OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 07:05:48 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The EP and ROCOR  (Read 8972 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« on: May 20, 2007, 07:00:04 PM »

Now that ROCOR is in communion with the MP can anybody speak about ROCOR's status with the EP?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2007, 09:15:55 PM »

Now that ROCOR is in communion with the MP can anybody speak about ROCOR's status with the EP?

They're in communion now. This was made clear in a news article about the union--ROCOR is now in communion with all local Orthodox Churches.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2007, 09:32:25 PM »

It has long been the position of the Oecumenical Throne that the dispute between ROCOR and Moscow was an internal issue and that communion would be restored when and only when their was reconciliation between the two parties.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2007, 09:48:41 PM »

It has long been the position of the Oecumenical Throne that the dispute between ROCOR and Moscow was an internal issue and that communion would be restored when and only when their was reconciliation between the two parties.
I'm not sure there was ever any official break in Communion between ROCOR and Constantinople. Constantinople has always been in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, and both these were always in Communion with ROCOR. Wouldn't Constantinople have just viewed ROCOR as part of Moscow (the way it does with the OCA?). I doubt that the name of the First Heirarch of ROCOR will be now entered into Constantinople's Diptych. I think it will remain as it is with the name of the Patriarch of Moscow.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2007, 10:05:38 PM »

I'm not sure there was ever any official break in Communion between ROCOR and Constantinople. Constantinople has always been in Communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, and both these were always in Communion with ROCOR. Wouldn't Constantinople have just viewed ROCOR as part of Moscow (the way it does with the OCA?). I doubt that the name of the First Heirarch of ROCOR will be now entered into Constantinople's Diptych. I think it will remain as it is with the name of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Until 1965, ROCOR was in communion with the EP. When the EP lifted the anathemas against the pope, Met Philaret wrote his sorrowful epistles, and concelebration with the EP stopped from ROCOR's point of view. Not sure if the EP ever had a response or just figured, "ok whatever."
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2007, 03:18:42 PM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?  If there is only One Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that Church has endorsed such positions as the Balamand Agreement - does it not follow that ROCOR has also now joined itself to such positions?  In a word, it seems ROCOR has done a 180 on many of its hard line positions across the board.

Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2007, 03:39:54 PM »

Welcome to the mainstream.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2007, 04:13:26 PM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?  If there is only One Catholic and Apostolic Church - and that Church has endorsed such positions as the Balamand Agreement - does it not follow that ROCOR has also now joined itself to such positions?  In a word, it seems ROCOR has done a 180 on many of its hard line positions across the board.



While I am opposed to the ROCOR-MP union, it does not follow that they had to lose these hardline (and in my opinion true) opinions, because there are traditional Orthodox in the Church of Greece and elsewhere.  I disagree with the propriety of "resisting from within" but people do this sort of thing all the time.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2007, 04:13:53 PM »

Welcome to the mainstream.

How can you welcome him to the mainstream when you are far from "the mainstream" yourself?  Grin

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2007, 04:52:44 PM »

How can you welcome him to the mainstream when you are far from "the mainstream" yourself?  Grin

Anastasios

I may be a bit on the liberal side, but only slightly. I'm pretty much in line with what one can typically expect in a Greek Orthodox parish. At least I've never accused a priest of discrimination for not giving the Eucharist to non-Orthodox, but I can think of more than one parish council member from more than one parish who's made such an accusation. The norm in the Church, at least in America, may be a bit more liberal than the impression you are under. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2007, 05:23:19 PM »

While I am opposed to the ROCOR-MP union, it does not follow that they had to lose these hardline (and in my opinion true) opinions, because there are traditional Orthodox in the Church of Greece and elsewhere. 


Here is what I don't quite understand about there being One Church.  As per the RCC, the Balamand Agreement states that Rome is our sister Church, anathemas abolished, etc.  The EP and other 'parts of the body' - through that agreement - also connects us to this doctrine, no?  If I have this right then ROCOR contradicts itself by claiming the RCC are heretics, etc.  If we still carry these positions after the unia then we had no business joining in communion in the first place.   Am I over simplifying this or is it that cut and dry?

