Monday, April 4, 2016

an example-warning about current 'Orthodox-Ecumenism', and a good sample of it, by Retired Arch. Chrysostomos of Etna

Sharing an example-warning about current 'Orthodox-Ecumenism', and a good sample of it, by Retired Arch. Chrysostomos of Etna-

Add star 

Dan Everiss

Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Shared by Archimandrite Alexias in the UK. 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bishop Chrysostomos 
Subject: Re: Bishop George Khodr, Sunday of Orthodoxy 2016 - English
Date: 2 April 2016 16:43:38 GMT+01:00

Dear Michael:

Evlogia Kyriou. Thank you for translating the sermon by the Antiochian Prelate.

He is right. His “Orthodoxy" is no different from the confessions of other Christians. He gives no credence to Holy Tradition, gives no heed to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and apparently shows no honor to the Fathers and Saints and Martyrs who gave their lives for the cause of correct faith and correct confession. Why bother to be Orthodox? While I am the first to follow the Fathers in fostering respect and toleration between religions, I do not do so in a cognitive vacuum where such respect and toleration, instead of rising out of thought, inner formation, and civilized discourse, come forth from equating truth with falsehood, good thought with superstition, and haplessly imagining that religion is not a search for the truth of Truths.

I am not surprised at this man's  ecumenical platitudes, but I have never read such a clear expression of heresy and disbelief in the context of a “piety” that is totally empty, since the very things that he says that he upholds—such as prayer to the Theotokos—he also dismisses as ultimately meaningless or insignificant. Astonishing. He at least reveals to us that ecumenism, where he is a well-kown voice, is an intellectually empty farce, when taken to the extreme of simply reducing all things to one common statement that is devoid of content. Ecumenists apparently accept any belief, as long it does not impede their own belief, however ignorant and the opposing belief and however unexamined and superficial their own “confessionless” confession. The folly of mere religion and “official” Orthodoxy in pure form. 

These people are insidious, ignorant in the Faith, and “ecclesiastical” diplomats more than anything else. It is a tragedy for their souls that such clergyman teach what is false and condemnable, and we must pray for them. But think of the innocents who, looking to them for leadership, are led to religious syncretism of the most base kind, “ecclesiological agnosticism,” as another ecumenical clergyman once described his beliefs to me, and the destruction of souls. A teaching about belief and spiritual experience—which for Orthodox are empirical ( part of an encounter with God and the Truth)—that mocks the conceptualization of the truth in principles, dogmas, and theological truths is like a science that equates superstition with observable, replicable, and operative laws and formulae.

With affection in Christ, Least Among Monks, † BC

On Apr 2, 2016, at 6:29 AM, Michael C  wrote:

Reverend Hierarchs, 
Father Akakios,

I am sure you won't be surprised by the following article.  

Wishing you a Blessed Lent.

Asking for your prayers,


The Most Reverend Chrysostomos, former
Archbishop and Metropolitan emeritus of Etna
 The offensive ecumenist statement:
Orthodoxy by 
Bishop George Khodr 
Translator's Note. The following is a translation of an article written  in Arabic for the Sunday of Orthodoxy 2016 by the veteran Antiochian arch-ecumenist Bishop George Khodr. It appeared in the Lebanese Al-Nahar Newspaper* on Saturday March 19, 2016 (New Style).  
As the enlightened true Orthodox reader will see, this ecumenist's heretical and delusional ideology spills out of the page!  
Tomorrow is the first Sunday of Great Lent in my church, and it is called Sunday of Orthodoxy, which, in Arabic, means the Sunday of Right Belief. Since the fourth century or around that period, right belief for its proponents has meant the un-adulterated tradition which they have received from the ancients. And contrary to this right belief is heresy. In this article, Right Belief means maintaining the sound dogma featured in the Gospels for Christians who accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and these are seven for the Catholics and the Orthodox, and for others they are less than that, with the reassurance that all Christians do not differ in the tenor (ie content/meaning – trans.) of their faith, even if some confess only four councils that are binding and others seven or more.  
To put it very simply, there is no essential difference in dogma between Christians. They all believe in the Crucifixion of the Master, His Resurrection, and the Trinity, and anything else is just details. Generally and surely, the faith of the Christians is one or used to be one before the (Roman – trans.) Catholic Church declared the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility a dogma in 1870. 
We and the Catholics and the Evangelicals, speak on thing in Christ. However, if most of us declare that He has two natures, and some of us that he has one nature, the essence of the speech is one, that is God and man together. There isn't a group that fuzes the Divinity of the Master with his humanity, by separating one from the other. In the truth of the meaning intended, even if the expressions differ, there is absolutely no difference between us when talking about the essence of Christ. We have differed in speech but not in the truth of our faith. So, if faith was faith in what is Christ, then there is no difference between any Christian group and another group.  
When it comes to speaking of Christ, we are all of correct belief. The rest is speech other than Christ. The declaration of the Church of Rome in 1870 that Papal Supremacy and Infallibility is a dogma was something new. Does the Catholic church today exclude us from Right Belief if we don't speak of a dogma she declared in the year 1870 only as an official declaration, and by that I mean the supremacy of the Roman Pope and his infallibility? What I do know is that the Church of Rome does not consider the Orthodox Church in a state of heresy. She sees it as in a state of schism, and the schism occurs in the one church and does not constitute two churches. To be precise, the Orthodox and the Catholics are in a state of estrangement as long as no official position is declared from either one, wronging (or criticizing – trans.) the other dogmatically.  
Does the dogma of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility declared in 1870 comprise an express criticism of the Orthodox Church? Each one calling the other a 'sister church' is not a naming out of politeness, but of conviction. It does not mean another independent entity. Until now, I have not found a Catholic text accusing the Orthodox of dogmatic and ecclesiastical deviation. We are then in a state of symmetry between brethren. In theology we don't use terminology for social civility. And no matter how much the dispute tightens among the fanatics, what is important is their unity, which Christ sees.  
I accept from among the Christians whoever does not address Mary in prayer, as long he does not blaspheme (literally, “consider an infidel” – trans.) those who do address her. Pray as you wish and don't separate me from you. I know from among the Protestants those who love Mary very much. They don't address her in prayer; that is their business as long as they don't blaspheme me if I address her. I have nothing against whomever does not love nor address Mary, as long as he leaves me free to address her. I am saddened that a Christian refuses to address Mary, but I do not compel him if he sees that in doing that he becomes lacking in his love for Christ.  
Whoever sees that in his intercessions of the Saints, he diminishes from his love for Jesus, that is up to him, and whoever sees that he loves the Saints with Jesus, that is up to him also. Let us not blaspheme each other (ie declare each others infidels – trans.) for no reason. God shall judge whomever He wishes if His judgment is at hand. Don't rush in the judgment according to your own will. Who am I to judge anyone? God alone is the judge.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

I, Joanna Higginbotham, administrator and comment moderator of this blog, do solemnly swear that Anonymous comments will not be published. Use the "NAME and/or URL" option to enter a name or pseudonym. In your comment include your jurisdiction, rank/status (priest, layman, monk, catechumen, etc.). Reader Daniel will not see your unpublished comment, so if you have a message for him, contact him directly: