Church Ecumenism

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

I was triggered to think about the topic of ecumenism by this video by fr. Peter Heers:



It shines an interesting perspective on something that appears good and beneficial on the outside, yet may have disastrous consequences on the inside. Ecumenism appears to be a push in the latter decades, also Vatican II played a role in it but apparantly it has caught on now with other religions too. Are their benefits to ecumenism? Should it be rejected outrightly from an Orthodox perspective? I believe that if you make a truth claim as a religion, that is an objective truth claim, ecumenism waters down that idea to the point all religions are a blob, just like all countries are becoming a blob and all people are becoming a blob through the general fading of boundaries.

 

[Mulato_Man_Gabe]

I came across this article recently:

The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)

Ecumenism is a super heresey. It grabs all the heresies and says "they are in the church too!" While nothing can be further from the truth. It is the principle religion of the antichrist, and must be combatted with all we have.

 

[MichaelWitcoff]

I came across this article recently:

The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)

Ecumenism is a super heresey. It grabs all the heresies and says "they are in the church too!" While nothing can be further from the truth. It is the principle religion of the antichrist, and must be combatted with all we have.

I agree. Rather than eradicate Christians explicitly, the antichrist agenda seems to be taking over its highest offices…merging them under one big umbrella…and then changing all the dogmas, definitions, and morals from within.

 

[Sveti Vrh]

I think not enough people understand the grave danger ecumenism is posing.

My parish priest unfortunately doesn't seem to understand the weight of the problem. The parish has hosted ecumenical prayers. I know the priest has been ordered by his superior to do this but I don't think he understands or even knows the role of the World 'Council' of Churches in all of this.

What should I do if the topic of ecumenism comes up or I'm asked by him to join? Should I explain in detail my worry or just decline and change the subject. I don't want my intentions to be misunderstood.

 

[OrthoSerb]

I think not enough people understand the grave danger ecumenism is posing.

My parish priest unfortunately doesn't seem to understand the weight of the problem. The parish has hosted ecumenical prayers. I know the priest has been ordered by his superior to do this but I don't think he realizes the role of the World 'Council' of Churches in all of this.

What should I do if the topic of ecumenism comes up or I'm asked by him to join? Should I explain in detail my worry or just decline and change the subject. I don't want my intentions to be misunderstood.

People over think this. No one here knows your relationship with your priest, but it would be unusual if you're so close that he would question your lack of participation or invite you to share your opinion. If he did, then stating your stance in a calm and courteous manner is sufficient. If instead of leaving things at that he then tries to strong arm you or put you in an uncomfortable position, then you are free to vote with your feet and find a new parish.

I was once asked by one our parish priests to represent the parish in some annual meeting between Anglicans and Orthodox. It wasn't clear to me what it would involve but I just declined and explained I had no interest in investing time in a relationship with a grouping that had gone so far astray. He wasn't expecting that but he respected my decision and the topic never came up again. It didn't affect our relationship at all. Mature shephards don't try to steam roll their parishioners on topics like this (or get personally offended when they don't acquiesce).

 

[Sveti Vrh]

You're right that unless I'm explicitly asked for my opinion I should shortly decline. Thank you.

 

[BarrontheTigercat]

Im looking into this whole saga of Controlled Opposition and came across this seemingly Ecumenical Church: The Celtic Orthodox Church.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on schismatic theology or the Orthodox Church but this Church seems suspect to me.



I don't hear one British nor Irish accent. There are people called Scheer speaking French.
Fair enough as the Canadian Conservative party had a French conversant Scheer as their leader not long ago BUT through other research there seem to be an awful lot of Jews involved in this Church and Ive seen that they are involved with Jewish ecumenical Anglicans around the world,

They claim that Saint Joseph of Arimathea was a "wandering tin merchant" who wandered up through Gaul and then into Galway in Ireland and thus started the Orthodox Church in the British isles in 37AD?

It may well be a perfectly wholesome and decent Church.
I don't profess too many insights here, would defer to and appreciate the views of others.

 

[Lawrence87]

It would be wonderful if we could have a unified Church once again. However, there is no way that this can be done by means of compromising on the Truth. All the other churches would have to become Orthodox for it to happen.

Ecumenism is all about achieving this unification at all costs, even if it means discarding the core principles of Orthodoxy. I think meeting with other "churches" is fair enough, but the tone of such meetings should always be 'you should abandon your heresies and embrace Orthodoxy' not 'we are all just looking at the same truth from different angles'.

 

[OrthoSerb]

Im looking into this whole saga of Controlled Opposition and came across this seemingly Ecumenical Church: The Celtic Orthodox Church.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on schismatic theology or the Orthodox Church but this Church seems suspect to me.



I don't hear one British nor Irish accent. There are people called Scheer speaking French.
Fair enough as the Canadian Conservative party had a French conversant Scheer as their leader not long ago BUT through other research there seem to be an awful lot of Jews involved in this Church and Ive seen that they are involved with Jewish ecumenical Anglicans around the world,

They claim that Saint Joseph of Arimathea was a "wandering tin merchant" who wandered up through Gaul and then into Galway in Ireland and thus started the Orthodox Church in the British isles in 37AD?

