He puts the “ecumenical” in “Ecumenical Patriarch”
One thing that many Catholics today don’t realize is how controversial ecumenism still is in many Orthodox circles. Sure, the Catholic Church has pockets of resistance to ecumenism, and there can be some legitimate critiques about how ecumenism is practiced within the Catholic Church, but by and large most Catholics accept ecumenism as a valid activity of the Church. This is not the case inside Orthodoxy. Most Orthodox believers, after all, do not live in the West, where there is a great diversity of religious beliefs and dialogue between differing parties is considered ideal. Your typical Russian, for example, may never have met a Catholic, and only knows about the sad history between the two Churches, which is usually told from a decidedly pro-Orthodox viewpoint (as it is told from a decidedly pro-Catholic viewpoint in the West).
Ecumencial Patriarch Bartholomew, on the other hand, has been a prominent supporter of ecumenism. Over the years, he or his representatives have engaged in a multitude of ecumenical talks, ranging from encounters with Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and other Christian communities. Not surprisingly, this has opened him up to severe criticism within his own Orthodox Church. This past Sunday, he decided to respond to his critics in an Encyclical for the Sunday of Orthodoxy (the date is telling, for the Sunday of Orthodoxy is when the East liturgically celebrates the triumph of Orthodox Christianity over heretical groups).
A few excerpts:
Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people. Orthodoxy is always contemporary, so long as we promote it with humility and interpret it in light of the existential quests and needs of humanity in each historical period and cultural circumstance. To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be in constant dialogue with the world. The Orthodox Church does not fear dialogue because truth is not afraid of dialogue. On the contrary, if Orthodoxy is enclosed within itself and not in dialogue with those outside, it will both fail in its mission and no longer be the “catholic” and “ecumenical” Church. Instead, it will become an introverted and self-contained group, a “ghetto” on the margins of history…
Today, Orthodoxy is called to continue this dialogue with the outside world in order to provide a witness and the life-giving breath of its faith. However, this dialogue cannot reach the outside world unless it first passes through all those that bear the Christian name. Thus, we must first converse as Christians among ourselves in order to resolve our differences, in order that our witness to the outside world may be credible…
These dialogues, together with every effort for peaceful and fraternal relations of the Orthodox Church with other Christians, are unfortunately challenged today in an unacceptably fanatical way – at least by the standards of a genuinely Orthodox ethos – by certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. As if all the Patriarchs and Sacred Synods of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who unanimously decided on and continue to support these dialogues, were not Orthodox. Yet, these opponents of every effort for the restoration of unity among Christians raise themselves above Episcopal Synods of the Church to the dangerous point of creating schisms within the Church…
They disseminate false rumors that union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is imminent, while they know well that the differences discussed in these theological dialogues remain numerous and require lengthy debate; moreover, union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods. They assert that the Pope will supposedly subjugate the Orthodox, because they latter submit to dialogue with the Roman Catholics! They condemn those who conduct these dialogues as allegedly “heretics” and “traitors” of Orthodoxy, purely and simply because they converse with non-Orthodox, with whom they share the treasure and truth of our Orthodox faith. They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being “the pan-heresy of ecumenism” without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers.
Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue.
I am very pleased to see the Ecumenical Patriarch address the problem of anti-ecumenical Orthodox so forcefully, and I pray that his witness will help, in some small way, bring us closer to union.
Sts. Peter and Andrew, pray for us!
Eric,
You are a sincere man, it seems. But, perhaps also a very naive man, too.
This Patriarch will never lead the Orthodox into union with the West for the reason that he is seen repeatedly and correctly understood by the faithful of the Orthodox Church – people not unlike you and your pro-life friends in terms of your devotion – as trampling upon the witness and teachings of the Holy Fathers, not just as it pertains to the question of the Pope and those devoted to him, but on other issues.
People are waking up to his compromises, especially with the advent of the internet in traditional Orthodox countries, by which they are learning of his many deviations from the Faith.