Quote
I disagree with the propriety of "resisting from within" but people do this sort of thing all the time.

Indeed. I had a long conversation with a Hieromonk from one of Elder Epraim's monasteries and this was his exact position "resisting from within".  He said that the Greek Old Calandar people would have been a great help for the Traditional voice within the jurisdiction.  Now - without their voice - more modern ideas prevail.   His take on the RCC and EP situation is until we see an RCC step behind the alter or take Orthodox communion then the line has not been officially crossed.  Unless of course RCC repents, then no problem.

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2007, 06:32:11 PM »



Here is what I don't quite understand about there being One Church.  As per the RCC, the Balamand Agreement states that Rome is our sister Church, anathemas abolished, etc.  The EP and other 'parts of the body' - through that agreement - also connects us to this doctrine, no?  If I have this right then ROCOR contradicts itself by claiming the RCC are heretics, etc.  If we still carry these positions after the unia then we had no business joining in communion in the first place.   Am I over simplifying this or is it that cut and dry?

Indeed. I had a long conversation with a Hieromonk from one of Elder Epraim's monasteries and this was his exact position "resisting from within".  He said that the Greek Old Calandar people would have been a great help for the Traditional voice within the jurisdiction.  Now - without their voice - more modern ideas prevail.   His take on the RCC and EP situation is until we see an RCC step behind the alter or take Orthodox communion then the line has not been officially crossed.  Unless of course RCC repents, then no problem.

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

Personally, I don't know why you are so concerned with Balamand.  There was quite an outcry after this agreement came to light.  It's a matter of quite some debate; many have rejected it outright.  I don't know offhand which signatories retracted their opinions, but many prominent hierarchs have never accepted it; it really doesn't carry any weight as far as I can see.  It's a little bit like the situation where all the Greek bishops went to the (false) council of Florence, and only Mark of Ephesus opposed the agreement with the Latin Church.  When the bishops came home, all of the faithful rejected their acqueisence to the Latin conditions for reunion, and it all came to nought.   I grant you that the reacton to Balamand does not appear to be as cut and dry as that to Florence, it has not been received with great aplomb; far from it.  IMHO someone has been trying to alarm you.  Of course, there are "traditionalists" who would disagree with me.   Having said all this, the actions of the EP with regard to Rome make me quite nervous too.  I would side with your hieromonk friend with regards to lines being crossed.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 06:43:38 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2007, 06:35:51 PM »

I may be a bit on the liberal side, but only slightly. I'm pretty much in line with what one can typically expect in a Greek Orthodox parish. At least I've never accused a priest of discrimination for not giving the Eucharist to non-Orthodox, but I can think of more than one parish council member from more than one parish who's made such an accusation. The norm in the Church, at least in America, may be a bit more liberal than the impression you are under. Wink

It's tragic that so many Orthodox laypeople, in no matter which jurisdiction, are so completely ignorant of the Faith, yet believe that they know of what they speak.  Clergy and laypeople are together responsible for this unacceptable state of affairs.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 06:37:11 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2007, 07:12:13 PM »

Personally, I don't know why you are so concerned with Balamand.  There was quite an outcry after this agreement came to light.  It's a matter of quite some debate; many have rejected it outright.  I don't know offhand which signatories retracted their opinions, but many prominent hierarchs have never accepted it; it really doesn't carry any weight as far as I can see.  It's a little bit like the situation where all the Greek bishops went to the (false) council of Florence, and only Mark of Ephesus opposed the agreement with the Latin Church.  When the bishops came home, all of the faithful rejected their acqueisence to the Latin conditions for reunion, and it all came to nought.   I grant you that the reacton to Balamand does not appear to be as cut and dry as that to Florence, it has not been received with great aplomb; far from it.  IMHO someone has been trying to alarm you.  Of course, there are "traditionalists" who would disagree with me.   Having said all this, the actions of the EP with regard to Rome make me quite nervous too.  I would side with your hieromonk friend with regards to lines being crossed.

