It is a surprise to no one who has followed ecumenical communications that the Church has had an inconsistent (disuniform to use a word no longer in vogue) response to non-Orthodox religious bodies. This has caused strife between more trenchant defenders of an untainted Church and others that see dialogue as an important path to conversion.
An Orthodox Church can begin a dialogue with a Protestant or Ecumenical group only to find that, some years on, the group they were speaking with has made a decision so heretical or heterodox that it can no longer continue the dialogue (see recent election of a female bishop to a leadership position in Germany, the growing permissiveness of the Presbyterians in the US, the unity-of-organization over unity-of-belief tendencies of the WCC) or, if they choose to continue dialogue, must make some definitive statement distancing itself while stressing the importance of continued discussion.
The problem is that while the Greek Church (for example) might be willing to speak more expansively about inter-Church relations, another group like the Russian Church (for example) might find the discussion overreaching. Friction occurs. Friction when one church sees the other as speaking for it with no "right" to do so. Friction in numerous parallel discussions going on regarding similar topics with sometimes contradictory statements made in post-talk declarations. Friction on which issues are dogmatic and which are theologoumena. Friction on what topics should even be discussed at all.
Still, discussion needs to happen. Efforts like the below are important in building a sustainable framework for ecumenical dialogue and could function as the groundwork for construction of a holistic Orthodox approach to dialogue that will be taken up in the upcoming Great Council.
 |
(mospat.ru) - The Inter-Council Presence’s commission on attitude to non-Orthodoxy and other religions met on 7 September 2010 at the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations. It was chaired by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk.
The commission considered documents drafted by its working groups during this year. With some clarifications and remarks it approved in principle the draft document on the Participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Inter-Christian Dialogue prepared on the basis of the experience accumulated since the document on the Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Attitude to Non-Orthodoxy was adopted by the 2000 Bishops’ Council. The commission also discussed the strategy to be pursued by the Russian Orthodox Church in inter-Christian dialogue in the future.
The document elaborated by the commission will be submitted to the presidium of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church.
It was also agreed to continue working at the document on the admission rite for non-Orthodox people and the draft document on the Russian Orthodox Church’s Concept of Inter-Religious Relations.
Posts
I am not opposed to ecumenism, if I know what the definition being used is and to what purpose. Discussion and/or dialogue can be a good thing but what I don't get and I'm sure others don't either, is why the various Orthodox 'Churches' (as opposed to 'the Orthodox Church' - one voice) continues in said discussion/dialogue with non-Orthodox bodies which have totally gone off the deep end. Here I speak of the obvious, The Episcopal Church and The Evangelical Lutheran Church both of which are for all intent and purpose "HERETICAL". What can Orthodoxy say to them which has not already been stated repeatedly? These bodies only want to continue discussion/dialogue as a means of justifying themselves in their own eyes. It's like "look at us, we must be on the right track because the Orthodox Churches are still talking to us!"
ReplyDeleteWhen Metropolitan Jonah spoke before the new ANGLICAN CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA, I applauded. He laid out the basics of what this new body could and should do to to begin the process of becoming an authentic Orthodox Catholic Expression as a Western Church in America. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) the ACNA continues down the same road (TEC) which they claim they are abandoning. So sad. At this point 'ecumenism' between the Orthodox Churches and the ACNA is dead. This should be the way 'ecumenism' should be handled. If the ACNA should reverse course and indicate a willingness to learn then the process could begin anew.
I'm not sure if this is what Met. Jonah is planning, but when I talked with him while he was on campus, I really got this feeling that he figured that this appeal from the OCA would really affect those in ACNA who realize ACNA won't change. I think it breaks down as this:
ReplyDelete1. ACNA claims to be orthodox Anglicanism in line with historic Christianity
2. Speak to ACNA about what it's doing that is not historic
3. Watch Duncan deflect as good at 815
4. #3 should instill hopelessness into the contingency of Anglo-Caths.
5. And as they're thinking of it, didn't Met. Jonah say something about a Western rite?
6. Time to move!