How Atheists can help us...

How atheists can help us....
by Fr Roberto Ubertino

http://stsilouan.org/priestmusings/How%20atheist%20can%20help%20us.html

St Nersess on the Horos of Chalcedon

“I find nothing in the horos [of Chalcedon] against the Orthodox faith, and I am astonished that those before us opposed it so strenously.”

+ St Nersess

Source: Theoriani Disputationes cum Armeniorum Catholico I, PG 133:204B, cited by A. Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994) 116.

* Horos Piestos = Definition of Faith

Fr John McGuckin On ”The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church”

"I believe, the future of Orthodox theology is neither Sophianism or Neo-Patristic synthesis; neither Neo-Palamism nor ressourciement, not Nouvelle théologieor even ancienne théologie for that matter; not progressivism or conservatism.  The future of Orthodox theology is fidelity to the Gospel lived out in the interim as we approach the eschaton. We have always known this; and accordingly have always known that we were supposed to resist the isms and secessions, scholasticisms, denominations, and all other sorts of factions that mark off a sectarian mentality from the ecclesial spirit. Now there have been endless temptations of the Christian church in recent generations to dissect itself in ever-diminishing circles. The ecumenical movement that once shone so radiantly in the early post-war years when these Orthodox thinkers of Lossky's time were in their prime, excited and energized, is now a squeaking ghost of itself because of that spirit of divisionism that is rife. Conservative Christians can hardly speak to progressives. But when we Orthodox are being specifically conscious about our mode of discourse today, I think we should remember that the church has always used philosophical method very eclectically to exegete the Gospel; applying a purely utilitarian principle. It can never wed itself to any method or school or system except that which Gregory the Theologian calls ' a fisherman's dialectic.' 

Orthodox have sometimes begun to imagine themselves as a denomination alongside other multiple churches in a pluralist world, and to speak of themselves in that way. But Orthodoxy's role is not to be a subaltern in a post-colonial ambit: to appear quaint when we speak to some putative West, as some putative East. On the contrary, we have to hold an important line: the church is not a sect. It contains within its living body, conservatives and progressives, liberal reformists and die-hard traditionalists, not to mention saints and sinners. Within Orthodoxy those who want to 'synthesize' for the future, and those who want to keep everything intact as it was in the past, both have to learn the hard reality that it is only God's eschaton that makes the correct judgement on what is right and what is wrong with the Church. The spotless Bride who contains all that is necessary for salvation in her trousseau, is ever the same (just seen in a different light) as that annoying baggage that is the Church on earth, which is comprised of an awful lot of flawed and compromised individuals trying to do their best to make their pilgrimage to the Kingdom. The Orthodox always attempt to be ever faithful to the evangelical tradition they have received and which they seek to preserve in the canons and the writings of the dogmatic and spiritual fathers, but above all they are called to live it out, live out that is the resurrectional presence of Christ, through his Spirit, in the largely unseen holiness of the ecclesial community."

+ Fr John McGuckin

Read the entire lecture @ http://svotssynaxis.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/on-the-mystical-theology-of-the-eastern-church/

Towards Unity

Towards Unity
By Met. Georges Khodr
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/met-georges-khodr-on-christian-unity.html

Ecclesiology and Nationalism

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/svsvoices/ecclesiology_and_nationalism_in_the_postmodern_era

Ecclesiology and Nationalism in the Postmodern Era

January 16, 2014 Length: 18:38

Bobby Maddex interviews Dr. Paul Meyendorff, the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of theSt. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly journal, about a 2012 conference on Orthodox ecclesiology and nationalism that took place at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies, the papers from which have just been published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly.

Transcript

Mr. Bobby Maddex: Welcome to Voices from St. Vladimir’s Seminary. I’m Bobby Maddex, Operations Manager of Ancient Faith Radio, and today I will be your host. Joining me is Dr. Paul Meyendorff, the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of theSt. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterlyjournal. The most recent edition of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly features papers presented at a conference called “Ecclesiology and Nationalism in the Postmodern Era,” and this took place in May of 2012 at the Volos Academy for Theological Studies in Volos, Greece.

