Proto-ecumenism before the 1920s

User avatar
Jean-Serge
Protoposter
Posts: 1400
Joined: Fri 1 April 2005 11:04 am
Location: Paris (France)
Contact:

Re: Proto-ecumenism before the 1920s

Post by Jean-Serge »

Greece had 2 dynasties. The first one was from the Kingdom of Bavaria and did not last long. Only one king reigned. They were catholics and never converted to orthodoxy. The king was Otto.

The next one was from Denmark and chosen by the Great Powers. He became Georges 1st of Greece and remained Lutheran. His wife was Olga, a Romanov and godmother of Edward VIII of England. The children were orthodox. There were wedding with other royal families latter, just like for the case of the Romanovs. I haven't investigated that much the Greek royal weddings.

Here is there family tree : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_roy ... te_members

Priidite, poklonimsja i pripadem ko Hristu.

User avatar
SavaBeljovic
Jr Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue 9 January 2024 1:19 pm
Faith: True Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: ROAC
Location: Abita Springs, Louisiana

Re: Proto-ecumenism before the 1920s

Post by SavaBeljovic »

Jean-Serge wrote: Tue 21 May 2024 4:24 pm

Greece had 2 dynasties. The first one was from the Kingdom of Bavaria and did not last long. Only one king reigned. They were catholics and never converted to orthodoxy. The king was Otto.

The next one was from Denmark and chosen by the Great Powers. He became Georges 1st of Greece and remained Lutheran. His wife was Olga, a Romanov and godmother of Edward VIII of England. The children were orthodox. There were wedding with other royal families latter, just like for the case of the Romanovs. I haven't investigated that much the Greek royal weddings.

Here is there family tree : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_roy ... te_members

 

Otto I of Greece was placed in power by the British, the convention that led to the 1st Greek Kingdom was staffed by the French and Russians as well, and the Russians tried to get an Orthodox King elected instead, to which the British and French expressly rejected, and insisted on a non-Orthodox monarch. In Greece today, Otto I is not typically seen as a legitimate monarch. 

Historically for the monarchs and nobility the Church would bless mixed marriages to maintain the state, such as in the case with the Grand Duke Sergei and St. Elisabeth (who was a Lutheran when she married Sergei). Such a thing happened a lot with the Byzantine Emperors as well. It's not justified but it could be counted as "pastoral" rather than canonical for the reasonings of why such things occurred.
 

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

eish
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon 11 March 2024 2:15 pm
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Left the Greek Alexandrian Patriarchate

Re: Proto-ecumenism before the 1920s

Post by eish »

Vladimir Moss has also written that ecumenism in some form is ancient.

Although ecumenists can be found even in the early centuries of Christianity, ecumenism became a mass phenomenon only after the Second World War.

I am inclined to agree; in fact I do not think that there is anything "proto" about it. Rather I find upon reflection, that ecumenism has remained in essence the same.

The ecumenists say that our doctrinal differences do not matter and should not impede unity. Well, the emperor and his men invented monothelitism in order to create a false unity between Orthodoxy and monophysitism. Various uniates have for centuries tried to have false unity between Orthodoxy and papism. And before all of those, Arians did everything in their power to keep the Orthodox laity and clergy in their communion.

Just consider that for one second--we know Arius was a heretic, but he claimed that Orthodox Christology was the heresy. His followers lied, deceived, connived, and did everything imaginable to get people into communion with them both knowingly and unknowingly. By intentionally communing and uniting with the Orthodox--successfully or otherwise--they, like every other group who have ever hidden their heretical beliefs or created false unions, must necessarily have held an ecumenist view which allows unity with (what they consider) heretics. So did those who accepted the deal.

And before them, where do we find the same view? It is pagan in origin. The pagans have always and with very few exceptions believed that they can worship any and all gods at the same time and they will worship with those who also worship with contradictory religions. They allowed worship of Christ and still do.

The part which pagan persecutors had a problem with was the exclusivity of Christianity, and that is the same position which the ecumenist holds. The temptation to get along and have peace with the world has not changed. What has certainly changed, is that those with such an inclination--whether or not their true numbers have changed--have obtained the power to live out their fantasies in the absence of a strong force to depose them.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Post Reply