Pushing For Unity Of Jurisdiction - American Orthodox

Matrona said:

There's one near me, want to trade places?

A lot of people seem to think that jurisdictional unity requires that America have its own patriarch. I don't think so. I don't think this country's Orthodox are ready to leave the nest just yet. Wasn't it several centuries between the baptism of Kievan Rus and the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate? I think it would be better if it was just OCA, to unite everyone under Metropolitan HERMAN, ROCOR and everyone else. It's just silly to keep dividing our resources like this, but we aren't ready to have our own patriarch by a long shot, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I came in under Antiochian and have the same sentiment as you Matrona. I am close (emotionally and spiritually) to the OCA and believe they are the ones carrying the true spirit of unity in humility and love. I am not castigating the other jurisdictions, it is that, just a look at history tells me that they are the ones chosen to be the leaders of unity. I see more pride and actions of humanism and power of man in the other jurisdictions than the OCA. I know they have their own set of specific problems. My priest and I go over them many, many times. He was in the Greek then the OCA and now the Antiochian. I have to admit that Metropolitan Phillip has done wonders politically for the Antiochian branch, but still have a deeper love and respect for the OCA. Bishop Lazar Puhalo in Dewdney, Canada has help my seeing the lives of the Bishops across the America's also.
Peace and Grace

Joannicius said:

I came in under Antiochian and have the same sentiment as you Matrona. I am close (emotionally and spiritually) to the OCA and believe they are the ones carrying the true spirit of unity in humility and love.

Click to expand...

Well, sort of. I think the OCA should be the only jurisdiction, but I'd stop well short of complimenting them in that fashion.

The local OCA priest came to my Russian Civ class to give a talk on the Russian Orthodox Church. Several things he said left a very negative impression, but I was forced to interrupt him after he led people into thinking that Orthodox believe Christ was sinful and that Orthodox don't believe in the New Testament.

After that, accusations of worshipping the Theotokos feel pretty tame...

*winces*

That's pretty bad. I'd have probably had to open my mouth also. Scratch that. That's downright ludicrous

No*s said:

*winces*

That's pretty bad. I'd have probably had to open my mouth also. Scratch that. That's downright ludicrous

Click to expand...

In his defense, I don't think he meant those things... but our campus's Campus Crusade group sends missionaries to Russia to convert the "heathens" and if any of this garbage gets back to them, that'll make them all the more determined to 'convert' Russia out of Orthodoxy.

Matrona said:

In his defense, I don't think he meant those things... but our campus's Campus Crusade group sends missionaries to Russia to convert the "heathens" and if any of this garbage gets back to them, that'll make them all the more determined to 'convert' Russia out of Orthodoxy.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. I was a Baptist before, and the prevailing sentiment is exactly what you said he sounded like, and if it did get out, then it would only embolden them. Man, that's some misunderstanding (I wasn't there, and your caution on his intent is well-placed).

Matrona said:

Well, sort of. I think the OCA should be the only jurisdiction, but I'd stop well short of complimenting them in that fashion.

The local OCA priest came to my Russian Civ class to give a talk on the Russian Orthodox Church. Several things he said left a very negative impression, but I was forced to interrupt him after he led people into thinking that Orthodox believe Christ was sinful and that Orthodox don't believe in the New Testament.

After that, accusations of worshipping the Theotokos feel pretty tame...

Click to expand...

I can understand that. I speak from my very possitive experiences with the OCA Priests that are around here and my meeting with Theodosius when He was Metropolitan.

Sadly, there are religious liberals everywhere, even inside the Orthodox Church.

In my personal opinion, the great divide among Christians today is the chasm between liberals and believers (yes, I do mean to characterize it that way).

Compared to that great division, the other differences between Christians - while not insignificant - pale to relative unimportance.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the doctrinal differences between Christians are unimportant. I'm no ecumenist. I'm just saying that the biggest and most significant divide is the one separating liberals and believers.

Linus7 said:

Sadly, there are religious liberals everywhere, even inside the Orthodox Church.

In my personal opinion, the great divide among Christians today is the chasm between liberals and believers (yes, I do mean to characterize it that way).

Compared to that great division, the other differences between Christians - while not insignificant - pale to relative unimportance.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the doctrinal differences between Christians are unimportant. I'm no ecumenist. I'm just saying that the biggest and most significant divide is the one separating liberals and believers.

Click to expand...

There is some truth to this. However, I don't think it's so much a liberal/believer divide anymore than a modernist/believer divide. The terminology that seems most accurate to me is one of relativist/exclusivist divide. Most of the ecumenists I've met from various churches have very strong beliefs, but they knock out the "Here it is" element that is offensive by nature. While I may soften my language, that is a point I will not and cannot alter. It is the exclusivism that is the ultimate stumbling block in today's society

No*s said:

There is some truth to this. However, I don't think it's so much a liberal/believer divide anymore than a modernist/believer divide. The terminology that seems most accurate to me is one of relativist/exclusivist divide. Most of the ecumenists I've met from various churches have very strong beliefs, but they knock out the "Here it is" element that is offensive by nature. While I may soften my language, that is a point I will not and cannot alter. It is the exclusivism that is the ultimate stumbling block in today's society

Click to expand...

You're right.

Everyone should ask him/herself why the Romans persecuted the first Christians.

Were they persecuted because they believed in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, and the Resurrection?

No; the Romans were always eager for new religions. They were more than happy to add a new "god" to their ever-growing pantheon.

The Romans persecuted the Christians because the Christians denied the existence of all those other gods!

In other words, Christians were persecuted because they were intolerant!

They were unwilling to recognize the validity of other religions.

That's why one of the chief accusations leveled against the early Christians was the charge of atheism!

The world will never hate the ecumenists. After all, the ecumenists tell the world what it wants to hear: "There are many paths to the truth."

The world will hate Christians who say that Jesus is the only way to the Father, the only way of salvation. It will especially hate those who say that the Orthodox Church is the One and only Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Yes, that is the core of the matter. Exclusivity is offensive. It was the offense that caused the Roman persecution, and if things continue on this path, it will bring the sword once more in other areas. That in its turn brings the battle cry of ecumenism to fore: "inclusivism" (beyond tolerance, which I support, but including as many as possible, which is a different animal).