Dr. Meyendorff was a presenter at this conference and is here to talk about both it and this special issue of the journal that he edits. Welcome to the program, Dr. Meyendorff.

Dr. Paul Meyendorff: Thank you very much. It’s good to be with you.

Mr. Maddex: So tell me about St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly: what is it, what is its purpose, and what sort of content does it typically feature?

Dr. Meyendorff: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly is an academic journal published by the faculty of St. Vladimir’s Seminary. It just completed its 57th year, so it has been in continuous publication since the late 1950s, and it is probably the preeminent Orthodox theological journal in the English-speaking world.

Mr. Maddex: All right. And then, as I mentioned, the papers from this conference are being presented in the journal this time, but give us an idea of what kinds of things would appear in the journal on a regular basis.

Dr. Meyendorff: Well, we receive submissions from scholars, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, from across the world on any number of topics. Most commonly we publish papers on patristics, on liturgical theology, on ecclesiology, but then every so often, we get the opportunity, as in this case, to publish the entire set of papers from an academic conference. This is the most recent. There was a conference in 2010 at St. Vladimir’s on Hellenism and Orthodoxy that also resulted in a double issue containing all the papers from that conference. So when we get either a conference or sufficient papers on a particular topic, then we like to publish thematic issues, because this is an excellent way to encourage kind of academic and theological dialogue in the Orthodox world.

Mr. Maddex: Now if our listeners wanted to get a look at these papers or just get a look at the journal in general, what is the best way for them to do that?

Dr. Meyendorff: Well, they can subscribe, obviously, to the journal, and they can do that through the website of the St. Vladimir’s Seminary Bookstore. For readers, especially academics, who have access to ATLAS serials, American Theological Library Association Serials, the full run of The Quarterly is available online by subscription, and usually theological libraries will have a subscription so that patrons can get access.

Mr. Maddex: Excellent. So let’s talk a little bit about the conference now. What was this conference all about? What was its purpose?

Dr. Meyendorff: The conference in Volos, as its title indicates, addressed a critical issue in contemporary Orthodoxy which is obviously the link between Church and state, Church and nationality, Church and ethnic group, and especially for us in America, this is a critical topic, given the current disunity in Orthodoxy in America and the search through agencies such as the Assembly of Bishops to kind of reach a solution to this problem which has now been ongoing for some 90 years.

Mr. Maddex: And then how did you come to receive an invitation to the conference?

Dr. Meyendorff: I had met Dr. Pantelis Kalaitzidis, the director of the Volos Academy, at several ecumenical and intra-Orthodox meetings over the years, and in particular I had given a paper at a conference in Paris three years ago on Fr. John Meyendorff’s role in the autocephaly of the OCA, so I was very glad to be invited, because this gave the opportunity for a voice from the Orthodox Church in America to be heard at an international conference, where our voice is often not heard because of the canonical situation of the Orthodox Church in America, not being recognized by Constantinople and especially the Greek-speaking Orthodox churches.

So it was because of that paper that I had given and because of their desire, obviously, to have a broad spectrum of voices, including someone from North America. I was the only speaker there from North America.

Mr. Maddex: In addition to having written this paper on autocephaly, what in your background, academic or otherwise, prepared you for this conference and the subject matter that it tackled?

Dr. Meyendorff: I was born in France and came to America in 1959 as a child when my father came to teach at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, so I was on the scene in the ‘60s when the question of Orthodox unity in America was a very hot topic, and I was aware of all the conversations that were going on that resulted in the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America. So I was there on the scene, and obviously since then I have been a professor now at St. Vladimir’s for the last 27 years. I’ve been involved in representing the Orthodox Church in America ecumenically in the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, so obviously I have a strong, vested interest in Orthodoxy in North America and, in fact, in the vision that was given to us by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, by my father, John Meyendorff, in promoting both Orthodox unity in America and a local, autonomous or autocephalous church.

