World Orthodox Ecumenism article in French

[Kollyvas]

1). By the quote of myself, IT IS CLEAR I DO CALL FOR EVEN DEPOSITION OF THE CLERIC IN QUESTION AS WELL AS A SPIRITUAL COURT TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER.

2). one man asserting the Canons against a local church to denonounce it as heterodox is ultramontane when that man in the same breath is not interested in seeing the full course of conciliarity through, ie alerting clergy, Bishops, calling for Spiritual Courts IN THE HOPE OF RESTORATION of Orthodoxy if a breach exists. If such a person enter into resistance IN HUMILITY, his obligation becomes to call for the restoration of Orthodoxy through CONCILIARITY and MUTUAL repentance typefied in a Common Chalice. His obligation is to uphold Orthodoxy in his life and in his explanation of error as well correct doctrine. Outside of that, there is schism, and the CANONS DO INDEED indicate resistance as a righteous path, BUT NEVER SCHISM...

R

[Daniel]

Kollyvas,
I'm short on time at the moment, so I can only give a short reply.

Given what one has to sign off on to be a full member in the WCC I don't see how one can still lay claim to 'orthodoxy' at the same time as being a member of the WCC. In short, I believe, not with out due reason, that full membership in the WCC amounts to acceptance of Ecumenism and anulls one's one claim to othodoxy.

I do not doubt the most of faithfull in the MP reject Ecumenism. Yet their hierachy at it's upper levels are mired in it and fully commited to it.

The orthodox solution to social ills and such in totally incompatable with any other approach. This has to do with Orthodoxy's unique teaching on Man's anthropology, the Fall and salvation.

I do not call for rebellion, just an adhearance to Orthodoxy. If this means no longer commemorating one's bishop because he preaches heresy then so be it. A good example to follow, I think, in this regard in St. Glicheri (sp?) of Romania.

Daniel Ph.

[Kollyvas]

Doctrinally, the Orthodox issue separate statements in the wcc and similar para-synagogues and their memberships are predicated on NOT ACCEPTING branch theory eccelsiology--Fr. Florovsky set that up I believe at Evanston. That being said, I concur that dialogue in the wcc and similar organizations CEASE immediately, and the Orthodox develop other structures of dialogue as evangelical, doctrinal witness to encourage the heterodox to recant their errors and enter the ONE TRUE CHURCH, the Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church. The question of collaboration on social themes does not serve as an impediment to Orthodox particiaption, for I feel that social justice is inextricably bound to Orthodoxy; indeed, it is Orthodoxy's progeny. Now social justice used as policy or political posturing is utterly inappropriate unless it is used to alleviate poverty, suffering, oppression, end genocide, etc., but not pursue national or globalist interests. Ceasing commemoration is indeed appropriate AFTER ALL ELSE FAILS, ie for a layman, informing his Priest, his Bishop, pursuing a spiritual court, even informing fellow members of his jurisdiction IN HUMILITY. Then IN HUMILITY, commemoration can be ceased and resistance entered into in the hopes of restoring the health (in HUMILITY) of himself, for separation is a great spiritual wound, and his former synodeia. He cannot actively and effectively resist without bearing his brother's cross...Anything remotely ultramontane or pharisaical should always be viewed as suspect especially if it comes in the name of resistance.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav
Holy Hierarch Glicherie, Pray To God For Us!

[Jean-Serge]

2). one man asserting the Canons against a local church to denonounce it as heterodox is ultramontane when that man in the same breath is not interested in seeing the full course of conciliarity through, ie alerting clergy, Bishops, calling for Spiritual Courts IN THE HOPE OF RESTORATION of Orthodoxy if a breach exists. If such a person enter into resistance IN HUMILITY, his obligation becomes to call for the restoration of Orthodoxy through CONCILIARITY and MUTUAL repentance typefied in a Common Chalice.
R

Yes the canonical path is to write to the bishop, then to the synod of bishops and make a vcanonical trial... But alas, in most case, your suit will not be examined, and you will get no answer. I know this because some strange things occurs in a determined diocese in France. I know the people who wrote this letters, to the bishop, to the synod... Finally, he got no answer at all...

This clearly indicates such bishops have succumbed to heresy and that there is nothing to do with them. There are things which you cannot conciliate... The Lord demands us : "Youe yes should be yes and your no should be no"... Abandonning too early a jurisdiction without trying a canonical trial, is not very wise, but staying after you realized people really do not care about what you say is not the good path...

If we follow your opinion, Catholics should write the Pope to say him he is wrong, and wait, and stay Catholics...

Of course we quoted canons from local councils but these canons were recognised by ecumenical councils (in most cases). Moreover, I think since they are in the Pedalion or the Nomocanon, the church recognize they have a universal meaning...

[Kollyvas]

The anathemas against the latins bore ecumenical character for they were accepted by all local churches. They were excommunicated as heretics by the Church. Now, errant Orthodox may indeed be under Canonical condemnations, local churches may indeed be renegade and due condemnation for certain acts/teachings, but until there is consensus (involving clerics & pious laity)in the Oikumene which upholds these condemnations, they, the Canons/Patristic Witness, are a matter of resistance and not settled. I would suggest to one who pursued recourse and could not get it, and could not remain where he was out of spiritual weakness, to find a humble & loving synodeia which upheld Orthodoxy and pray for himself and his former Synodeia that Orthodoxy in the bond of love and humility be reaffirmed as soon as possible...
R

[Daniel]

Hear are some more thoughts on the WCC...

Though there may have been some hope among some Orthodox (like Fr. Georges Florovsky), it sure has been dashed over the decades (Even Fr. Georges became disenchanted with the whole thing, I believe). WCC is has only one function: To help build the Religion of the Antichrist! With that in mind why would any decent Orthodox Christian want anything to do with it?
Orthodox involvement with the WCC has only diluted it's witness; which leads me to my next point...

The concept of 'social justice' is rather novel. In fact I can't think of a good definition that really can pin it down; It is a purely Materialistic concept, in my view.

What is the cause of all 'social injustices'? Why is there poverty, oppression, and strife? Quite simply, because Adam disobeyed God. The only way to even begin to alleviate pain and suffering is through repentace, through aquiring the Holy Spirit. But even at that none of this will go way. That will come at the Dread Second Coming of Christ.

Again, it only weakens and dilutes Orthodoxy's witness of Truth to collaborate with Materialists on 'social justice' issues.

[Kollyvas]

The Christ I confess instructed us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, ransom the captive...saying that what we do unto the least among us we do for Him. This is what social justice means. It's part of Orthodox ontology. Reading St. John Chrysostom ON WEALTH & POVERTY, for instance, makes that clear. No amount of agendized statements makes this any less true.
R