THE ROCOR-MP CONNECTION

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
Evlogius was a schism-maker.
Why do you assert this?

Do you never read the letter of Metropolitan Philaret about the heretics of Paris?
Who are the "heretics of Paris"? Calling other Orthodox Christians (i.e., Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Marie Skobstova(sic?)) heretics in a public forum such as this is probably a good way to get many here to really dislike you. There are many ROCOR posters here and maybe even a few ROAC people who will agree with you regarding the "Evlogian Schism," but many of us are more "modern" in our viewpoints and will find your approach rather incendiary and alienating, especially so the OCAer's like myself. So please be careful.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,134
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Age
41
Peter,

Why do you assert this?
Probably because they read this letter. And if that letter is indeed authentic*, it would give a very different color to Met. Philaret than one normally gets from his public statements (though it would remain only the private opinion of one bishop, nothing more).


*I'm not sure where HOCNA got the letter (it was published in their book on ecumenism), and- I would definately want to know about their source before believing fully that the letter was authentic.
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Why do you assert this?

Who are the "heretics of Paris"?  Calling other Orthodox Christians (i.e., Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Marie Skobstova(sic?)) heretics in a public forum such as this is probably a good way to get many here to really dislike you.
There is no doubts about some members of parisian institute are heretical. Some like Bulgakov and others sophiologists. Im not acusing all of them of heretics, but is very clear that the parisian institute was a garden of hereticals.

About A. Schmemann and John Meyendorff:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/commentsschmey.aspx

If Schemann was not a heretic (im not acusing him), you theology (and of the Meyendorff also) are very dubious.

 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
To at least try to say something vaguely related to the original topic, does anyone here have a link to the schedule/agenda/activities/etc. [IN ENGLISH please]of the upcoming All-Diaspora conference in SF in May for ROCOR? Thanks.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
While you are correct in that ecclesiastical authority does not shrink with the fall of empires, neither does it grow with the growth of a Nation. Moscow was given Jurisdiction over the lands defined by the bounds of Russia in the late sixteenth Century, before Russia acquired Alaska. When the Russian State conquered alaska are we to assume then that the authority of Moscow, independent of any council, expanded to include this area? Of course not, such a notion is inconsonant with both the Canons and customs of the Church. It is you, not I, who here argues that the boundaries of the Church change with the boundaries of nations, I reject that notion and accordingly I reject that Moscow ever had proper authority over Alaska.

When Churches are unable to follow the established canons and protocols, yes problems arise, and Constantinople has insisted on no right that is not either explicitly granted in the Canons or firmly established in the Traditions of the Christian Church.
How about when Constantinople is unable or unwilling to follow the Great Commanment of Christ to "baptize all nations"? Yes, we've heard your arguments based on anachronistic canons, the Ecumenical Synods, etc., but I don't think you have addressed the "ought" or "should" of what HAS happened? Should Moscow have never even attempted to missionize lands that were part of their nation's boundaries that I'm sure Constantinople was probably unaware existed or even able to reach? Should Moscow have done all the work and then just given authority over to the EP? Do you have any historical precedent to backup any cases of another Patriarchate missionizing a land (that may or may not have been outside her boundaries) and then outright given authority over to Constantinople? What about the Church of Poland or the Church of the Czech lands? AFAIK, they are both Autocephalous but yet I think I remember you saying that "it shouldn't have happened"...along with possibly Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria and the Church of Greece. Well, it did and the EP has accepted them as such. Please respond.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
daher said:
The great saint Athenagoras, doing a masonic handshake with one anti-Christ servant:
Oh golly! not the masons again! <Were is that emoticon of banging my head on the keyboard?>
Just *how* is this supposed to be a "masonic" handshake? How does one know? It looks to me like an old man who is careful with his hand.

Ebor
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
There is no doubts about some members of parisian institute are heretical. Some like Bulgakov and others sophiologists. Im not acusing all of them of heretics, but is very clear that the parisian institute was a garden of hereticals.

About A. Schmemann and John Meyendorff:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/commentsschmey.aspx

If Schemann was not a heretic (im not acusing him), you theology (and of the Meyendorff also) are very dubious.
Yes, I am familiar with what orthodoxinfo.com has to say about the Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff. I've read the articles myself, and more than once.

