So a few questons:
*]Is 2013 still the most likely date?
*]Who is not invited?
*]Has there been any discussion of a location?
*]The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America mentions a united Church - are they speaking of an autocephalous N. American church free of any formal allegiance to heirarchy in the Old World?[/LIST]
You can not possibly be serious. You think that having NOT having a council is a “Good Thing”. You truly believe that God WANTS the church to be divided as it is? That He wants to see all of the Apostolic Churches at each others throats?
I would strongly recommend that you spend some time contemplating God, and his purpose for the Church, instead of hoping that councils that just might move us all slightly closer to reconciliation never occur.
I simply do not trust the majority of my bishops. A significant portion of them have fallen under the sway of ecumenism (and other unpatristic ideas and practices), and thus will be willing to compromise the faith for either unity or ambition. This council would cause division.
I found a bit more discussion about this, particularly my last question. aoiusa.org/blog/2010/05/the-bishops-are-coming-to-new-york-as-complex-diaspora-question-looms/
It sounds as though the main problem in areas of diaspora such as North America is the presence of more than one bishop in a city. Presenting that as a problem seems to presuppose a solution of eliminating the redundancy - and I’m not sure how that would happen without merging the various “ethnic” Churches into one. Whether that would then be a fully autocephalous combined North American Church or something slightly less ambitious seems to be the question.
Anyway, the Assembly of Canonical Bishops is one of 12 such assemblies through the world, designed to gather various bishops from within geographic areas of the diaspora. Here’s the breakdown:
North America and Central America
Australia, New Zealand and Oceania
Great Britain and Ireland
Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg
Italy and Malta
Switzerland and Lichtenstein
Scandinavian countries (except Finland)
Spain and Portugal
Africa is under Alexandria and much of Asia is under Moscow. They don’t have enough Orthodox in many parts of Asia to be susceptible to the same problems. The Japanese have an autonomous Orthodox church.
In the case of some sort of conciliar “union”, new schisms would emerge. Significant portions of both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church would break from their appropriate bodies on the grounds that said union is heretical. In the end, we have too many differences to be resolved at a council.
How would you know the Holy Spirit is guiding such an action? I trust the men who have actually had actually seen the uncreated energies of God (which is almost entirely monks), none of which would lend support to the kind of union you have in mind. Either side would have to admit being wrong, and that certainly isn’t happening on the Orthodox side (and I doubt traditionalist Catholics will be fond of it either).
In any event, the supposed Orthodox Council of 2013 would primarily deal with other issues (not ecumenism), so I doubt we would be that much closer to “unity” anyway. Sometimes councils are not only wrong, but are led by forces working against the Holy Spirit (think back to 449).
All of Africa? It seems likely that southern Africa might have a bit more diversity, due to migration from both Europe and India.
[quote=Harbazo]They don’t have enough Orthodox in many parts of Asia to be susceptible to the same problems.
Hmmm… I’m a little amazed, considering the Orthodox tradition in India, the Armenian church, and historical Antiochene spread from the near East into the middle East. But I suppose the Armenians don’t count since they are Oriental Orthodox; I’m not sure about the Indians. It’s still surprising that the Benelux countries have a more serious issue than anywhere in Asia.
…Patriarch Ilia said that the Ecumenical Patriarch’s proposal is that all the temples without a mother church must belong to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
“We told him that the temple must belong to the mother church of the country if the congregation wishes, and if the congregation want this temple to belong to the Ecumenical Patriarch, then the mother church will not be against this”, Ilia II said, adding that a lot of issues are to be solved and it’s very dangerous to summon an Orthodox meeting. He voiced hope that all the issues will be solved, but he also said it would take time.
What is it or what action from Orthodox bishops have led to your lack of trust in them? Second,how do you know with any certitude your bishops will compromise the faith for unity? Third, all councils have in some way caused division in one form or another,nothing can stop such a human habit. Not one everyone will be happy.
In short, because monks and elders who have seen (and commune) with the uncreated energies of God say so. Theoria is essential to the Orthodox tradition, and is the source and foundation of truth. I simply follow the words uttered by those who have “seen God” (Matthew 5:8). In this particular case, I am reminded of a letter from St. Justin Popovich :
You’re definitely right with regard to your own Communion, but not with regard to Rome. The very few RCs who might object to such a union on traditionalist grounds are already in schism of one sort or another. In practice, it’s the liberals in the RCC who would be a bit discomfited by reunion with the Orthodox, but not because they object to such a union in principle–they certainly wouldn’t go into schism over it.
In the end, we have too many differences to be resolved at a council.
That seems extremely fatalistic.
I don’t see how you can reject ecumenism. The claim that it is “unpatristic” is nonsense. The Fathers over and over again reached out to seek unity with those who shared basic convictions about who God is and what God has done in Jesus Christ. The Fathers refused to compromise those basic convictions, but they are not at stake here. Furthermore, many Orthodox seem now to believe that the Christological divisions were unnecessary. What I find absolutely bizarre and incomprehensible is the notion that the East/West divisions are somehow more fundamental than the disagreements over the two natures of Christ that divide Chalcedonian and “Oriental” Orthodox. (You may be among those who still think that the Orientals are heretics. If so, then your position is at least consistent.)
I believe that Orthodoxy is doctrinally and liturgically much “purer” than any form of Western Christianity. But I can’t believe that it simply is the True Faith. I can’t abandon Western Christianity. So I hope and pray for an East/West reunion, although I admit, sadly, that such a reunion would only involve some of the Orthodox.
[QUOTEHow would you know the Holy Spirit is guiding such an action? I trust the men who have actually had actually seen the uncreated energies of God (which is almost entirely monks), none of which would lend support to the kind of union you have in mind.
Well, I haven’t seen the uncreated energies of God. But I grew up under the influence of my grandmother, who did claim to have direct experience of God and used that to support some pretty destructive and savage behavior. What I trust is the work of the Holy Spirit I have seen in the lives of Christians of many traditions. To deny that would, for me (I am not judging others), be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Either side would have to admit being wrong, and that certainly isn’t happening on the Orthodox side (and I doubt traditionalist Catholics will be fond of it either).
The Orthodox would need to concede no more to Rome than many of you are already willing to concede to the Orientals: that the “other side’s” position is infelicitous rather than heretical.
Most RCs I know–and I’m talking about folks who are orthodox by the official RC standards–would be quite willing to concede that their doctrinal positions have often been poorly expressed and poorly implemented–just not that they are actually heretical.