Mr. Maddex: Was it your decision, Dr. Meyendorff, to feature the papers from the conference in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, or how did that come about?

Dr. Meyendorff: In a conversation that I had with Dr. Kalaitzidis, we were talking about the best way to promote this, and given the importance of the topic he suggested and I readily agreed to publish the papers in The Quarterly, because obviously as the primary English-language journal for Orthodox theology in the world, this was certainly the appropriate place to put that, especially since English is now the international language. Even when Orthodox of different national churches meet together, English is the only common language. So clearly, publication in English was the best way to have the results of this conference be broadcast as widely as possible.

Mr. Maddex: Did any new questions and/or concepts arise at the Volos Conference and in these papers that were particularly surprising or intriguing to you?

Dr. Meyendorff: I think probably the most striking factor was the disconnect between academic theologians and historians and their interpretation of history and what is the official line of the various churches. I think Orthodox theologians are generally agreed that identification of Church and state is a problem. They agree that Orthodox unity is desirable, especially in the so-called Diaspora; in other words, how they call North America. But one does not have that same feeling shared at the ecclesial level, on the level of synods of bishops and primates. This is obviously a huge challenge for Orthodoxy, because in fact the result is that we are not living up to our own theological vision.

Mr. Maddex: Could you give a few example of the history of Church-state relations and nationalism in the context of Orthodox Christian nations? What lessons can we glean from these as Orthodox Christians here in North America?

Dr. Meyendorff: The situation in North America is radically different from traditional Orthodox countries. In most Orthodox countries, Orthodoxy is the primary religion, the faith of the vast majority of the people, so there is a natural connection between society, the state, and the Church, which has its obviously positively characteristics as well as negative, although obviously the danger is, if the Church gets too close to the state, it can lead to problems, as we see for example in Russia today, where the Church has largely become an extension of the state in promoting its foreign policy and so on. Whether one agrees or not with that foreign policy, what happens if the state changes and the state’s policies change? It creates a problem where the Church kind of loses the respect and the trust of the people if it engages, therefore, too much in political affairs.

In North America, the situation is different, first of all, because we have a constitution that promotes the separation of church and state, but also because the Orthodox here are a tiny minority. We represent maybe one, or two at the most, percent of the population. Therefore, the situation here is radically different. Our problem is unity and the necessity to create a local Orthodox church, free of control, in fact, from other churches, many of which are controlled by states. I mean, that was exactly the case back in the ‘60s and 1970, when the OCA received its autocephaly.

If the listeners will remember, the situation was that since the Russian Revolution and the years following the revolution, the old Metropolia, which was the remnant of the old Russian mission, became de facto autonomous. Its canonical status was dubious; it was not recognized by all the other Orthodox churches, although we remained in communion with them and they never said that we were not Orthodox.

But then in the 1960s, when we tried to resolve this canonical situation, we first actually approached Constantinople to see if we could possibly go under them or find some mechanism for solving the canonical problem. They even refused to meet with us, and they said, “Your problem is with Russia. Go to Russia.” This is what then led to the beginning of conversations with the Russian Orthodox Church, and the granting of autocephaly, in other words, independence, from Russia. We certainly had no desire to go under the Russian Church, which at that time was controlled by a Communist government, and we were not able to go to resolve our problem with Constantinople, so autocephaly came out to be almost accidental.

But then obviously the vision behind that and the hope behind that was that this would eventually lead to the reunification of all the Orthodox in this country in one autonomous or autocephalous church, the creation of a territorial church in North America, which is still our dream, but unfortunately now the situation in the Episcopal Assembly is that one sees that that is not a dream that is shared by everyone. The ironic thing is that the only churches that really effectively do share that vision of a united territorial church [are] the Orthodox Church in America and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which also has a vision of a Church that is not nationalistic and that is based on a territorial principle of Church organization. Where we disagree with the Church of Constantinople is the mechanism, the way by which autocephaly is granted, by the way in which such a local church is actually created. Obviously, this is what is on the table in the Episcopal Assembly in the United States right now.