Many posters here have seen me post my views on ROCOR, so what I'm about to say shouldn't be new to them, and I certainly don't want to renew any arguments with them (hint, Anastasios ;)). Just let me say that I see ROCOR's canonical foundation being very weak. (To read a whole thread containing a very good discussion of ROCOR and her place in the Orthodox Church, together with statements of my own viewpoint, just follow this link.) I don't see how a rogue synod of bishops whose churches had been destroyed, leaving the bishops without churches to rule, could have any canonical authority to rule all Russian Orthodox Christians outside of Russia and thereby interfere in the affairs of local Orthodox churches. OTOH, Patriarch St. Tikhon actually appointed Metropolitan Evlogy to rule the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe, so Metr. Evlogy was actually a legitimate ruling bishop, unlike the rest of the Karlovci Synod. Metr. Evlogy did not owe any canonical obedience to any synod of Russian bishops abroad, and neither did the bishops of the American Metropolia. (IMHO, the very Ukase 362 that ROCOR loves to cite as the foundation of its authority could just as validly be cited as authorizing the American Metropolia to govern itself apart from communication with the MP. It is significant to me that the same Patriarch St. Tikhon who issued this famous Ukase also abolished the first Karlovci Synod, so that the second Karlovci Synod actually convened against the Patriarch's expressed wishes. Remember also that St. Tikhon understood the situation of the Church in North America, having been its archpastor for many years.)

Again, let me reiterate that all I intend to do with this post is address daher's statements. I don't want to renew my argument with those with whom I've already argued my viewpoint on the ROCOR issue, so if I've already argued ROCOR with you I would appreciate you not offering a response to this post.


p.s. Watch out that Pravoslavbob and other fans of Fr. Schmemann here on this forum don't whack you over the head for calling Fr. Schmemann a heretic or calling his theology dubious. I don't want anyone getting hurt. :p
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
PeterTheAleut said:
p.s.  Watch out that Pravoslavbob and other fans of Fr. Schmemann here on this forum don't whack you over the head for calling Fr. Schmemann a heretic or calling his theology dubious.  I don't want anyone getting hurt.  :p
One of my best friends are a big fan and apologist of Fr. Schemenann. If he see this, i will be a dead man :p

About ROCOR foundation: may is usual to you read "The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad"; by M. Rodzianko. I have one online copy, if you want, rafael.daher@hotmail.com. And maybe be sual too this book.

 

Thomas

Archon
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Temple, Texas
Re: the masonic handshake

The thumb is in the wrong place to be a masonic handshake. No I am not a mason, but I have knowledge from my past before becoming Orthodox.

Thomas
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
The great patriarchate of Constantinopla:



Patriarch Athenagoras and the so-called pope of Rome.



Patriarch Athenagoras giving the bless with one heretic.



Patriarch Bartholomew doing the same.



Concelebration with the so-called pope Karol Wojtila.



Flowers to the freemason.



With the murder Fidel Castro.

Is with this that ROCOR must commung?
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
daher said:
There is no doubts about some members of parisian institute are heretical. Some like Bulgakov and others sophiologists. Im not acusing all of them of heretics, but is very clear that the parisian institute was a garden of hereticals.

About A. Schmemann and John Meyendorff:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/pom_lit.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/commentsschmey.aspx

If Schemann was not a heretic (im not acusing him), you theology (and of the Meyendorff also) are very dubious.
Please, your. :eek: Is possible edit texts here?
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Daxer,
You have mixed things up a bit.
That's not Patriarch Bartolomew, but Patriarch Teoctist.
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, Moscow also is in communion with those you call "the ecumenists". Our patriarch always mentions Patriarch Alexei of Moscow (along with the heads of all of the Orthodox Autocephalos Churches), at every Sunday Liturgy.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
One of my best friends are a big fan and apologist of Fr. Schemenann. If he see this, i will be a dead man :p

About ROCOR foundation: may is usual to you read "The Truth About the Russian Church Abroad"; by M. Rodzianko. I have one online copy, if you want, rafael.daher@hotmail.com. And maybe be sual too this book.
I've already read this, too. I did a lengthy study of ROCOR-OCA relations last fall, reading documents from both sides, so I'm pretty well-read on this topic.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Elisha said:
How about when Constantinople is unable or unwilling to follow the Great Commanment of Christ to "baptize all nations"?
Ah yes, the sensualistic approach. The fact that you have an emotional sympathy with the actions of Moscow does not change that they were uncanonical and unacceptable.

