[orbidewa]

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14708

03/12/2009 15:34


TURKEY


Journey begins toward convening of grand pan-Orthodox synod


NAT da Polis


The invitation letters have gone out for the two preparatory meetings that will be held in June and December. Ten topics of discussion. The ecumenical patriarchate has been trying to hold a synod of Orthodox Churches since 1901.


Istanbul (AsiaNews) - With the sending of letters of invitation to all the heads of the Orthodox Churches for the two preparatory meetings for the grand pan-Orthodox synod, scheduled for June and December of this year, Bartholomew has set in motion the decisions made at the recent pan-Orthodox meeting in October, held in Constantinople, and attended by deceased patriarch of Moscow Alexy as his last act in life.


Bartholomew has stepped up the pace for the convening of the grand synod, which has the objective of responding to all of the problems that have built up over the course of centuries, and continue to plague relations among the Orthodox Churches, with extensive repercussions for the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics as well. The schism of 1054, with all of its grave consequences for the universal Church, also deprived the Orthodox Church of the necessary impetus and ability to be constantly present in the course of history.


In the recent past, a first initiative for the convening of a pan-Orthodox synod was undertaken by Patriarch Ioakim III in 1901. He wanted to smooth over the tensions among the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, in the conviction that only an Orthodox Church engaged in a constant and constructive inner dialogue could face the challenges of the
contemporary world and act with one voice and one heart. This initiative did not succeed, in part because the Orthodox Churches, which had recently emerged from Ottoman rule, were seeking their identity in an exaggerated identification with the nation, and the full breadth of the Christian message was not instilled in their clergy.


After various mishaps, in 1961 a pan-Orthodox conference was convened in Rhodes, with significant pressure from patriarch Athenagoras, for the purpose of preparing an Orthodox synod. This conference was also followed by numerous obstacles, because as theologian Giorgos Tetsetis observes, the local Churches did not have a clear idea of what they wanted from the Synod.


Now, the letters sent for the two preparatory meetings to be held in June, in Cyprus, and in December, in a place to be determined, present the following topics:


1. The Orthodox diaspora, where the jurisdiction over the Orthodox flock beyond national borders will be defined. According to the canons now in effect, before the growth in the phenomenon of emigration the faithful outside of their home country belong to the ecumenical patriarchate.


2. The manner of recognizing the status of autocephalous Church.


3. The manner of recognizing the status of Church autonomy.


4. Dypticha, meaning the rules of mutual canonical recognition among the Orthodox Churches.


5. Establishing a common calendar for feasts. For example, some Churches celebrate the Nativity on December 25, others 10 days later.


6. Impediments and canonicity of the sacrament of matrimony.


7. The question of fasting in the contemporary world.


8. Relationships with the other Christian confessions.


9. The ecumenical movement.


10. The contribution of the Orthodox in affirming the Christian ideals of peace, fraternity, and freedom.


The first four questions were the cause of friction in 1993 and 1999 with the patriarch of Moscow, because of participation in the work of the autonomous Estonian Church, with Moscow does not recognize.


"It is time," says Fr. Tetsetis, a theologian for the ecumenical patriarchate, "that our Church finally realize that it is doing poorly as a whole. The Church needs an open and sincere dialogue. Because it is only then, with its rich tradition as a compass, that it will be
able to emerge from its blind alley and together face its existential problems, which are becoming increasingly severe and complicated. It is only then that the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch's initiative can be understood."


According to the journalist Aris Viketos, the letter from Bartholomew is being well received in the Orthodox world.

[Suentiend]

"A Blind Alley"


"It is time," says Fr. Tetsetis, a theologian for the ecumenical patriarchate, "that our Church finally realize that it is doing poorly as a whole. The Church needs an open and sincere dialogue. Because it is only then, with its rich tradition as a compass, that it will be able to emerge from its blind alley and together face its existential problems, which are becoming increasingly severe and complicated. It is only then that the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch's initiative can be understood."
Dear Monachos Discussion Community,

Well, that is pretty straightforward.

I wonder if this is the majority view or the minority view in Orthodoxy today?

I wonder if this is considered the mature view or the immature view in Orthdoxy today?

In Christ,
Rick

PS I have thought for some time that the only option was to transcend this alley, but here we see a suggestion to emerge from the blind alley.

[MP+4]

The article represents the view of the EP and the viewpoint of the source of the article which seems to be a roman catholic news agency. A pan-Orthodox synod for the mentioned issues will have disasterous results, I pray it never comes to fruition.

[delnisfernan]

The article represents the view of the EP and the viewpoint of the source of the article which seems to be a roman catholic news agency. A pan-Orthodox synod for the mentioned issues will have disasterous results, I pray it never comes to fruition.

I fear this also... on the other hand, the Holy Spirit could prevail over the agendas of men. Perhaps something good could come of open debate on these issues, provided the debate is real and the results are not pre-determined by the organizers.