Well the alarming thing - if the RCC really are the heretics who are outside the Church - is that I recently watched the Pope on EWTN attend a patriarchal liturgy with the EP and I am told he sat - vested - in the place of a visting Bishop.  I see a picture on the EP website of Pope Benedict XVI and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew offering a joint blessing to the Christians below. Etc, etc, etc.  Obviously the EP sees the RCC as our brothers and part of the Church.  I was thinking that the Balamand agreement brought us to this moment but if it did not we are still at the moment regardless.  I was also thinking that by ROCOR now being in full communion we - like it or not - are also "on the boat" so to speak.  If there is only One Church then that was our Church there with the Pope.   Again, I am quite open to the probability that I don't have this understanding correct!  I am also quite open to the possibility that union with Rome could be a good thing.   ROCOR all of the sudden asserting this would not surprize me in the least given what I have learned in the past year about what our position used to be on the MP.    As long as the Mysteries have Grace and I can still have the opprotunity to work out my salvation I am all for whatever kind of union Christ brings together  Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2007, 11:51:23 PM »

In my mind though - and I admit that I am no authority - is that if we are in communion with those who view the RCC as our sister Church then we share in this position as well. 

Do I have this right?

I have come across those who believe that communion with heretics makes us just as guilty of their heresy; in fact, I believe we even have precedent in our canons for this assertion.  However, I'm not so sure that this means that we share the same beliefs as those with whom we are in communion--the sin of heresy is not so much what we believe as it is our willful separation from the Church by believing the condemned doctrine or associating with those who do.  On matters where there is no clear consensus, we do have freedom to hold different beliefs while still being in communion with one another.

On another note, the statement you present above does reflect the language of a disturbing alarmism I have seen among our more rigorist "traditionalists".  I'd be careful to not totally dismiss their alarmism as extremist, but I would also be careful to take their "chicken little" spin with a large helping of salt.  There is certainly something to be feared in the ecumenist activities of the EP, but it doesn't appear anywhere near as threatening as our rigorists make it out to be.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2007, 11:56:53 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2007, 08:57:12 AM »

So then ROCOR's attitude about the RCC - that they are heritics and "outside of the Church" - must now be dropped?

It is out of the question to be dropped! It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

How could you even have such a thought!

It's the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism that is in force in MP now! Just look what will be happening in future.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2007, 10:59:47 AM »

It is out of the question to be dropped! It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

How could you even have such a thought!

It's the ROCOR's anathema of ecumenism that is in force in MP now! Just look what will be happening in future.

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.  How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?  On the EP website they don't call the Latins heretics but rather brothers moving towards "FULL" communion.   The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord". 

I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox
- and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?  We made no stipulations that the MP disconnect from the EP over their actions with the Latins.  In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void. 

Again, I could have an improper understanding of the above so please forgive me if that is the case.

GiC, could you weigh in on this a bit more?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 11:12:37 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2007, 11:33:25 AM »

Indeed, I also saw that visit to the Phanar. The Holy Mountain reacted with predictable disgust. One of their complaints was this, just as you've mentioned:

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting "blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord" as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as "most holy" and "His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome". Furthermore, all of the Pope's officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, [Benedict's liturgical] reciting of the Lord's Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer.

Benedict also gave a homily during the Divine Liturgy. I also remember the Greek participation in the Catholic mass the next day.

Of course there was no shared communion either time, but my guess, judging from his words and actions, is that Patriarch Bartholomew sees the Catholic Church much as the Catholic Church sees the EO and OO Churches---as true particular Churches of apostolic pedigree with (through the mercy of God) true sacraments, though not with the complete fullness of faith that would allow intercommunion. I'm sure he sees one of his chief roles as working for reconcilation between East and West, and I bet he considers our long separation to be 90% for political/cultural reasons rather than theological.