Yes, we've heard your arguments based on anachronistic canons, the Ecumenical Synods, etc., but I don't think you have addressed the "ought" or "should" of what HAS happened?  Should Moscow have never even attempted to missionize lands that were part of their nation's boundaries that I'm sure Constantinople was probably unaware existed or even able to reach?
Moscow should have went to Constantinople and asked premission to evangelize lands outside their borders, if Constantinople said no, then they should have refrained; but in all likelyhood Constantinople would have given their blessing, though maintained jurisdiction over her rightful lands. Of course, the Russians were more concerned with expanding their territory and influence than actually evangelizing anyone so this solution would not have met their true goals.

Should Moscow have done all the work and then just given authority over to the EP?
Authority should never have left the Oecumenical Throne, if Moscow wanted to send out priests out of concern for people's souls and not expanding political power this wouldn't have even been an issue.

Do you have any historical precedent to backup any cases of another Patriarchate missionizing a land (that may or may not have been outside her boundaries) and then outright given authority over to Constantinople?
The other patriarchates throughout history tended to know their places and didn't intrude on the lands of the other patriarchates. The one exception to this is the disputes beteween Old and New Rome...and we know where that lead. But with that said, I can think of one related issue. During part of the Ottoman rule Antioch was unable to govern the Metropolis of Aleppo, because of this the Oecumenical Patriarchate would oversee this Metropolis and the Metropolitan would sit on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, this change remained in effect for hundreds of years. However, when the situation had normalized and the opportunity presented itself, the Oecumenical Throne would transfer this Metropolis back to Antioch, even against the express wishes of the sitting Metropolitan, as Constantinople desired to protect the ancient rights and territories of all the Sees.

What about the Church of Poland or the Church of the Czech lands?  AFAIK, they are both Autocephalous but yet I think I remember you saying that "it shouldn't have happened"...along with possibly Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria and the Church of Greece.  Well, it did and the EP has accepted them as such.  Please respond.
I have no problem with the Church of Serbia, they are amongst the few who went about originally obtaining autocephaly in an appropriate and Christian manner. As with the others, perhaps the autocephalies should some day be revoked, but not until the political situation better allows it. The autocephalies of the 19th century have dealt a near fatal blow to the Church, the worst such blow to Christianity since the fall of the City. They are the source of division, strife, and conflict. But, we should not create more problems than necessary by revoking the autocephalies at the wrong time, I agree that we should recognize them while expedient, always keeping in mind what is best for the Church, as our Patriarch does. Though as these lands are, by ancient canon and custom, under the authority of Constantinople, she can in the future, if she deems appropriate, revoke any autocephaly save those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus...which can only be altered, like the posistion of Constantinople herself, by an Oecumenical Synod. (which is amongst the reasons that we have never actually deposed the Bishop of Rome or installed an 'orthodox' Bishop of Rome, we simply lack the authority to do so without an Oecumenical Synod, making the Current Pope the legitimate Bishop of Rome, even if out of Communion with the Rest of the Church)



daher said:
BTW, EP are in comunion with all others ecumenists, like Romenia, Antioch;;;;
Yes, also known as the Christian Church. To be contrasted with the heterodox, which are those are not in Communion with the Oecumenical Throne.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
greekischristian said:
Ah yes, the sensualistic approach. The fact that you have an emotional sympathy with the actions of Moscow does not change that they were uncanonical and unacceptable.
Not sensualistic at all (or did you mean sensationalistic?)...but a tad baiting I suppose. It still doesn't mean my charges can't be true. Prove it.

greekischristian said:
Moscow should have went to Constantinople and asked premission to evangelize lands outside their borders, if Constantinople said no, then they should have refrained; but in all likelyhood Constantinople would have given their blessing, though maintained jurisdiction over her rightful lands. Of course, the Russians were more concerned with expanding their territory and influence than actually evangelizing anyone so this solution would not have met their true goals.