[MP+4]

I fear this also... on the other hand, the Holy Spirit could prevail over the agendas of men. Perhaps something good could come of open debate on these issues, provided the debate is real and the results are not pre-determined by the organizers.

I would agree with this assessment, i just wont hold my breath. The very best i can see is that the fasting rules remain the same, we encourage all to follow them the best to their ability but no one gets villified if they dont, That the Finnish church (and whoever else) should atleast celebrate Pascha with the rest of us. That ecumenism is more clearly defined (as to what is acceptable and what is heresy) and boundaries are placed which we shouldnt overstep.
This is a best case scenario, anything else im afraid will only lead to further schisms

[GAGNAPPEAPH]

The source for this new item is "Asia News" which is a Roman Catholic news agency.
Since this story was released by "Asia News", it has not been confirmed by any Eastern Orthodox source. Therefore, I think the story is questionable.

Orest

[IoninnyHaro]

I greatly fear such a council. It will only be ecumenical if the majority of bishops present uphold the Orthodox faith. The agenda is not about faith - it is about power and jurisidictions, and about modernity. It looks the kind of 'world Orthodoxy' that comes from the evil one. It will be a platform for renovationism, ecumenism and modernism. God save us from it!

[HotDolly]

Councils have always been messes. Their greatness comes not from the beatific vision provided by a world collection of Bishops comparing the lovely embossing on their copies of the Rudder, but from the hammering straight the crooked.

Polishing metal requires abrasives. There is nothing to fear here. If the council goes disastrously wrong (as some have in the past) it will be rejected by the Church.

[delnisfernan]

Polishing metal requires abrasives. There is nothing to fear here. If the council goes disastrously wrong (as some have in the past) it will be rejected by the Church.

Of course, but at what cost? Hopefully the modernist views of the EP will not lead them and others to open schism. The problem is that they are the ones setting the agenda, so the ones wielding the "abrasives" will be at a distinct disadvantage.

[IRMartin]

I think that the best way for us, the small ones, to contribute for it is to start our prayers for the participantes, suplicating for the inspiration and blessings of the Holy Spirit. To give strength to the defenders of the faith, to enlighten those who may be misguided and to rebuke anyone who might be ill-intentioned and still also praying for the repent of the latters.

We could make a list of saints who participated in many councils, even the non-ecumenical ones and ask for their prayers and intervetions for this council.

Also, someone knowledgeable in Council history could present us prayers that were said in previous ecumenical councils to give us some reference in the Orthodox way of praying for a council.

----

On a side note, I would pretty much be very happy to see the councils that are said to be the 8th and 9th ecumenical ones recognized as such, as well as a declaration of the validity of Pan-Orthodox Councils in a post-imperial era as due ecclesial continuation of the ecumenical councils.

[Suentiend]

. . . so the ones wielding the "abrasives" will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Dear Ryan,

There is nothing new here, and yes, there is a cost of discipleship.

But, as we consider the sword of the Lord we see there is a good kind of division as well as a bad kind of division.

In Christ,
Rick

[wbondarmunw]

Now, the letters sent for the two preparatory meetings to be held in June, in Cyprus, and in December, in a place to be determined, present the following topics:


1. The Orthodox diaspora, where the jurisdiction over the Orthodox flock beyond national borders will be defined. According to the canons now in effect, before the growth in the phenomenon of emigration the faithful outside of their home country belong to the ecumenical patriarchate. There is no diaspora


2. The manner of recognizing the status of autocephalous Church. I thought we already had one. The local communion decides it wants to conduct its own affairs and starts doing it. Several hundred years later, the 'mother' chuch reluctantly acceeds.


3. The manner of recognizing the status of Church autonomy.




4. Dypticha, meaning the rules of mutual canonical recognition among the Orthodox Churches.


5. Establishing a common calendar for feasts. For example, some Churches celebrate the Nativity on December 25, others 10 days later. I'm new calendar, but this seems to me a poorly disguised attempt to force the new calendar on everybody else, I'd rather go the other way


6. Impediments and canonicity of the sacrament of matrimony. Huh? Does that me 'gay marriage' blessing cohabitation, etc. Why is this even a question?


7. The question of fasting in the contemporary world. Huh again. We need fasting more than ever. It would seem that the so called green (as in neo-pagan) patriarch would understand that fasting and acesticism are the best Christian antidote for the consumerism and desacralization that is the root cause of our environmental problems.


8. Relationships with the other Christian confessions. Here we could actually take a cue from Rome. Submit to the Church, the Incarnational reality of Jesus Christ or you will suffer the consequences, of course that means we'd have to do that ourselves instead of simply be Rome lite.


9. The ecumenical movement. An abomination and a heresy as it is expressed, i.e, seeking the lowest common denominator so that we can remain in our respective rebellions and continue in our self-will.


10. The contribution of the Orthodox in affirming the Christian ideals of peace, fraternity, and freedom. French Revolution anyone. As usually used, these words are a utopian battle cry that seeks the perfection of the heavenly kingdom with out God or heaven. A version of chiliaism.