Now the question would be is, how much can he speak for Orthodoxy? It seems few Orthodox agree on the answer.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2007, 11:40:58 AM »


Of course there was no shared communion either time, but my guess, judging from his words and actions, is that Patriarch Bartholomew sees the Catholic Church much as the Catholic Church sees the EO and OO Churches---as true particular Churches of apostolic pedigree with (through the mercy of God) true sacraments, though not with the complete fullness of faith that would allow intercommunion. I'm sure he sees one of his chief roles as working for reconcilation between East and West, and I bet he considers our long separation to be 90% for political/cultural reasons rather than theological.



I bolded your text to emphasize to anyone reading this that the paragraph is entirely your guess.

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2007, 11:44:08 AM »

Quote
It's the official stance of the Orthodox Church that we are the Church while Latins are heretics!

There is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out.  The most official and recent action one could point to is the lifting of mutual excommunications between Rome and Constintanople.  One could point to many actions of the various Orthodox churches (including Moscow) however to show that they regard the Roman Catholic Church as just that - a church, and not some helter, skelter body of heretics.  Ditto for the stance vis-a-vis the Oriental Orthodox for that matter.

There's the Internet world of hyper-Orthodoxy, and there's reality.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 11:45:22 AM by welkodox » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2007, 11:46:26 AM »

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Quote
How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?

This was an embarrassing incident after which Mount Athos, a Bishop Nikolai of Plovdiv, Bulgaria and Bishop Diomed of Chukotka, Russia, raised their voices. So we now see Bosphoriacs silent as mice.

Quote
The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord".

This is just politeness and nothing else. I don't think he should address the Pope with "you bloody heretic". It is sufficient we know that, we don't have to say that face to face.

Quote
I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox - and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?

You were already in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, whom were in communion with EP. Did the actions of EP effected you?

Quote
In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void.

Could you provide the link and quotation of that particular paragraph, annulling anathemas, since I couldn't have found it?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2007, 11:46:37 AM »

Well, I am flattered that anyone here could possibly see me as an authority on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on the private opinions of HAH Bartholomew! Yes, it is only my guess.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2007, 11:54:31 AM »

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2007, 12:06:33 PM »

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?

Yes, and the practice of receiving converts has never historically been consistent across the various Orthodox churches.  It's a by-product of fuzzy ecclesiology.  Currently there are majority and minority opinions.

In fairness in Catholicism there have historically been irregularities as well.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2007, 12:10:59 PM »

This is just politeness and nothing else. I don't think he should address the Pope with "you bloody heretic". It is sufficient we know that, we don't have to say that face to face.

So are you suggesting that the EP was committing blasphemy by calling an unbaptized "bloody heretic" like the pope "your Holiness, beloved brother in the Lord"? For if he was using the Lord's name insincerely, in a gesture of politeness, that is what he did.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2007, 12:14:48 PM »

There is no official stance, because there is no official mouthpiece of the church as people usually like to point out.

Really?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Quote
4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).

5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).
...
6. This heresy, ...
...
8. Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD, to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power.
...
9. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold.
...

May, 1848, Indiction 6.
+ ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ HIEROTHEUS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Alexandria and of all Egypt, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ METHODIOS, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of the great City of God, Antioch, and of all Anatolia, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
+ CYRIL, by the Mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant.
 
