Stating the canonical repercussions of that action isn't trolling. Its stating a fact that is obviously not to your liking.Stop trolling
Dude, stop. SeriouslyStating the canonical repercussions of that action isn't trolling. Its stating a fact that is obviously not to your liking.
Didn't the Metropolitan just die a few days ago?
Hard to be meeting delegations of people when you're dead.
news.church.ua
Maybe its divine intervention.
Ah, yes. Wikipedia. Stop spreading rumors.
Really wouldn't be that difficult.
Thats a legit problem, and given the already tenuous direction the EP is headed, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the patriarchate could eventually lose sacramental graceIf we take the view that the OCU is schismatic, then does this create a danger for apostolic succession because the EP, Cyprus, and Alexandria recognize it? The possible risk that I see is that an OCU bishop could transfer to one of those jurisdictions, and then later on be considered an EP bishop, consecrating EP bishops and priests. And then people could mistakenly see that line of EP bishops priests as having apostolic succession.
I thought of this when reading this title:
Russian Synod addresses participation of schismatic “bishop” in episcopal consecration in Constantinople
Even if the schism between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople is overcome, this consecration will still be unacceptable, the hierarchs state.orthochristian.com
The article quotes the Russian synod as deciding:
- Considering the canonical defectiveness of the consecration of Metropolitan Andreas of Saranta Ekklisies, to state with regret that it will be impossible to concelebrate with him if, with God’s help, Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople will be restored. The same applies to the clergy whom the given metropolitan may eventually ordain.
But is the Synod going to be spending decades keeping track of which OCU bishops consecrate EP bishops and priests?
Messier messes have been messed up in the history of the Orthodox Church, and it all ended up just fine.
We would rejoice. However, it wouldn't be that. It would be a part of the Mother Church breaking off and joining the schism and heresy of a wayward daughter. Like this:
Most consider it a pox-on-both-their-houses, inter-Roman quarrel, in which Antioch has no stake. Most would be quite happy to stay with Antioch and Orthodoxy.
It started among converts quarreling with the Antiochian hierarchy, and going to Jerusalem as an "out"-until the Phanar forced the issue on Jerusalem (in exchange for Qatar et alia?)
So far Jerusalem has joined Antioch in sticking with Orthodoxy and standing with Moscow.
Correct on the wrongs of all points.
To be fair, the Turkocratia lives on, and imposes a host of restrictions on Constantinople's actions. Just him celebrating Divine Liturgy openly in former Church sites is missionary in the circumstances. Those of us who are freer can do more.
Russia isn't its own See-Moscow firmly derives its existence from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Holy Mother of Orthodoxy.
The word "Orthodoxy" doesn't exist in a vacuum, It's Orthodox through succession.
Herod does not sit on David's throne.
The above is an ancient wrong finally being set right. Glory be to God!!!!We would rejoice. However, it wouldn't be that. It would be a part of the Mother Church breaking off and joining the schism and heresy of a wayward daughter. Like this:
Not a wrong nor ancient, and set asunder. Satan is pleased two Romes have fallen into his clutches. Lord have mercy!
So, according to you, hades has prevailed against the church.
"The Church" is not the bishop in Istanbul and his synod. We are not Papists.
Following your reasoning, than the Ukranian people also deserve a leadership that is free from the Russian influence. That is precisely why the EP is allowing them too govern there own flock.
That's not my reasoning at all. If you assert that hell prevailed against the church by the Patriarch of Constantinople becoming apostate, then hell prevailed against it when Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth century. While the fact of the matter is that EVERY see can be grafted out as was the See of Old Rome and will be the See of New Rome if it persists in schism and heresy.
Your definition of heresy is political and groundless on the merits of faith. The EP has the canonical power to grant a tomos and its been proven countless times throughout history. all of a sudden it goes counter to your political stance and you're trying to assert that he is a heretic. Maybe you should search your own conscious before trying to assert those claims.
You will be grafted out if you persist in heresy and schism. Mark my words.
If we are grafted out then so are you. Your existence is assured because of thread that keeps you whole.
You're not by chance an apologist of the Vatican, are you? Well you will be one in due time.
The church as an institution can't fail. if it does then christianity doesn't exist. The Vatican is the establishment of the holy Roman church. Its not the true visible church started by st. Constantine.
Of course. Why wouldn't you? I never said the people in RCC are graceless. I personally don't think so. The church is in error but, that doesn't mean all of there members are without grace. it just means there theology is partially wrong.
I sometimes wonder if that's just an elaborate troll account.
If you are EO. No matter how much it pains you to admit, you're a Greek Catholic.
Thank you.