It may well be a perfectly wholesome and decent Church.
I don't profess too many insights here, would defer to and appreciate the views of others.

They are not part of the Orthodox Church. They're a group that came about in 1866 when a man named Jules Ferrette claims he was consecrated by a Monophysite Bishop. He had previously been a member of the Dominican Order and then a Presbyterian minister. They're more of a Protestant offshoot from the Catholics with some tenuous links to the Monophysites. They're theology is very minimalistic with internal contradictions. They don't accept all of the Ecumenical Councils; they do accept Chalcedon, but claim to derive their apostolicity from non-Chalcedonians. They borrow bits and pieces from various different groups. In fact there are multiple groups that trace their lineage to Jules Ferrette. The commonality is that they are all dogma-lite and tiny. One of the groupings even went so far as to emphasise their lack of dogma by calling themselves Ancient British Church (Agnostic)! None of these groups are really worth discussing unless you're writing a PhD thesis on heterodox groups.

 

[BarrontheTigercat]

They are not part of the Orthodox Church. They're a group that came about in 1866 when a man named Jules Ferrette claims he was consecrated by a Monophysite Bishop. He had previously been a member of the Dominican Order and then a Presbyterian minister. They're more of a Protestant offshoot from the Catholics with some tenuous links to the Monophysites. They're theology is very minimalistic with internal contradictions. They don't accept all of the Ecumenical Councils; they do accept Chalcedon, but claim to derive their apostolicity from non-Chalcedonians. They borrow bits and pieces from various different groups. In fact there are multiple groups that trace their lineage to Jules Ferrette. The commonality is that they are all dogma-lite and tiny. One of the groupings even went so far as to emphasise their lack of dogma by calling themselves Ancient British Church (Agnostic)! None of these groups are really worth discussing unless you're writing a PhD thesis on heterodox groups.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Yallbeparticular]

Im looking into this whole saga of Controlled Opposition and came across this seemingly Ecumenical Church: The Celtic Orthodox Church.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I do not claim to be any kind of expert on schismatic theology or the Orthodox Church but this Church seems suspect to me.



I don't hear one British nor Irish accent. There are people called Scheer speaking French.
Fair enough as the Canadian Conservative party had a French conversant Scheer as their leader not long ago BUT through other research there seem to be an awful lot of Jews involved in this Church and Ive seen that they are involved with Jewish ecumenical Anglicans around the world,

They claim that Saint Joseph of Arimathea was a "wandering tin merchant" who wandered up through Gaul and then into Galway in Ireland and thus started the Orthodox Church in the British isles in 37AD?

It may well be a perfectly wholesome and decent Church.
I don't profess too many insights here, would defer to and appreciate the views of others.

The prologue of st Nikolai does mention that st Joseph of arimithea traveled to the Britain and reposed there (see attached). But he definitely wasn’t the founder of that church.

 

[Pete345]

In case anyone needed a reminder, why ecumenism is BAD and not of Christ:

 

[Roosh]

The EP speaks at the WEF:

Ecumenical Patriarch at the World Economic Forum in Davos – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches

 

[Pete345]

For those who are unsure whether Mormons, and other fringe "Christians" are truly Christians, these verses should clear that up. We have nothing in common with those who deny the Holy Trinity. Obviously, we have nothing in common with Jews, Muslims, and pagans.

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." - 1 John 2:22-23

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

For those who are unsure whether Mormons, and other fringe "Christians" are truly Christians, these verses should clear that up. We have nothing in common with those who deny the Holy Trinity. Obviously, we have nothing in common with Jews, Muslims, and pagans.

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." - 1 John 2:22-23

The Jews is a funny one. I've always heard that we have a ''Judeo-Christian'' society. And while overall that is correct (we had a Christian society, and then with modernity we got a Jewish society), the emphasis on the link between one another assumes that both are somehow connected. What people don't know though is that modern Judaism is based on the (Babylonian) Talmud, and has drifted away from the Old Testament which was initial Jewry for many centuries. Moreover, the Jews that saw the Truth of Christ became Christians - those who rejected it became what we now know as Jews. How can there be any alignment between these groups if these ''Jews'' have rejected Christianity and have acted the complete opposite way from there on? That's like saying the weather is hot-cold, or that someone is a smart retard, or that something is a bird-fish. It's a contradictio in terminis. Purported by people who have 0 idea about the historicity of the situation and the complete diametrical world views we're dealing with (God/good/traditionalism vs Satan/evil/modernity).

 

[KulturedKaveman]

I don’t find the concept of Judeo-Christian society common amongst orthodox and Catholics. It’s bigger in protestant circles.

The faith of the ancient Israelites was more like a henotheistic religion that put God as the God of gods. Hence “you shall have no other gods before me.” The ancient Israelites worshipped other gods, it’s in the Old Testament. The Jews as we know them first emerged after the Babylonian exile under Persian rule and we got monotheistic temple Judaism in its Pharisee and Hellenistic (Saul of Tarsus) forms. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the Israelites and later Jews so God had the temple destroyed as it was no longer needed because of the resurrection.

