James the chief wrote:
I agree that the Catholics have greatly erred concerning the faith, but where is the evidence that the Antiochians have joined them? I need specifics here.
Dear James,
I think part of the reason you haven't recieved a straight, hard-hitting, no punches pulled digest of Antiochian errors is most of the people on this board have debated such things often, and have rarely found it to be fruitful. Usually, such discussions end up being more of a political boxing match than an honest and productive dialogue. My family came from the Antiochian Archdiocese and left family and friends behind - many painful discussions polluted with personal emotions and sentimentality have made it quite clear that the best way for someone honestly seeking the truth to find it is for them to actually look it up themselves. Though I have no intention of turning this into yet another debate that I won't have time to finish, I'll give you a few leads that you can follow up on if you choose to do so.
There are two ways in which the Antiochians have "joined" the Catholics, as you put it.
First, in promoting practices foreign to Orthodoxy and genetic to Catholicism, such as mandatory shaving, pews, elimination of most fasting (see Vatican II), departure from mandatory confession before communion, and other innovations. Do some research and see if you can find a distinction in the Holy Fathers between "traditions of God" and "traditions of men", and seriously consider the genealogy of Church traditions, and these things may become more meaningful to you. Personally, these issues only became important to me after I joined the Church Abroad and started to live an Orthodoxy quite different from that taught by Antioch.
Secondly, Antioch has made serious ecclessiological errors, by recognizing the Latins as a "sister church" in the Balamand agreement and participating in common prayer services and quasi-sacramental activities with the Pope and with outright Pagans vis-a-vis the World Council of Churches - I have some movies on this that I might someday digitize for the internet, and are absolutely astonishing to see, but until then you're going to have to do some research and perhaps google Antioch and the WCC as well as the Balamand agreement, ecumenism and the patriarchate of antioch, ecumenism Saliba - gosh I can think of any number of searches that might turn up good (and bad) information on the subject. If you're serious, start searching. Here's a tidbit I just googled up from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_balamand.aspx:
Today's Ecumenism...and the "Still, Small Voice", by Priest Alexey [now Hieromonk Ambrose] Young wrote:
On the one hand, we have the recent Balamand Agreement, an astonishing document in which there seems little doubt that the Orthodox signatories did indeed give some kind of official recognition to Rome as a "Sister Church." This, however, was not quite as new as it first appeared: the idea that Orthodoxy and Rome are "Sister Churches" has been around, in one form or another, for some time. It has its theological origins in the 19th century Church of England [2] and has been at the heart of the Ecumenical Movement for some decades now. Consistent with this teaching, the late Patriarch Demetrios of Constantinople asserted (in 1974) that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, was now restored to his ancient primacy of "love and honor . . . in the pentarchy of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." [3] Similarly, last year the present Patriarch, Bartholomew, publicly hailed Pope John Paul II as a "brother Patriarch" and, using the Pope's own imagery, spoke of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as "the two lungs of the Body of Christ." This, Bartholomew proclaimed, is a fundamental ecclesiological truth"! [4]
On the other hand, publication of the Balamand Agreement was met with undisguised criticism—not only on the part of Orthodox traditionalists, but even among hierarchs and clergy belonging to those Churches which were signatories to the Agreement; some of these were frankly appalled, even embarrassed. Bishop Antoun (Antiochian Archdiocese) told this writer, in outraged tones, that this Agreement "is of no effect," that it is "nothing," that it has in fact been given "no authority," and should be viewed as if it had never happened. This, in spite of the fact the Agreement was signed by official representatives or delegates of nine Orthodox Churches, including the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, and Romania!
James the chief wrote:
The 'ecumenist' charge is the most serious, and I would appreciate any honest argument that might convince me that I am erring in aligning myself with the Antiochians.
Well obviously you have to define what ecumenism is for you before you can determine whether Antioch's papal entanglements or WCC activities qualify, but if ecumenism is about recognizing non-Orthodox churches in official agreements, look up the Ballamand union, and if ecumenism is about participating in quasi-sacramental activities with non-Orthodox, look up the WCC, and if ecumenism is about intercommuning with outright heretics, look up the coptic/monophysite relationship with the Patriarchate of Antioch.
The most important thing is to take responsibility for finding some things out on your own - everyone has an ideology, and everyone has been taught by someone, and nobody is infallible - not even your own parish priest. You're asking the right questions, but if you want real answers, and not just pointless debates, you'll probably have to find them on your own.
May the Lord help you and all of us.
~ Joshua Fraese
St. Vladimir's Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Edmonton
http://www.stvladimirs.ca[/i]