Like your Pope, he too has given the Koran as a gift now – in all places and to all people, in Atlanta to the head of Coca Cola, a muslim Turk (it is on You-tube and the video site of the Patriarchate – this blasphemy). Like your Pope, he has visited a Jewish Synagogue and spoken not one word of “good news” (evangelization). This is the place that St. John Chrysostom, and the Book of Revelation, called “the synagogue of Satan”. But he calls them worshippers of the one God, brothers, etc. etc. – in direct contradition to the words and witness of St. John and countless holy fathers.
But, not coincidentially, these ideas of your Pope and this Patriarch DO express the philosophy of Masonry, the contemporary incarnation of Gnosticism.
Who is he fooling? Unfortunately, dear ones like you. What has he to do with the Holy Fathers who once held his bishopric? Nothing. They would have died before blaspheming Christ in such a pitiful way.
But, alas, he is just following after your Pope, trying to be the Pope of the East. God forgive him.
And why do you think they visit the Synagogue, Eric? Well, obviously not to preach Christ crucified. So, why?
There are many things we are not aware of and we would have a very hard time believing about our leaders. . . Are you ready to hear them?
It is truly later than we think.
Love the Truth above all else and pray to Christ to lead you to Him.
The “Chistianity” you have been handed and fed is a far, far cry from that of the Holy Fathers, Martyrs, and Ascetics, Eric. This Pope, ot the next, “peter,” and this Patriarch might lead many into union, but it won’t be a union with Christ our God – who is disgusted by it all.
Joseph,
A few comments in response.
1) Just because I endorse the Patriarch’s ecumenical efforts does not mean that I endorse everything he says or does. For example, if you look for his book at Amazon, you will see that I have a critical review of the book posted. It is a fallacy to say that being wrong on one thing automatically makes one wrong on another.
2) It is a grave mistake to interpret the phrase “synagogue of Satan” to mean the Jews in general. After all, Jesus was a Jew and he only condemned the hypocritical Jewish leaders of his time, not all Jews. Yes, we are called to evangelize all peoples, including Jews, but the activities of Pope Benedict (I can’t speak for the Patriarch) are fundamentally evangelical activities. One does not have to explicitly condemn another person to show them the beauty of the Christian Faith.
3) It is true that I am an unworthy recipient of the Faith handed on by the Fathers and Saints who have come before me. But in my own extensive reading of the Fathers and other great saints, I do believe that the content of the Catholic Faith is the same as the content that they preached, lived, and died for. Pray that I might become a better follower of it.
As a recent convert to Orthodoxy who was required to make the choice as someone brought up Protestant “who is the Church” and obviously didn’t chose Rome, I am biased. I wish Joseph was less conspiratorial in his approach, but Joseph points out the main problem with these “dialogs”.
Good or bad, right or wrong, the people who are involved on the Orthodox side are some of the most controversial figures in Orthodoxy. This has more to do with the sociology of groups than ecclesiology. If Ware is going to communicate with Catholics he has to use their language and signaling mechanisms (or at least compatible ones) and those will trigger all manner of alarms with Orthodox not involved in such discussions.
In defense of Joseph and the folks like them, there really is no reason for them to draw any other confusion. Well-meant attempts full of good will still result in unsatisfactory results all around. I don’t know if the EP thinks anti-dialog folks don’t matter, or are intractable, or if the EP really even knows they exist in any substantial sense.
As for myself, I thought I would be very “pro-Rome” as an Orthodox, but certain choices left me necessarily troubled about my previous commitment to ecumenism. Particularly that some on all sides wave their hands and act like “just being Christian” is all that matters anyway and things like the Great Councils of the past are largely just anachronisms in the way of Gospel today.
As I’m writing this comment I’m realizing that I cannot write in such a way as to communicate my sincere commitment to Christ and His Church, my willingness to accept that I may be mistaken about a great many things and the necessary processes of conversion from Protestantism.
