OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 12:40:58 PM *
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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Merged discussion of all things Milan Synod  (Read 28826 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #135 on: April 06, 2011, 11:05:03 AM »

Romanians do not recognize any "apostolicity" of the Anglicans. When did they ever receive one by vesting?

Sorry, I was thinking of Cyprus (more below). However, while I realized I may have confused the statements of Romania and Cyprus, the official statement of their joint commission in 1936 was the following on the matter:
"The Rumanian Commission made the following Declaration.
    "Having considered the conclusions of the papers on the Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, Holy Eucharist, Holy Mysteries in general, and Tradition and Justification,
    "And having considered the declarations of the Anglican Delegation on these questions, which declarations are in accordance with the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church,
    "The Rumanian Orthodox Commission unanimously recommends the Holy Synod (of the Rumanian Orthodox Church) to recognise the validity of Anglican Orders."

The Anglican Delegation received the Declaration with due acknowledgement."

This was a commission composed of Bishops of the Romanian Church.
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/bucharest1935.html

That said, I was thinking of Cyprus which in 2008 REAFFIRMED their recognition.
http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/07/orthodox-church-of-cyprus-reaffirms.html

'Unfortunately, after the Third Lambeth Conference, which was held in the year 1888, when a particular effort was made for the promotion of the relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for their union exists in both our Churches. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, encouraged by the progress made at the time went ahead, as is known, in the year 1923 and recognised the validity of Anglican ordainments in the hope that this would be followed by more moves towards unity between our Churches.'

Thank you for your correction.

Further, if they recognized their orders, there is no need to receive them by vesting.

Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 
Logged
PapaSymeon
-----------------------------------------------
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & British Isles - TOC
Posts: 34


stprochoroscell
WWW
« Reply #136 on: April 06, 2011, 11:09:03 AM »


You are trying to change the subject and avoid the truth.   The so-called "American Metropolia" is in communion with nobody in America, whereas the Orthodox in this country are all in communion with each other . . .From what I have read on this thread here, the so-called "American Metropolia" claims the Orthodox who sustain communion with each other are "not True", whereas those who do not have communion with each other are the "True" Church.

How illogical since the "American Metropolia" is in fact in-communion with TOC Churches in Russia, Greece and Bulgaria. As for the other TOC in America, have some patience, we were just given our independence and these relationships take time to nurture.

This logic plainly uses the "invisible Church" branch theory and is exactly the same logic the protestants use to justify their existence.

 Huh  Sorry, I'm Orthodox Christian, don't understand this type of thinking.

This so-called so-called "American Metropolia" is just another protestant sect . . . 

The True Orthodox are not syncretic, are not praying with non-Orthodox and the non-Christians, Rome is not our "Sister Church" but is antithetical to Orthodoxy, True Orthodox do not conspire with the State to promote the State's agenda while the "Church" leaders get the State to persecute True Orthodox and all other forms of Sergianism, etc., etc. Can the MP, EP and others make this claim? No! They are the leaders in such unorthodoxy!

Now a group of them has joined OC.net together at almost the same time to come and engage in "missionary activity" here.

A Conspiracy huh? Of the 3 of us one has been in this forum since June 07, 2004, another just a couple days ago and myself since March 09, 2008.  

Same old same old.

Sadly yes, same old same from the ecumenically compromised.
Logged

Fr. Stavrophoremonk Symeon-Salos
Hermitage Cell of St Prochoros
Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of
  the Americas & the British Isles - TOC
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2011, 11:09:54 AM »

Thanks for your reply!  Some more questions, if you don't mind, in response to your reply.

1.  So, at a rough guess, maybe 10,000 people out of the 200-300 million considered "Orthodox"?

Well, no, not at all. This has a ripple effect. I would say it directly affects a few thousand people, and indirectly affects many more thousands. 200-300 million? Really? I assume you are including Russia's official numbers of 100-150 million, even though the truth is probably less than 20% of that, with only 1% of the population actually practicing? Not realizing that the government statistics inadvertently include True Orthodox in their interviews, who have hundreds of parishes throughout Russia?

Quote
2. Who and where are these "Sister Churches"?  What makes them "sisters"?

There are True Orthodox Synods with whom we are in communion in Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia. This is an increasingly common development after the the ROCOR-MP union period (2000-2007). As much of True Orthodoxy has been historically splintered, this is a natural development in light of increased communications, thanks to better and freer travel, the Internet, et cetera.

Quote
3. Are you saying that the WR Antiochians are neither properly Western and/or Orthodox?

I think their hearts are oftentimes in the in the right place. But they are still using a heterodox rite, usually have not been sufficiently catechized into Orthodoxy and they often have mass receptions. But to the literal answer to the question, I'd say "yes", they are often using incorrect forms foregin to Orthodoxy and their confession of faith has too many holdovers from their previous confession.