The Holy Synod in Constantinople:
+ PAISIUS OF CAESAREA
+ ANTHIMUS OF EPHESUS
+ DIONYSIUS OF HERACLEA
+ JOACHIM OF CYZICUS
+ DIONYSIUS OF NICODEMIA
+ HIEROTHEUS OF CHALCEDON
+ NEOPHYTUS OF DERCI
+ GERASIMUS OF ADRIANOPLE
+ CYRIL OF NEOCAESAREA
+ THEOCLETUS OF BEREA
+ MELETIUS OF PISIDIA
+ ATHANASIUS OF SMYRNA
+ DIONYSIUS OF MELENICUS
+ PAISIUS OF SOPHIA
+ DANIEL OF LEMNOS
+ PANTELEIMON OF DEYINOPOLIS
+ JOSEPH OF ERSECIUM
+ ANTHIMUS OF BODENI
 
The Holy Synod in Antioch:
+ ZACHARIAS OF ARCADIA
+ METHODIOS OF EMESA
+ JOANNICIUS OF TRIPOLIS
+ ARTEMIUS OF LAODICEA
 
The Holy Synod in Jerusalem:
+ MELETIUS OF PETRA
+ DIONYSIUS OF BETHLEHEM
+ PHILEMON OF GAZA
+ SAMUEL OF NEAPOLIS
+ THADDEUS OF SEBASTE
+ JOANNICIUS OF PHILADELPHIA
+ HIEROTHEUS OF TABOR

Of present Patriarchates, only Russia (and now Georgia) were not participated in the Council, since this is the decision of the Councils of three Patriarchates. Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as present Church of Greece, were part of Constantinopolis that time. Other autocephalies (Cyprus, Sinai) accepted this decision.

Thus, this is valid and binding stance, one the most recent official ones, of my Church. See also even the more recent one: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Quote
The most official and recent action one could point to is the lifting of mutual excommunications between Rome and Constintanople.

Read the anathema of 1054. These were Michael Cerularius and Leo of Ochrid that were anathemized, not the Sees. Athenagoras couldn't have invalidated the decisions of the councils quoted above. Besides, it doesn't have any effect outside present day Constantinopolis. Besides, it hasn't touched the See of Ochrid.

Quote
There's the Internet world of hyper-Orthodoxy, and there's reality.
You and I are obviously living different realties.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2007, 12:15:23 PM »

In fairness in Catholicism there have historically been irregularities as well.

That is true. Practices have varied in the past, especially on the Eastern Front where tensions and emotions ran highest. I am glad that Rome has now clamped down on that. No Orthodox crossing the Tiber should ever be made to undergo a new "baptism" or "chrismation."
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2007, 12:30:42 PM »

The whole topic of post schism councils and encyclicals is quite interesting.  You will get various answers as to which are "authoritative", and which are not.  The Synod of Jerusalem is a good case in point.  Orthodox people will now do almost anything to distance themselves from it, but by what authority?

In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind?  They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding.  Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 12:31:49 PM by welkodox » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2007, 12:52:57 PM »

...
In the case of the 19th century encyclicals, they certainly have an authority behind them, but what kind?  They certainly can't be considered dogmatically binding.  Whatever their authority, it is certainly no greater than the Balamand Statement.
Listen, pall.

The encyclical of 1848 was actually the decision of three councils. To my Church, which was part of Constantinopolis that time, but wasn't part of Constantinopolis when anathemas were lifted, is as much valid and binding as the decision on Creed of Nicea-Constantinopolis. I don't question the authority behind them and I do consider them theologically binding, along with hundreds of millions of other Orthodox Christians.

Decisions of a Council are certainly more binding than decisions of a “meeting” which was that in Balamand, where my Church, btw, didn't participate.

So cease spreading disinformation about us Orthodox, please. Speak for your religion only.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2007, 12:59:38 PM »

Hasn't this previous practice been long since repudiated?

No it hasn't.

Among various jurisdictions, where conversion of Catholics is performed either by baptism, or by crissmation, or even by confession, EP is among the most rigid ones. They always rebaptize.