Mr. Maddex: Maybe you could give voice to the other side for a second. How does someone justify not wanting unification to take place in North America? What is the other side’s argument?

Dr. Meyendorff: The other side’s argument is precisely, unfortunately, based on a nationalistic view of the Church. If one sees the Church as the body which allows an ethnic group, whether Russian or Serbian or Bulgarian and so on, to maintain its identity and its links with a mother church and with therefore the society back home, then that is the rationale, then, that is given.

The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, considers itself as the church for Russians within Russian territory, but then also all those of Russian background who willingly submit themselves to her jurisdiction and therefore this provides a kind of rationale of maintaining a kind of colonial structure, which obviously makes unity impossible, especially here in America where even the old Metropolia, the OCA, is now either fifth- or sixth-generation Russian or ever-increasing numbers of converts and a sizeable new emigration from Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, it represents a radically different vision of the Church and ecclesiology, in other words, Church structure and organization, than in fact what is the traditional Orthodox view.

Mr. Maddex: As more and more people do convert, as the motherland and the so-called Diaspora here continues to grow apart, is there a chance that things will change?

Dr. Meyendorff: Well, we can always hope and pray. I think the vision is never totally gone, although, frankly, I think we can honestly say that the dynamism that existed in the 1960s when everybody was talking about Orthodox unity and the need to create a local church, that seems to have declined. One does not hear those voices so much any more, ever since Ligonier, when Archbishop Iakovos presided a meeting that could have led to a united Orthodox Church. As we all know, he was quickly retired, and ever since then things have been, in fact, going in a negative direction.

There was some hope that the Episcopal Assembly would kind of help to foster that vision and bring it about, but I think developments in the last year have indicated that many of the mother churches are not willing to let go and are not willing to support this kind of vision. I think the important thing at this point is to keep the conversation going and to get out of the maze that we find ourselves in, where there’s all these false starts and false endings.

The hope is that we can kind of regain that vision and the urgency of the situation. If our bishops really believed in this vision, this could happen. It almost happened after Ligonier, and in fact we have enough bishops here to create a local council, so in fact all it would take is all these bishops saying, “Let’s get together. Let’s form a local synod,” and present the mother churches with a fait accompli.

If one looks at the historical evidence, in fact, that’s how most autocephalies took place. Typically, they were a fact on the ground and then were recognized, sometimes 20, 30 years later. Actually, in the case of the Church of Russia, it was 150 years after the de facto autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church that this was formally recognized by a council presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch. In other words, things in Orthodoxy move at their own pace, not necessarily at our own pace, and we simply have to hope and pray, and sometimes be brave and courageous.

Mr. Maddex: Very interesting stuff, Dr. Meyendorff. Is there anything else that you’d like to add before I let you go today?

Dr. Meyendorff: Just to express my gratitude. I’m very happy to have this opportunity through The Quarterly and through our conversation to get these issues out on the table and to get our people, at all levels of the Church—bishops, clergy, and faithful in the parishes—to kind of focus once more on these issues.

Mr. Maddex: Well, once again, to acquire a copy of this most recent issue of the St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, you can go to the St. Vladimir’s Bookstore website, and you can subscribe there. I thank you so much for talking to me about this today, Dr. Meyendorff.

Dr. Meyendorff: You are very welcome. And they can also order individual copies, of this issue or back issues.

Mr. Maddex: Oh, that’s good to know. Very good.

Dr. Meyendorff: We printed extra copies, because we thought there might be some demand.

Mr. Maddex: Very good. Once again, I have been speaking with Dr. Paul Meyendorff. He is the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology and the editor of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly.

Are Orthodox Christians Imploding Before the Great Commission?