Quote
4. What does a "Right-Believing" bishop believe that makes him "right-believing" and others wrong-believing?

They adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so.

Quote
  Are the only "right-believing" bishops those within what you refer to as True Orthodoxy?


Yes, but I do not limit True Orthodoxy to our four sister-jurisdictions. I believe all jurisdictions who have preserved the faith, which have broken communion with the world-Orthodox historically in the 20th century and refuse to commune with them until they repent of their heresies, are Orthodox. This numbers in the millions of people, literally thousands of parishes, and numbers about 125-150 Bishops.

So much for a tiny fragment.

Quote
Are ROCOR bishops right- or wrong-believing?

Those Bishops of the ROCOR who refused to go with the union and maintained a proper confession of faith are right-believing. Those who have joined with the MP, their actions speak for themselves, but I believe there are only six or so Bishops left who actually *united* with Moscow, the rest having been made after the union, thus being MP bishops.

Quote
Are the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate right- or wrong-believing? 

I believe the vast majority of the Moscow Patriarchate bishops are nothing more than well-paid civil servants, who are employees of the atheist state. At times committed atheists were "made" Bishops in the MP. There is no apostolic succession there, and any that one had before they joined them is forfeited.

Quote
5. What's the difference between Orthodox, True Orthodox, and Traditional Orthodox?

Well, if you ask me, there isn't any: they are all the same. But for the sake of clarification, I use the terminology as follows I consider True Orthodox to be part of the wider subset of Traditional Orthodox (which includes people who accept and reject the title "True Orthodox", such as folks in the Synod in Resistance) and Traditional Orthodox in the wider subset of "Orthodox" (which includes anyone who calls himself Orthodox, such as the Antiochians). As I personally see little real difference between people who adhere to traditional and true Orthodoxy, and I don't consider World Orthodox as fully Orthodox, I use all three terms interchangeably-- I make the distinction for the convenience of those outside True Orthodoxy, not those within.

Quote
6. Are you saying or implying that out of say roughly 200-300 million "Orthodox" in the world, only a few thousand (10,000-20,000?) are *really* Orthodox and the rest of us are misled apostates?  Have you ever entertained the possibility that it just might be the other way 'round?

Having lived in Russia, and been in a few jurisdictions, I'd say that out of perhaps 70-100 million "Orthodox" in the world, there are two million, maybe 3 million, True Orthodox in various jurisdictions. So the answer to your first question is "yes". Viritually anyone in the world looking for True Orthodoxy can find it. God will have mercy on the few others not so fortunate. As for World Orthodoxy, it is our task to bring you back to the fullness of the Orthodox faith, bring you back to sanity. What you choose to do with that knowledge, however, is up to you. My experience with World Orthodoxy showed me enough that there is something deeply deficient there, even in the most perfectly celebrated of liturgies; something gutted out of it.

But if you want to believe True Orthodoxy is a couple of thousand people in a cave, you are free to do that too. You'd be wrong, just as you are wrong about your other numbers.

The faith is not determined by numbers. "Groupthink" can never trump the eternal truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and His Holy Church, whose teaching has been the same "everywhere and at all times".

Well....it seems things have moved on a bit since I was last here  Grin.

But, it seems like your answers generate even more questions Cool.

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?

2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

The Nicene – Constantinopolitan Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

and:
Traditional English Version of Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.  AMEN.

 

Latin Text (ca. A.D. 700)

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.

Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.


5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

I guess that's probably enough for one post  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #138 on: April 06, 2011, 11:10:10 AM »

Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 

Those were statements from allegedly Orthodox hierarchs.

The fact that the Protestant websites actually hang up these things as a badge, making your churches accountable for your words, is not my problem. But because I recognize ACTUAL ORTHODOX people in other jurisdictions with no communion with me, We're the Protestants.

Give me a break. This is a hypocritical line of argument you are using, which is why you have to keep up the mantra "they're Protestants... we're Orthodox... Soviet MP good... yeah".

You haven't addressed a thing I've said because YOU CAN'T.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #139 on: April 06, 2011, 11:30:56 AM »

Aside from quoting protestant sources to "prove" a point (but of course!) , this person purposely skipped the all-important fact that NOBODY in the Orthodox Church is in communion with Rome or the Anglicans. 

Those were statements from allegedly Orthodox hierarchs.

The fact that the Protestant websites actually hang up these things as a badge, making your churches accountable for your words, is not my problem. But because I recognize ACTUAL ORTHODOX people in other jurisdictions with no communion with me, We're the Protestants.