The first four questions were the cause of friction in 1993 and 1999 with the patriarch of Moscow, because of participation in the work of the autonomous Estonian Church, with Moscow does not recognize.


"It is time," says Fr. Tetsetis, a theologian for the ecumenical patriarchate, "that our Church finally realize that it is doing poorly as a whole. The Church needs an open and sincere dialogue. Because it is only then, with its rich tradition as a compass, that it will be able to emerge from its blind alley and together face its existential problems, which are becoming increasingly severe and complicated. It is only then that the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch's initiative can be understood."


According to the journalist Aris Viketos, the letter from Bartholomew is being well received in the Orthodox world.[/quote]
Not in my part of the Orthodox world. Several posters are correct. This gathering, should it ever occur is much more likely to result in the promulgation of heresy than a coming together in the mind of Christ. However, in whom is our faith? All things are possible with God and the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Or do we really believer that we are in control and must be in control?

[HotDolly]

How much harm was done by the iconoclasts? Perhaps only exceeded by the Communists in harm.

Yet both of these incredible hardships have produced unfathomable fruit. The blood of the martyr waters the fields for harvest.

Forgive what I am about to say, but it is true none-the-less. We are called to suffer and die. We have come to be one with Christ and until the Eschaton that means sharing in His suffering and death. I am so heart broken when I see Orthodox publishing "Get your Happiness Here" brochures full of moderized-Rockwellish Americana like Protestants.

There are many great joys in being Christian. There is much to celebrate. A life without the Light of Christ is truly more horrifying. There is no need to walk about in sack cloth and ashes. But taking up our cross (the text from only two weeks ago) is a voluntary walk into the very fiery furnace itself. This isn't going to be pleasant. Not the local parish council bickering, not the national scandals and not the world-wide power plays.

However, success (social, political, economic) rarely does the Church good. All the great Saints of old were run out of town, even by other Bishops. Beware the desire to "fix the Church so that we can finally be successful." Such thinking is distraction from the truth: that the Church is always doing exactly what it should be doing and our salvation, not world-renown seminaries or more beautiful temples than the Anglicans or the most podcasting sites matters.

[Oriesssedleli419]

I don't feel comfortable with the bashing on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarch, especially in this thread.

[dyestymum]

A study of all the previous ecumenical councils will show that what 'makes' a council truly ecumenical is not the number of bishops, nor the representation from among all the patriarchates, nor the intention of the convening emperor/EP/whoever, but the will of the Holy Spirit at work in His Church which is recognised as such by all who participate in that same Spirit. The Bishops may meet and agree on nothing, or on nothing that the whole Church can accept but in order for a council to be ecumenical there at least needs to BE a council! My hunch is that the Spirit of God still has much to say to His Church but we seldom have ears to hear and going around announcing preparations for a 'Great and Holy Council' as if such an event could be foreseen to be ecumenical is a bad case of 'calling the floor'. Better to concentrate of organising a meeting to at least discuss the big issues facing the Church in the World and see where things go from there. Honestly, when was the last time all the 'major players' met in the context of mutual love, Communion and open dialogue? I have no worries who calls such a meeting and with what intentions they call it. If God wishes to work in and through such a synod, He will.

[Saduyre9de]

DW Dickens' posts really helped me here.

I have a question. What does it say about the Church if we can't come together as a Church? Who knows how this will turn out (if it comes to fruition), but what kind of Church are we if we feel that NOT coming together is better than coming together? At best: HIGHLY dysfunctional.

Joshua

[immoceefe]

It will be interesting to see if there will be any monastic representation.

[immoceefe]

"It is time," says Fr. Tetsetis, a theologian for the ecumenical patriarchate, "that our Church finally realize that it is doing poorly as a whole. The Church needs an open and sincere dialogue. Because it is only then, with its rich tradition as a compass, that it will be able to emerge from its blind alley and together face its existential problems, which are becoming increasingly severe and complicated. It is only then that the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch's initiative can be understood."

This strikes me as an odd statement at best. First of all, it's obscure. What does it mean to say we as a whole are doing poorly at best? Is he talking about numbers here? Declining membership? Money? Teachings? Lack of social influence? What is he talking about?

Yes, we have a rich tradition as a compass, but I would like to see something of openness to God's guidance, and obedience to His commandments, as the basis for any dialogue. The term "open and sincere dialogue" makes me a bit squeemish. And what is an "existential problem?" Does he mean to suggest that we don't know who we are or what we are? Or does he mean that declining numbers threatens our existence.

Overall, it seems to me that there is an obligatory slap at America, while in fact Orthodoxy in Europe ain't doing so good.

[IoninnyHaro]

Owen Jones wrote: Orthodoxy in Europe ain't doing so good. Is he talking about numbers here? Declining membership? Money? Teachings? Lack of social influence? What is he talking about?