If I held to different opinions about divine simplicity, the pontiff’s role and the filoque, maybe I would have ended up in Rome (a scary thought, not about ending up there, but that my own lack-of-wisdom plays any role in this). But that is the situation for all Christians everywhere.
Maybe that’s the most important reason of all, no matter how dangerous it is for these talks to go forward. Not that we should all necessary end up in communion someday but that there is some framework for everyone who claims to follow Christ to understand historically and existentially Christianity, and make wise and prayerfully Spirit-led decisions about the spiritual well-being of themselves, their families and their communities.
Forgive me this long comment as I try to work all this out.
Pray for me, a sinner.
David,
Thank you for your comments.
I am a strong supporter of ecumenism, but that does not mean that I support all efforts of ecumenism. By that I mean that I share your concern that many people seem to be content to just say “we are all Christian” and think our problems are solved. There are serious difficulties to overcome and I personally think it will take a long, long time to resolve them.
But I do think they are resolvable. Not because of any power of man, but because I believe God can do the impossible (and reconciliation looks impossible to the human eye today). In our stage of history I think it important that the East and West recognize the many things we agree on, while always being aware of our serious differences. For 1,000 years we have focused almost exclusively on our differences, so spending a few decades emphasizing at our similarities isn’t so crazy, is it?
Personally, I think being in communion again is one of the most important goals for Christendom today, and I think the Lord desires it greatly as well. So while I acknowledge that not all ecumenical efforts in the past have been fruitful (and some have even been harmful), I do not abandon the cause of ecumenism for that reason.
Eric,
The “synagogue of Satan” in the writings of Saint John Chrysostom clearly refer to the place of the synagogue of the Jews. He calls it the place where demons reside, he calls it the place where the devil dances, he calls it unclean and defiled.
Contrary to the Pope and Patriarch, he says that no Jew worships God, that they were called to be sons of God but fell to the level and category of dogs. That is why, he says, I hate and turn away from the Synagogue, because although they have the Prophets they don’t believe them, and although they read the Holy Scriptures they don’t do what they say.
Contrary to the Pope and Patriarch, he says we have nothing in common with them. He asks, “what do we have in common with them?” Nothing. If the holy things of the Jews are truly holy, then our own holy things are fake and a sham.
You see, Eric, the Saint, for our perverted leaders today, is a “fanatic” and a religious bigot. OR, if you think they really believe and accept what the Saint says “in their heart”, then they are worse then the Pharisees and hypocrites, for they believe one thing and say and do another. In both cases, they are “without God” or, in the language of the Fathers, “a-theists” – which means the same thing.
You can not serve God and mammon.
You can read the words of the Saint yourself. See his discourses: 1:2, 1:3, 1:5, 2:3, 4:3, 5:1, 6:5, 6:6. (This is the numbering found in the Greek editions.)
If, after reading the Saint, you still think that the Pope’s visits to the synagogue are “evangelical”, well, then, what can I say? You have chosen the Pope over the Holy Father and that is you prerogative.
A question: Why is it that with the passing of years the number of people in communion with the Pope who have the courage to criticize him grow less and less. What I mean is this: at one time not too long ago there were faithful priests who would not be afraid to criticize the Pope’s actions. When Pope John Paul II placed the read dot of the Hindus on his forehead Malachi Martin, among others, spoke out against it (and many other such betrayals). Today, the new generation of zealots for the Vatican think that one must accept all that is done in the name of the Papacy as God-sent.
To an outsider, this only confirms the slave-like mindset of most in communion with the Pope and doesn’t seem too far away from the religious stance of those enslaved to the cults. The Pope = the Holy Fathers. Or, rather, there is only one “Holy Father”: the Pope. And he is infallible. Yes, yes, I know that he is only infallible when speaking ex-cathedra and that has only happened twice, etc. etc. That is all fine and good, but this has passed into the consciousness of the rank and file faithful and in practice means blind obedience. Such blind obedience is NOT found among the Holy Fathers.
And it is frightening to think what will become of all these souls when the advent and ascent of Antichrist finally comes.