Authority should never have left the Oecumenical Throne, if Moscow wanted to send out priests out of concern for people's souls and not expanding political power this wouldn't have even been an issue.
OK. But when? When are they to know when it changes from supporting your own diaspora or flock that is doing activities outside of normal borders to "evangelizing"?

The italicized portion is pure speculation and conjecture. Back it up....but I don't think you can find anything official stating this ulterior motive.

greekischristian said:
The other patriarchates throughout history tended to know their places and didn't intrude on the lands of the other patriarchates. The one exception to this is the disputes beteween Old and New Rome...and we know where that lead. But with that said, I can think of one related issue. During part of the Ottoman rule Antioch was unable to govern the Metropolis of Aleppo, because of this the Oecumenical Patriarchate would oversee this Metropolis and the Metropolitan would sit on the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, this change remained in effect for hundreds of years. However, when the situation had normalized and the opportunity presented itself, the Oecumenical Throne would transfer this Metropolis back to Antioch, even against the express wishes of the sitting Metropolitan, as Constantinople desired to protect the ancient rights and territories of all the Sees.
Oh really?? So what about the Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Antiochians, Albanians (and others?) that have their own bishops here (in the US). This seems rather obvious that "other patriarchates" are imposing on the Phanar's "barbarian lands."

greekischristian said:
I have no problem with the Church of Serbia, they are amongst the few who went about originally obtaining autocephaly in an appropriate and Christian manner. As with the others, perhaps the autocephalies should some day be revoked, but not until the political situation better allows it. The autocephalies of the 19th century have dealt a near fatal blow to the Church, the worst such blow to Christianity since the fall of the City. They are the source of division, strife, and conflict. But, we should not create more problems than necessary by revoking the autocephalies at the wrong time, I agree that we should recognize them while expedient, always keeping in mind what is best for the Church, as our Patriarch does. Though as these lands are, by ancient canon and custom, under the authority of Constantinople, she can in the future, if she deems appropriate, revoke any autocephaly save those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus...which can only be altered, like the posistion of Constantinople herself, by an Oecumenical Synod. (which is amongst the reasons that we have never actually deposed the Bishop of Rome or installed an 'orthodox' Bishop of Rome, we simply lack the authority to do so without an Oecumenical Synod, making the Current Pope the legitimate Bishop of Rome, even if out of Communion with the Rest of the Church)
See above comment regarding the Serbs. "...dealt a near fatal blow..." Riiiiiiight. ::) So you are obviously much wiser than those Patriachs of Constantinople who DO accept the Autocephaly of those newer Churches. Don't you think that sounds rather hypocritical on your part? Does your Patriarch always know what is best for the Church or not?

I'll believe any revoking of autocephalies when it happens. Until then it is inane academic speculation.

greekischristian said:
Yes, also known as the Christian Church. To be contrasted with the heterodox, which are those are not in Communion with the Oecumenical Throne.
Hmmmm...again, how is being in Communion with the Ecumenical Throne again the definition of Orthodoxy given that several of their Patriarchs have been declared heretics at various times throughout history?
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
daher,
Pictures may be worth 1000 words, but they don't necessarily PROVE anything.
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
Elisha said:
daher,
Pictures may be worth 1000 words, but they don't necessarily PROVE anything.
Pictures don't prove anything? And the actions of EP? And the ecumenist attitude of EP? And the actions and phrases of Met. Zizoulas?

Give-me a break! If these pictures don't prove the heresy of ecumenisn in EP, i don't know what you want acept as prove.
 

Elisha

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,908
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
NorCal
daher said:
Pictures don't prove anything? And the actions of EP? And the ecumenist attitude of EP? And the actions and phrases of Met. Zizoulas?

Give-me a break! If these pictures don't prove the heresy of ecumenisn in EP, i don't know what you want acept as prove.
I'll let those here of the more juridical sort poke holes in the concept of pictures proving things. I'll just say that pictures w/o context don't hold too much water. What is the term...circumstantial evidence?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
Pictures don't prove anything? And the actions of EP? And the ecumenist attitude of EP? And the actions and phrases of Met. Zizoulas?