An EP Bishop from Germany signed the statement about validity of baptism of some German protestants some three months ago, and was immediatelly castigated by EP, which stressed it wasn't the stance of EP.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2007, 01:26:08 PM »

They always rebaptize.
Actually, this isn't correct.
My Archdiocese is directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and receives Roman Catholics by Chrisimation (see under "Baptisms" in the Archdiocese Handbook).
Nor is it the case in other parts of Europe: http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1213
I know that in some parts of the New Territories, the Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate receive Roman Catholics by baptism, but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2007, 01:52:19 PM »

Actually, this isn't correct.
My Archdiocese is directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and receives Roman Catholics by Chrisimation (see under "Baptisms" in the Archdiocese Handbook).
Nor is it the case in other parts of Europe: http://www.goarch.org/en/news/NewsDetail.asp?id=1213
I know that in some parts of the New Territories, the Churches under the Ecumenical Patriarchate receive Roman Catholics by baptism, but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.

If some of the Churches in the New Territories are receiving Latins by Baptism then they are acting contrary to the wishes of both the Synod of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece, both of which have affirmed that the Latins and Anglicans are to be received by Chrismation. The only place that is an exception to this is Athos, and their practice of rebaptizing Christians is not looked upon favourably by either the Synod of Greece or Constantinople but is tolerated out of economia.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2007, 01:52:58 PM »

Well, I am flattered that anyone here could possibly see me as an authority on the Ecumenical Patriarchate and on the private opinions of HAH Bartholomew! Yes, it is only my guess.

But I would submit that it is a rather good and educated 'guess'.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2007, 02:00:00 PM »

It was a question that came to mind seeing as the EP does not consider the Latins to be heretics or outside the Church.  How could the EP consider the Latins heretics when we see the EP Patriarch and the Pope side by side, hand in hand, giving a joint blessing to the people?  On the EP website they don't call the Latins heretics but rather brothers moving towards "FULL" communion.   The EP Patriarch addresses the Pople as "Your Holiness, beloved Brother in the Lord". 

I could be completely wrong but if we are now in communion with the EP and the rest of the canonical Orthdox
- and because there is only One Church - how can the actions of the EP not effect us?  We made no stipulations that the MP disconnect from the EP over their actions with the Latins.  In fact, in the act of canonical communion with the MP it clearly states that all past anathemas that would hinder us from uniting with the MP
are now null and void. 

Again, I could have an improper understanding of the above so please forgive me if that is the case.

GiC, could you weigh in on this a bit more?

I believe this to be a good assessment of the situation; however, my 'guess' is that the Bishops of ROCOR, regardless of their personal opinions, simply found this issue to not be of sufficient significance as to justify continued schism within the Church. It really isn't that big of a deal since, while Anathemas were lifted, communion has not been restored. The situation, from a canonical perspective, has not really changed all that's really occuring is rhetoric and I really dont se why anyone, regardless of their personal opinions, would be too worried about being indirectly associated with the rhetoric coming out of Constantinople which carries no significant canonical implications. To the ROCOR Bishops, this is probably a non-issue.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2007, 02:03:11 PM »

You and I are obviously living different realties.

That we most certainly are, but I have a feeling that both 'realities' are figments of our respective imaginations. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2007, 02:03:33 PM »

If some of the Churches in the New Territories are receiving Latins by Baptism then they are acting contrary to the wishes of both the Synod of Constantinople and the Synod of Greece, both of which have affirmed that the Latins and Anglicans are to be received by Chrismation. The only place that is an exception to this is Athos, and their practice of rebaptizing Christians is not looked upon favourably by either the Synod of Greece or Constantinople but is tolerated out of economia.
Actually, this isn't correct either.
There are also some Churches under Constantinople such as on the Island of Kalymnos which are permitted to use the Old Calendar and baptise converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestant Churches.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2007, 02:08:21 PM »

Actually, this isn't correct either.
There are also some Churches under Constantinople such as on the Island of Kalymnos which are permitted to use the Old Calendar and baptise converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestant Churches.

