is the same as what Christ founded with The Apostles as leaders, and therefore must be given the honor of being the pillar and ground of truth. People coming to union with us must hold to that belief about our communion, so that they can have trust in The Church: that The Orthodox communion is Jesus' Body in which the fullness of truth has been preserved. I've been to a Church which was led by an Anglican priest, and the whole congregation converted to the Orthodox Church, and they serve the western rite. They came with the expectation that The Orthodox Church is Christ's One Church, and that's the mindset that I think any hierarch of a heterodox communion must approach us with if they want to unify.

I've heard that ROC is planning to see if The Malankara Orthodox Church wants to reunite with the rest of The Eastern Orthodox communion. That makes sense, that's not false ecumenism, because the Hindu Christians were simply isolated and don't carry as much non-chalcedonian baggage as the rest of the oriental communion. They are part of that communion, because those are the only churches they had frequent contact with in the past.
I would think a church that is anathema, not just in schism with us or out of communion: for example the latin west is unable to be unified unless the hierarchs (or in this case Hierarch) let go of what is anathema to The One Church and join themselves. Otherwise, it is up to individuals to convert. Considering churches that are in schism but not anathema because of heresy, for example old calendarists, especially ones that don't say The Eastern Orthodox communion are in heresy have been in communion with ROCOR in the past. St. John Maximovitch himself communed them. Unfortunately they are not anymore, and at the same time, schism is a sin and that must be healed by being returning, and schism is not justified based non-dogmatic issues like calendar. Bigger issues such as the world council of churches and false ecumenism which tried to make its way into The Church I would say is not solved by schism, but rather a council and reaffirming what the Church has taught, allowing dissenters to schism from that rather than considering that we can preserve the truth if only we schism ourselves from anybody he teaches wrongly, without allowing time for people to repent.

I agree on your last point. For a few centuries after the Ottoman sack of Constantinople, the Patriarchate did not call themselves ecumenical, but correct me if I'm wrong, since the independence of Greece the Greeks have started calling the Patriarch of Istanbul "Ecumenical"
 
Ecumenism is like getting your friends together from all over the world for a concert and then standing in the carpark. Telling each other that its great to be in the same country at last whilst missing the concert.

It would be fine if the Orthodox efforts towards ecumenism were encouraging them into the church. But its kinda like coming out of the concert to see your friends in the carpark and agreeing with them that they are at the concert and not in fact merely standing in the carpark.
 
The Armenian analog term for "Ecumenical" means "Universal" (in this specific religious setting). It borrows from the root word for space (as in "outer space"), leading to it being labeled as roughly "of space" or "of the universe".

As in Eastern Orthodox Churches, there are some bishops and clergy within the Armenian Apostolic Church who are for ecumenism, and others who are vehemently against it. What I have generally noticed from clergy is that there is no hostility towards teachings of Eastern Orthodox Saints, as long as it does not overrule Church canon law or tradition. They occasionally recommend books or teachings of such Saints, even though they may not be officially venerated.

Most of Armenian Church's active "ecumenical" efforts are geared towards leading Armenian Protestant groups back to the Church.
 

Construction on an interfaith cultural and educational center in the Kommunarka section of Moscow will begin this year.

The site will include an Orthodox church, a mosque, a Jewish temple, and a Buddhist temple, representing what the Russian constitution recognizes as the four traditional religions of Russia.

...
Click to expand...

I couldn't find much else on this in English, I presume it is a Muslim initiative? Can the Russian speakers verify whether the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government are officially backing this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top