Give-me a break! If these pictures don't prove the heresy of ecumenisn in EP, i don't know what you want acept as prove.
But pictures can be so easily taken out of context, and--worse yet--can be cut and pasted to another totally unrelated context.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,134
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Age
41
Give-me a break! If these pictures don't prove the heresy of ecumenisn in EP, i don't know what you want acept as prove.
In what way is the type of ecumenism that they are engaging in heretical? For example, when people say that Arianism is heretical, what is meant is that the Church hold to certain beliefs which Arianism contradicts, such as the orthodox belief that Jesus was begotten and not created, or the orthodox belief that there was never a time when Jesus was not. Thus, if Arius or Joe or Abram says that Jesus was created shortly after time began, he can be considered a heretic. So then, by what criteria are you judging the the people in the pictures as being heretics? If they are heretics, then explain what specific transgression makes them heretics, and how you came to conclude that that transgression was heretical? By what criteria (or criterion) do you judge them?
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It seems that shaking hands with the Pope is a grevious heresy ;D
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Asteriktos said:
In what way is the type of ecumenism that they are engaging in heretical? For example, when people say that Arianism is heretical, what is meant is that the Church hold to certain beliefs which Arianism contradicts, such as the orthodox belief that Jesus was begotten and not created, or the orthodox belief that there was never a time when Jesus was not. Thus, if Arius or Joe or Abram says that Jesus was created shortly after time began, he can be considered a heretic. So then, by what criteria are you judging the the people in the pictures as being heretics? If they are heretics, then explain what specific transgression makes them heretics, and how you came to conclude that that transgression was heretical? By what criteria (or criterion) do you judge them?
Anti-ecumenists--and I do include myself in this group--believe that much of what passes for ecumenism today is the relativistic belief that all Christian religions are equally salvific and that all Christians regardless of confession are all members of the same Church. The Orthodox Church, however, has always taught that it alone is the Church of Christ and that it alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation. The Church cannot be divided. Modern ecumenism would require the Orthodox to believe that the Church can be divided or that the Orthodox Church does not preach the fullness of Christian Truth. This is why most Orthodox consider modern ecumenism to be a heresy.

OTOH, the only ecumenism that the Orthodox can support is the return of all Christians to the Orthodox Faith.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
Unrelated context? So, exist some context to embrace the so-called pope of Rome and call them of "brother", or worst, call him of bishop? ::)
All I'm saying is that I don't know the context of these pictures, nor am I qualified to judge the intent of the participants in these pictures, because the pictures don't show this. The photos just don't provide enough information for me to make a reasoned judgment of what they signify.
 

daher

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
São Paulo
Website
www.ortodoxiabrasil.com
Asteriktos said:
By what criteria (or criterion) do you judge them?
First, im not judgind them. Im only talking about the ecumenists actions of EP, and because this, the Orthodox Christian must apart from them.

Im using the criterion of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Canons of the Only True Church.

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics*, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon XXXIII of Laodicia

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."


* Like the Patriarch Bartolomew on the devil see's, the Vatican.

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
daher said:
First, im not judgind them. Im only talking about the ecumenists actions of EP, and because this, the Orthodox Christian must apart from them.

Im using the criterion of the Holy Fathers and the Holy Canons of the Only True Church.

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics*, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon XXXIII of Laodicia

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."


* Like the Patriarch Bartolomew on the devil see's, the Vatican.
Not to suddenly vacillate and agree with your assessment of the photos, for I still don't agree. However, to pray with heretics in a heretic place of worship--it's OK to invite a heretic to pray with us in an Orthodox service as long as we don't allow the heretic to receive the grace of our Sacraments--is to essentially validate the heresy and say to the heretics with whom we are praying that their faith is not in fact heretical and that their services communicate the same grace given by our Orthodox services.

I do agree with Fr. Seraphim Rose, though, that we Orthodox are too quick to apply the term heretic to individual non-Orthodox Christians. Many non-Orthodox Christians are indeed very sincere in living the Christian life as best they know it and are very committed to pursuing Truth. Most of them just are not at all aware that they've grown up in an atmosphere of deception and don't know any better than to live in accordance with the heresies they've been taught. Can we fault such sincere followers of Christ for something totally beyond their control? IMHO, we should reserve the term heretic for only those individuals who know what the Church teaches and continue to proclaim their own doctrines in defiance of the Church's authority.
 