Are Orthodox Christians Imploding Before the Great Commission?
http://holyresurrection.areavoices.com/2014/01/16/are-orthodox-christians-imploding-before-the-great-commission/

The Orthodox Church has a venerable tradition of evangelism.  In many sectors of Western Christianity, it is largely unknown, despite its great success.  After all, Orthodox Christianity reached Alaska somehow and Christianity has existed in Eastern Europe and Asia since times before that.  Often, one looks to the work begun by Ss. Cyril and Methodios, putting the Gospel into the language of the Slavic peoples, but it was there before that.  There are, of course, complications in any narrative, especially when one realizes past societies did not share all of our values, but all in all, Orthodoxy was spread and spread well.  In some situations, it even spread through the work of Orthodox clergy and monastics finding creative ways to integrate with the local cultures (though flat out imperialism also occurred).

To Judge or Not To Judge

A very good read...(a similar theme can be found on this page: http://www.antiochian.org/content/what-about-non-orthodox-exclusive-claims-church )

TO JUDGE OR NOT TO JUDGE

by Vladimir Moss on November 1/14, 2007.
Source: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/209/-judge-or-not-judge/

If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?I Peter 4.18.

     “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7.1) – we all know this very important commandment of the Lord. We know what it means: to express condemnation of a person with hatred or derision. And we know, if we are honest with ourselves, that we very often sin against it… However, the word “judge” has many meanings in the English language; and there is a tendency to use the commandment not to judge in this sense as an excuse for inaction, as a stick with which to suppress dissident opinions, and even, sometimes, as an argument in favour of ecumenism. Let us look at these different meanings.

More On Joint Commission

Two Families of Orthodox

http://lacopts.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-life/two-families-of-orthodox/

Realizing Unity

"restored unity will therefore be a test of humility for some and of charity for all"
+ Fr John Meyendorff

+ + +

Chalcedonians and Non Chalcedonians: Realizing Unity

Peter Bouteneff

The modern situation of the dialogue between the two church families, the Chalcedonian or "Eastern" Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonian or "Oriental" Orthodox churches, is simultaneously encouraging and frustrating. On the one hand, the encounters of the past decades (and particularly the official dialogues since 1985) have produced some striking results which brought many people to raise hopes and expectations for imminent reunion. On the other hand, it seems that there has been little visible change "on the ground," and little recognition or awareness of the dialogues in our local churches. My purpose here is to set out some of the issues which have already received attention (at times, perhaps, insufficient attention), as well as some of the other factors which contribute to slowing the realization of our unity.

On Orthodox Unity

The unity between the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches in this generation, gives a practical and accurate lesson concerning the concept of Unity, to the theologians who are interested in the Ecumenical Movement.

These churches have differences in some details of tradition, but have one Faith and one Tradition. In the last years the whole world had seen more than one time, the participation of the Patriarchs, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and Laymen from these churches in one service, giving one offer for all.

These churches must play an active role with their sisters, the Chalcedonian Orthodox churches, to put one expression for the one faith concerning the nature of Christ. Their views -in their essence- have come nearer. Having done this, the Orthodox Church should devote all her power for preaching to the whole world.

+ Fr. Tadros Malaty, Traditon and Orthodoxy, 56

Beyond East and West

Like Fr Andrew Louth's talk on Aquinas, Marcus Plested's "Orthodox Readings of Aquinas" is a wonderful study that explores how Thomas Aquinas has been received or rejected by various figures of the Orthodox East after 1354. In particular, Plested questions the often voiced anti-Western rhetoric which occupies much of contemporary Orthodox thought and opinion.

This blog has at times also indulged in that temptation and located particular issues antithetical to Orthodoxy as an inheritance of a corrupted West. Perhaps a serious reassessment of such 'categories' (whether 'scholastic,' 'cataphatic,' 'mystical,' or 'apophatic') will be needed and St Basil's metaphor of honeybees better understood and adopted.

Plested's book suggests a larger vision and scope for the future of Orthodox theology, perhaps suggesting that Orthodoxy is not defined by her Latin or Greek (or Syriac or Coptic or Armenian) traditions, but rather by a shared ethos that constantly beholds, points towards, reveals, and is within the divine life of Christ.