After the destruction of the temple the Jews had to figure out if they were going to be Christian or something else. This makes Judaism unique as the only religion explicitly founded on rejecting Christ. To be honest this explains why the Talmud and Torah constantly contradict each other.

Others faiths like Islam and Baha’i disagree on the role of Christ but they weren’t founded as an explicit rejection in order “to not be Christian” like modern Judaism. This makes eccumenism with Jews strange.

 

[Yeagerist]

I agree. Rather than eradicate Christians explicitly, the antichrist agenda seems to be taking over its highest offices…merging them under one big umbrella…and then changing all the dogmas, definitions, and morals from within.

The Orthodox Church is largely capable of withstanding this tactic, which worked against Roman Catholicism because doctrinal innovation has become part of the Vatican's teaching, and the Catholic Church's structure means that all you have to do is to convince the Pope to accept modernism and then the Cardinals and bishops will follow. Among us EOs, you'll have to convince 10 patriarchs and 3 or 4 heads of autocephalous churches to achieve the same outcome.

It would be wonderful if we could have a unified Church once again. However, there is no way that this can be done by means of compromising on the Truth. All the other churches would have to become Orthodox for it to happen.

The Great Schism can be mended in only two ways:

Either the See of Rome accepts the equal status of all the other patriarchates, renounces papal infallibility, and perhaps allow some big Catholic archdioceses to become autocephalous;

Or for the 14 Orthodox churches decide that Rome was in the right all along and submit to the supreme authority of the Pope.

Which of the two outcomes will the Orthodox who hold steadfastly accept for obvious reasons? Apparently the Uniate patriarchs are between the Pope and the Cardinals in the order of precedence, but we all know in practice that they're nothing more than glorified bishops and the Cardinals hold the real power right under the Pope.

For those who are unsure whether Mormons, and other fringe "Christians" are truly Christians, these verses should clear that up. We have nothing in common with those who deny the Holy Trinity. Obviously, we have nothing in common with Jews, Muslims, and pagans.

That won't matter to the modernist Papacy who thinks that Christians and heathens alike worship the same God. I could literally make up a syncretist sect right now and pass it off as Christian by being in communion with Francis.

I don’t find the concept of Judeo-Christian society common amongst orthodox and Catholics. It’s bigger in protestant circles.

It's the result of the infiltration of the Zionist ideology in Protestant churches, starting with the Scofield Bible which promoted the doctrine of dispensationalism. And Protestants are more susceptible to the "Judeo-Christian" heresy because they reject Orthodox or Catholic tradition and apostolic succession. If one thinks that the Church "fell" in the 4th Century because of Constantine (and thus needs to be reformed 12 centuries later by Luther), and if Catholics are pagans pretending to be Christians, then the only sensible route is to assume a common ground with the Christ-rejecting Jews

Others faiths like Islam and Baha’i disagree on the role of Christ but they weren’t founded as an explicit rejection in order “to not be Christian” like modern Judaism. This makes eccumenism with Jews strange.

Not sure about the Baha'i religion, but Islam is also founded on an explicit rejection of Christ's divinity.

 

[OrthoSerb]

Not sure about the Baha'i religion, but Islam is also founded on an explicit rejection of Christ's divinity.

I think there is a distinction. Islam has tried to appropriate Christ so he fits into their story and they have a positive disposition towards Him. Their narrative is false and incoherent (for example they call Him the Messiah but don't know why) but it's not founded on open animosity. In the case of rabbinical Judaism, there is an inherent rejection and animosity at the core.

The Bahai religion is a splinter from Shia Islam that has departed significantly from Islamic teaching, including declaring new prophets. They are the equivalent of the Mormons in terms of deviation from Christianity. If you read their doctrines you realise they bear close resemblance to what Fr Seraphim Rose describes in Orthodoxy and The Religion of the Future. They talk about earthly progress, world peace, world government, equality. It's a globalist, ecumenistic religion at it's core. But as a result there's no overt animosity to Christ.

 

[Yeagerist]

I think there is a distinction. Islam has tried to appropriate Christ so he fits into their story and they have a positive disposition towards Him. Their narrative is false and incoherent (for example they call Him the Messiah but don't know why) but it's not founded on open animosity. In the case of rabbinical Judaism, there is an inherent rejection and animosity at the core.

Islam presupposes the fall of man into sin and man's need for salvation, but it goes on full Pelagian in teaching salvation by works (i.e. the need for pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime and fasting during Ramadan) despite their reverence of Christ. Hence why Islam is rooted in an animosity of Jesus as the Savior of mankind.

Judaism and Islam are built on a assumption of familiarity with Jesus of Nazareth, yet their conclusion is NOT one of acknowledging that He is the Incarnate Logos and the Lord and Savior. It's not the same as Hinduism or Buddhism where they never had any connection with ancient Israel or the Old Testament.