And how many converts do these Churches actually see? Wink

I know that there a small handful of exceptions to the norm, but these exceptions are only allowed for two reasons, out of economy to the local parish, and because it is understood that the practice will have nominal impact on ecclesiastical relations at large.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2007, 03:28:09 PM »

Why than do EP baptize Catholic converts to Orthodoxy? Would they do that if they considered baptism of RCC valid? Wouldn't they consider baptisms of RCC valid if they had considered them the Church?

Others have already addressed this but I might add that I know personally of an RCC who was recieved by ROCOR I believe by confession.  Certainly was not baptism though.

Quote
Could you provide the link and quotation of that particular paragraph, annulling anathemas, since I couldn't have found it?

I specifically said anathemas against the MP.  I can't find the link but Fr. John Shaw has confirmed that all anathemas which would have obstructed union with the MP.  I believe the document is in Russian and it has been quoted as saying:

"The present Act restores the Canonical communion inside the Local Russian Orthodox Church. The previously issued Acts obstructing the fullness of the Canonical communion are declared void or invalid."

As for the RCC I believe that the EP website has stated that the anathemas against Rome have been lifted but that "FULL" communion has not yet be completed.   I had a long discussion on the EP and Rome with a priestmonk at one of Elder Ephriam's monastery and he said that we are in the 11th and a half hour before full on eucharistic communion with RCC.   His position is that if that happens without all of the established issues being settled, then that is a clear sign that the EP has "jumped off of the boat".
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2007, 03:34:27 PM »

I believe this to be a good assessment of the situation; however, my 'guess' is that the Bishops of ROCOR, regardless of their personal opinions, simply found this issue to not be of sufficient significance as to justify continued schism within the Church. It really isn't that big of a deal since, while Anathemas were lifted, communion has not been restored. The situation, from a canonical perspective, has not really changed all that's really occuring is rhetoric and I really dont se why anyone, regardless of their personal opinions, would be too worried about being indirectly associated with the rhetoric coming out of Constantinople which carries no significant canonical implications. To the ROCOR Bishops, this is probably a non-issue.

So then the lifting of Anathemas against Rome - while certainly not eucharistic communion - makes the statement that the EP no longer considers the RCC to be heretics, correct?  That's what I get from reading a joint statement with Pope Paul VI, where they declared that they "regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which on both sides have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period."
They likewise "regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion."  "Through the action of the Holy Spirit those differences will be overcome through regret for historical wrongs and through an efficacious determination to arrive at a common understanding and expression of the faith of the Apostles and its demands."
 
So this leads me to believe (as an Old Calendar monk puts it) that the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation" and must be "obliterated from memory" and we do not yet understand the faith of the Apostles seeing as we have to arrive at a common understanding of the faith of the apostles.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 04:06:16 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2007, 04:02:24 PM »

So then the lifting of Anathemas against Rome - while certainly not eucharistic communion - makes the statement that the EP no longer considers the RCC to be heretics, correct?

It may indeed be a statement that they are not to be regarded as heretics; but communion has not been restored, Rome is not commemorated in the dyptics of the Great Church of Christ. From a technical perspective it could be said that they went from being classified as mere heretics to schismatics. Regardless of the pragmatic implications, canonically speaking this is a step backwards for our relations with Rome as schism is worse than heresy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2007, 04:20:09 PM »

...but it is not correct to say the EP "always" receives Roman Catholics by Baptism.

Thanks for correcting me.

Quote from: ROCORtodox
...I specifically said anathemas against the MP.
Which ones? Could you name them? Their dates? Where they've been published?

Quote from: ROCORtodox
I had a long discussion on the EP and Rome with a priestmonk at one of Elder Ephriam's monastery and he said that we are in the 11th and a half hour before full on eucharistic communion with RCC.   His position is that if that happens without all of the established issues being settled, then that is a clear sign that the EP has "jumped off of the boat".

I can't see any error in the chieromonk's attitude. That's what all Orthodox Christians believe. But Bartholomites are silent after having been publicly castigated by Mount Athos, Church of Greece, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.