A lot to reconsider and pray about.

Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on us sinners. Amen.

"The oppositional theologizing that had dominated Orthodox discourse in the twentieth century is...a sign of weakness rather than strength - in Plato's words, a 'failing of the wing' (Plato, Phaedrus, 248c; cf. Plotinus, Enneads, 4.8.1). A self-confident Orthodoxy has no need of a caricature of the West against which to model itself in reaction. A self-confident Orthodoxy need not fear the corrupting 'influence' of the West,  nor be afraid to learn from and embrace the best of the West - Aquinas in particular. A self-confident Orthodoxy can afford to be generous..." 

"...The largely negative take on Aquinas in recent Orthodox theology has certainly had its upside. It has tended to go hand-in-hand with a welcome re-affirmation of the patristic tradition, with the accent on its mystical and ascetic dimensions. All this is profoundly salutary and its importance must not be underestimated. But there is a very grave risk that in this process of re-affirmation and retrieval such essential elements of the Orthodox experience may be taken to stand for the whole. Mysticism has an essential role to play within Orthodox theology, but so does reason. The apophatic and cataphatic ways are not opposites, but complementary and interdependent; pure apophaticism, if such a thing were possible, is tantamount to obfuscation. Asceticism, too, is a vital and distinctive manifestation of Orthodox tradition but it is not, and has never been, the sole reference point for Orthodox theology. Modern Orthodoxy too often presents a rather partial account of itself, one that fails to do justice to its own substantial scholastic inheritance,  an inheritance going back almost a thousand years before 1354 and which enabled many Byzantines to recognize Thomas as one of their own..." 

"...Such an appropriation would serve to explode the very human and time-bound construct of an East-West dichotomy and to demonstrate the fundamental congruity and, so to say, consanguinity of Greek and Latin theological traditions. Such an appropriation would, in so doing, enable Orthodoxy to be true to itself, true to its inherent catholicity and to an orthodoxy neither occidental nor oriental but 'one in Christ Jesus.'"

+ Marcus Plested, Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 226 to 228.

Autocephaly Problem: History and Present

Autocephaly problem: history and present
by Very Rev. John H. Erickson (Presented at Institut de théologie orthodoxe Saint-Serge in Paris, at the conference "The Forthcoming Council of the Orthodox Church: Understanding the Challenges" on 18-20 October 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFhJGj1kh4

Transcript:

Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity

"Blessed is the souls that loves her brother, for our brother is our life."

+ St Silouan the Athonite

The late Fr John Meyendorff wrote the article below in 1988 when there was still momentum for the Orthodox Joint Commission.

Such a tragedy that since 1993 there has been growing apathy concerning the hope of the Orthodox Joint Commission (even the simple website www.orthodoxunity.org has been abandoned)...

Je Nai Nan, Lord have mercy on us sinners.

Have mercy on our petty politics, our jurisdictional pride, our spiritual nationalism, our competing for numbers, our lack of compassion.

Je Nai Nan, Lord have mercy on us sinners.

Forgive me, beloved readers, for my presumption. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.


Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity
by Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33.4 (1989) 319-329.
(Originally published in Orthodox Identity in India. Essays in honor of V. C. Samuel. Edited by M. K. Kuriakose, Bangalore, 1988, pp. 105-117)

Our century has witnessed significant steps towards better understanding and doctrinal unity between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Eastern Christians. Of course, the basic identity of christological understanding between the churches was affirmed earlier; for instance, by the very well-informed Russian Bishop Porphyry Uspensky, who, during his long travels throughout the Middle East, was in close contact, particularly with the Coptic Church, and wrote about his impressions subsequently.

On Being Received Into Full Communion in the Orthodox Church

A fascinating post concerning the practice of re-Chrismation and re-Baptism:

"The heresy of the self-appointed reanointers"

http://pearlofgp.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-heresy-of-self-appointed.html

If you've recently been reanimated from the ice chamber you stepped into 1500 years ago, please allow me to bring you up to speed on our times; the world is a much smaller place than you remember.