SouthSerb99

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
630
Location
New York
Website
www.savekosovo.org
greekischristian said:
LOL, you beat me to it, so I wont elaborate too much...except to say that when refering to person in question I may not use the term 'saint' but another 's' word does come to mind ;)
Sorry, I've been a little slow to get to this, but please do not disparage Saints of the Church in this way, despite your personal feelings.
 

Augustine

High Elder
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
565
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.beyondnihilism.blogspot.com
Greekis"Christian",

LOL, you beat me to it, so I wont elaborate too much...except to say that when refering to person in question I may not use the term 'saint' but another 's' word does come to mind
Disgusting.  Fortunately, the grace of God and the ecumenicity of the Church are already showing that your brand of hellenic-papism is not part of the dogmatic constitution of the Church.

Perhaps greater in prestige, but since Chalcedon not in authority; for she was not graced by the presence of the Imperial Senate and our God-ordained Emperors.
Ha! And hasn't occured to you that there hasn't been a Roman Empire, Imperial Throne, or Imperial Senate since the fiftheenth century?! Funny, how historical context only seems to matter when it serves your perverse ecclessiology.

It should be remembered that the break was first between Rome and Constantinople and all the rest of the Church, in time, followed the Imperial See, which is the standard of Christendom.
Yes, just as Rome once was viewed as a standard of Orthodoxy. IOW. there is nothing in this which is not beyond modifacation, either by circumstance or (God forbid) the EP becoming the seat of an anti-Christ (which has happened, and may happen again.) IOW. purity of confession is the ultimate criterion underpinning ecclessiastical authority. Lacking this, the EP becomes merely the Archlayman of Constantinople.

 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,847
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
There is no canon, deposition, anathema, excommunication, or suspension within Orthodoxy that is used without first being applied by a competent ecclesiastical body; on the laity, the spiritual father/parish priest and their own bishop (not just any 'ol one), on the priests, their own bishop or synod, on the bishops, the synod of their Patriarchate/Autocephalous Church, and on the Patriarchs, Their own synods or the Synod of Constantinople (as the seat of appeals) or an Ecumenical Synod (over anyone). So there is no condemnation of the EP, or Metr. Zizoulas, without a synod to do so.

If you feel they are in heresy, then do what you can personally to separate yourself; but chose your words and accusations wisely, for those who falsely accuse someone of heresy or apostasy face as great a punishment as they would have had brought upon their targets.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
greekischristian said:
LOL, you beat me to it, so I wont elaborate too much...except to say that when refering to person in question I may not use the term 'saint' but another 's' word does come to mind ;)
I just find it rather interesting that because so many people in the ROCOR hated and persecuted St. John Maximovich, it was actually Greek Orthodox Americans under the authority of the EP who venerated St. John first. The ROCOR saw this and decided that it was high time they look into officially glorifying Archbishop John as a Saint.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,847
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
PeterTheAleut said:
I just find it rather interesting that because so many people in the ROCOR hated and persecuted St. John Maximovich, it was actually Greek Orthodox Americans under the authority of the EP who venerated St. John first. The ROCOR saw this and decided that it was high time they look into officially glorifying Archbishop John as a Saint.
I've noticed this as well; I've come across many in the GOA who venerate St. John, and have done so for awhile.

But because he's not 'official' in our Patriarchate (and there's a seperate discussion - the local nature of the veneration of most saints), let GiC speculate all he wants (just be careful not to be disparaging; be respectful please). If he's right, more power to him, and if he's wrong, St. John is still praying for his salvation anyway - why not take his example?
 

Starlight

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
1,537
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston
cleveland said:
There is no canon, deposition, anathema, excommunication, or suspension within Orthodoxy that is used without first being applied by a competent ecclesiastical body
Exactly.
Personally, I would include both St. Archbishop John Maximovich and Patriarch Athenogoras in top (5) Orthodox hierarchs of XX century. And I don't see contradictory there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top