Silent as mice.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2007, 04:22:07 PM »

It may indeed be a statement that they are not to be regarded as heretics; but communion has not been restored, Rome is not commemorated in the dyptics of the Great Church of Christ. From a technical perspective it could be said that they went from being classified as mere heretics to schismatics. Regardless of the pragmatic implications, canonically speaking this is a step backwards for our relations with Rome as schism is worse than heresy.

What kind of schism though.  I recently read an essay written within our church concerning the schism between the MP and ROCOR  which speaks of two types of schism, one of which - if it is merely administrative - then neither side is graceless or outside the Church.  Check this out:  

(snip) St Basil the Great has to say.

 Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have
become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those
who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have
developed a quarrel amongst themselves . [Concerning heresies] the question
is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed
best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the
attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have
merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still
belonging to the Church. "

From The Canonical Epistles, Or, More Expressly, The Ninety-Two Canons, Of Our Father Among The Saints, Basil The Great Interpreted, The Rudder, (1957), p 773


" . . . Schism comes in two versions, as explained previously; it can  be due to heresy (the worst kind, that results in departure of the Holy Spirit), or it can be due to disputes of an administrative nature (where
both groups remain within the Church).  . . .Because the separation (between ROCOR and the MP)
is not on heretical grounds, then, as  explained by St Basil the Great, MP remains within the Church."

It seems to me - from the language in the joint statements by Rome and the EP - that the EP does not believe
the schism to be based on heresy because they have said the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation" and must be "obliterated from memory".

Then again, I might have it all wrong  Wink


Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2007, 04:37:17 PM »


 Which ones? Could you name them? Their dates? Where they've been published?

Granting the bit I posted from the Act is correct - and trusting the priests who were active in the unia process who confirmed that the anathemas against the MP have been lifted - the way the wording of the language of that statement would mean ANY anathema which would prohibit unia with the MP.  It is quite a broad statement and the pro-unia priests have been using it in debates on the net to rebut a wide variety of past ROCOR statements which are being thrown at them.  If you are interested in looking into this yourself you can check out the various yahoo lists. Particularly the Synod and Paradosis list. 

Quote
I can't see any error in the chieromonk's attitude. That's what all Orthodox Christians believe. But Bartholomites are silent after having been publicly castigated by Mount Athos, Church of Greece, Russians, Bulgarians, etc.

Silent as mice.

Well the point I was making is that the EP has stated that the Orthodox condemnation of Latin heresies is "without foundation".  To me, this goes against all that I have been taught in ROCOR.  Many people are leaving our jurisdiction to the Old Calendar jurisdiction because of being in communion with so-called "world Orthodoxy".

I happen to agree with the priestmonk as well but can see the OC folks side as well.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 04:38:52 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2007, 07:46:20 PM »

I was personally thinking of Chrysostom when I wrote what I did about the variation between schism and heresy...

'Therefore I assert and protest, that to make a schism in the Church is no less an evil than to fall into heresy. Tell me, suppose a subject of some king, though he did not join himself to another king, nor give himself to any other, yet should take and keep hold of his king's royal purple, and should tear it all from its clasp, and rend it into many shreds; would he suffer less punishment than those who join themselves to the service of another? And what, if withal he were to seize the king himself by the throat and slay him, and tear his body limb from limb, what punishment could he undergo, that should be equal to his deserts? Now if in doing this toward a king, his fellow-servant, he would be committing an act too great for any punishment to reach; of what hell shall not he be worthy who slays Christ, and plucks Him limb from limb? of that one which is threatened? No, I think not, but of another far more dreadful.'

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,532


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2007, 09:01:48 PM »

It is better to remain loyal to the Church and enter knowingly into Heresy than to break off and risk Schism.

But by her very own definition, the Church cannot enter into heresy, so those who do fall into heresy are no longer of the Church, even should the heretics be the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 73 queries.