Growing up in one of North America's largest cities, my school yard was a tiny microcosm of the wide diversity that exists in our world. I have many happy memories growing up and playing with my friends, many who like me, came from some exotic land and had their own customs and traditions that were unfamiliar to the rest of us. This wide variety of traditions even extended into the differences between myself and many of my Christian chums. Some of my friends were the theological progeny of so-called 'monophysites,' Athonite 'belly gazers,' numerous 'papists' (I attended a Catholic school), and even one 'Nestorian.' As I grew older, I was taught who was the most orthodox in God's taxonomy of Church order. I fear that other Sunday school children might have also been taught a similar taxonomy, one which put their Church/jurisdiction superior to all the others. What happened? We went from seeing each other as friends, maybe even brothers and sisters, reduced to the caricatures some theologically ill-informed teacher had taught us in a Sunday school classroom. Sadly, many of us have continued to hold on to these caricatures into our adult years, and unfortunately, many of us have also participated in this divisive paradosis (tradition by instruction) by becoming those types of Sunday School teachers ourselves. Beyond what you might believe, Greeks do not have four heads, Copts do not breath fire, and Catholics do not have horns. 

The topic of Ecumenism is too big to tackle, and isn't really the point of this entry. Today's post is intended to present the Canons and instructions from the fathers of both the 'Chalcedonian' and 'non-Chalcedonian' Churches pertaining to the proper procedure on how a Church community ought to receive a parishioner coming from a sister Apostolic Church (ie. Catholic, Byzantine Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox). This is an important topic since many people in our times are beginning to participate and even join other apostolic churches other than the ones they were first baptize and brought up in. This small percentage of people who leave one jurisdiction for another are providing us with a sample test to see how truly ecumenically minded we are, versus how much we might say we are. So how ought they be recieved...?

I'll provide you with the answer right here, and I'll copy the primary source proofs below -

No priest from the Catholic, Byzantine, or Oriental church is to receive a parishioner coming from another apostolic church through chrismation, let alone baptism; such individuals are to be received through a confession of faith.

The Problem of Phyletism

Je Nai Nan....

Alas, the element of nationalism, of ethnic narrowness, is a fact that we can see very widely in the contemporary Orthodox Church. And it has of course deep historical roots. It is not only a problem of today.

Neoplatonic myth

Jurisdictionalism (as Christians in North America and the Lands of Immigration have experienced), Orthodox 'denominationalism', spiritual nationalism and ethnic ghettos are all distortions and misrepresentations of Orthodox lived theology. If we cannot see ourselves and Christ in our Orthodox brothers and sisters, and if we continue to embrace either a sort of jurisdictional pride [thinking we're the only pure Orthodox] or practice in a way that is foreign to Orthodox ethos [becoming unrecognizable as Orthodox to other Orthodox], we make the hope of Orthodox unity increasingly difficult.

Orthodox Christian Identity in America

Fr. John H. Erickson on "Orthodox Christian Identity in America: Historical Perspectives, Present Challenges" Recorded on November 15, 2012  at St. Herman of Alaska Orthodox Sobor in Edmonton, AB, Canada. www.sthermans.ca

Fr. John is the Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary in New York, USA. Recorded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8R8oCo4WL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5LoJ8RblxY

Transcript:

Joint Missions as means of Orthodox Unity

Met Boulos Yazigi & Met Yohanna Ibrahim
(Kidnapped doing humanitarian work in Syria on 22 April, 2013)

I wonder if cooperation in our missions and service can also be a way of actualizing the agreements between the Orthodox families that were worked out in the Orthodox Joint Commission? A similar suggestion was discussed in this post http://orthodoxyisorthodoxy.blogspot.ca/2012/12/practical-steps-to-implement-joint.html :

EPISCOPAL COLLABORATION in such areas as parish visitation, publishing, and social service programs. As soon as Chalcedonians see their bishops alongside non-Chalcedonian bishops, and vice versa, working for a common cause, bonds of fraternity will be quick to form. Bishops of the two communities could make plans for joint visitation of certain parishes, especially in cities where both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian parishes are found (e.g., Boston, New York, Los Angeles). Publication projects, especially those relevant to the common roots and shared faith of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian traditions, could be undertaken jointly. When responding to the human needs created by natural disasters and political strife, why could our churches not pool their resources, thereby manifesting a united Orthodox witness in the secular world? Why, for example, should the non-Chalcedonian churches not be asked to join with their Chalcedonian counterparts in the work of the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC)? Such common effort produces common vision.

+ Fr Theodore Pulcini, "Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Relations: Practical Steps Toward Unity." St. Nersess Theological Review 1. no.1 (New York: St. Nersess Armenian Seminary Press, 2006) 63-65.

Perhaps such unity can be worked out on a lay level even as they are being worked on on the level of our hierarchs. 

Rather than setting up competing jurisdictions in the mission field...

"... in every area there should exist one Orthodox Bishop, with his simple or rather combined flock, who as the true spiritual father and pastor will labour to meet the needs and sensitivities of his flock demonstrating reverence and understanding in regards to the language, particular customs and traditions, etc.

United Orthodoxy will progress and will triumph. The hope of the world today is Orthodoxy and all of us Orthodox need to understand this, putting aside every minor difference and to respond in unity to the will of the Lord, who “desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of truth” (1 Tim 2:4)."

+ Metropolitan of New Zealand, Amfilochios, http://modeoflife.org/2013/01/30/the-greatness-of-pan-orthodoxy/

A Shared Ethos

"I first read St Ephrem, St Severus, and VC Samuel at a Byzantine seminary. In addition, I never understood why we put the cross in the baptismal font during Denaha until I saw what the Byzantines do in their tradition. (and no, I’m not going to share, to find out everyone will have to do the ghastly act of researching another Orthodox experience)

Our exposure to other Orthodox traditions is not a threat, it’s a blessing and helps us understand ourselves better. In seminary I got to learn about Russian, Antiochene, Greek, Ethiopian, and even Armenian traditions. It was an amazing experience. We will not lose our Malankara ethos (whatever you define that as) by opening ourselves to experience the way the Holy Spirit has worked through a people and a culture different than ours. If anything, the Byzantines have learned from us too. Several Byzantine students studied Syriac with us at the Armenian seminary.

Something I’ve noticed is that when a priest or bishop from India studies from a Catholic or Protestant school, it is to their credit. When someone from America studies at an Orthodox institution, it is our handicap. Why?"

+ Fr. Mat Alexander, http://www.orthodoxherald.com/2011/01/22/byzantine-orthodox-ethos-a-threat-to-our-liturgical-theology-fr-mat-alexander/

Father Mat's article raises a wonderful point: that we Orthodox are not made up of Orthodox "denominations" and that in seeing Christ and ourselves in each other we have much to learn and grow together.

Barriers to Unity Part 2: Nationalism and Thinking in Terms of "Diaspora"

"Christ, in his humble condescension, is hidden throughout all mankind" 

+ Metropolitan Georges (Khodre)

"If the passing millennium was an era of religious-nationalistic hostility, could we possibly hope that the next one will be a time for nationalities to come to a respectful appreciation for each other? What an incredible witness it would be if Orthodox nationalities would assert the Gospel-based, charitable and prudent attitudes towards other members of the human race!"

+ Fr. Alexander Garklavs

Culture and ethnicity, diversity of the different Orthodox cultures can be a very positive thing, but what is often dangerous is the walled in mentality, of "them vs. us" that has created Jurisdictionalism and Orthodox "Denominationalism" in North America. Culture and Ethnicity has also been recapitulated by the Cross and Resurrection, and as such has the potential for restoration instead of the fallenness which creates the idol of nationalism.