Give me a break. This is a hypocritical line of argument you are using, which is why you have to keep up the mantra "they're Protestants... we're Orthodox... Soviet MP good... yeah".

You haven't addressed a thing I've said because YOU CAN'T.

You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #140 on: April 06, 2011, 11:52:43 AM »

You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.

There you go again. It seems you don't understand that both those statements were issued by hierarchs of World Orthodoxy. You seem to want to continue to pretend they are Protestant in origin.

Were you actually *in* ROCOR before 2000? Because no person who's been in ROCOR for a long time would even question the authenticity of the statements I am quoting. They'd use another line of argument altogether, but this "Protestant" name calling tells me your experience with Orthodox Traditionalists is limited, meaning that your time in ROCOR probably is as well.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #141 on: April 06, 2011, 12:15:23 PM »

Thanks for the questions.

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?


Honestly, our jurisdiction is fairly small to begin with. We don't have any official numbers, but the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas (now two Metropolias) before the confusion as a whole probably only has about 10-15 thousand people.

Quote
2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

The official Orthodox hierarchies have worked with inflated numbers for a very long time. Let's take Russia as an example. Indeed, one estimate says there are 150 million Orthodox in Russia; unfortunately this would mean that there are more Orthodox than people in Russia (Russia's population is 138 million according to the CIA world factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If we look at the numbers and apply a 15% Orthodox population (which is still not a conservative estimate) that's only about 20 million people.

The numbers don't add up. Applying this across the board (as Russia is usually considered to be 1/3-1/4 of the population of Orthodoxy worldwide) we can see that the "300 million" is grossly inflated.

Quote
3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

Our Sister Churches are listed here. This still includes Milan before the schism. The English in it is very poor however; it translates "Bishops" as "Archpriests" in English.
http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html

Quote
4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

Nice touch with the Latin; the Nicene Creed in Latin is fine too if you strike the word "filioque" from it.

The creed is the same for all of us. This is correct. However, we should not take a minimalist approach. The creed is an exposition of the main dogmas of our faith, but it can be held to by heretics. When we believe in "One, Holy, Apostolic Church", we believe in the Councils of that Church, and the teachings expounded therein. The creed, for example, says nothing about the Holy Icons. That doesn't mean that we can "skip them".

Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books:

1) The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Fr George Macris
2) New Zion in Babylon, Vladimir Moss
3) The Struggle Against Ecumenism, HOCNA
4) Russia's Catacomb Saints, I.M. Andreyev
5) Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? same author

That's a start.

Now, the ROCOR is unique in that she "stood apart" from so much of these disasters-- until the period of union began to "shake out" those who were faithful to Her original teaching. Sadly, that led to splintering among the traditionalists until the 2007 union with the MP.

Now the Orthodox traditionalists are just trying to pick up the pieces.

Quote
6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

Can you point to a specific context? I'd be glad to answer, but as you can see, a lot's been tossed around....

Quote
7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

The Orthodox teaching of Apostolic Succession is the teaching that the Bishops hold the line of succession to the Apostles in terms of the Grace of the Church being passed down from the Apostles to the Bishops of the present day. A good definition is right on OrthodoxWiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 12:18:13 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,963


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #142 on: April 06, 2011, 12:25:22 PM »

I don't doubt the sincerity or faith of those of you who are part of the Milan Synod. I just don't think that we will ever agree with you as to each other's definitions and beliefs. Let's just leave it at agreeing to disagree and let us all continue along our Lenten journey to Pascha being at peace in our own hearts.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #143 on: April 06, 2011, 12:32:08 PM »

Thanks for the questions.

So....
1.  What is "a few thousand"?


Honestly, our jurisdiction is fairly small to begin with. We don't have any official numbers, but the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas (now two Metropolias) before the confusion as a whole probably only has about 10-15 thousand people.

Quote
2.  On what basis do you say there are 70-100 million Orthodox instead of, say, 150-300 million?

The official Orthodox hierarchies have worked with inflated numbers for a very long time. Let's take Russia as an example. Indeed, one estimate says there are 150 million Orthodox in Russia; unfortunately this would mean that there are more Orthodox than people in Russia (Russia's population is 138 million according to the CIA world factbook.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#People

If we look at the numbers and apply a 15% Orthodox population (which is still not a conservative estimate) that's only about 20 million people.

The numbers don't add up. Applying this across the board (as Russia is usually considered to be 1/3-1/4 of the population of Orthodoxy worldwide) we can see that the "300 million" is grossly inflated.

Quote
3.  Who *are* these "sister churches"?  Can you be more specific, please?

Our Sister Churches are listed here. This still includes Milan before the schism. The English in it is very poor however; it translates "Bishops" as "Archpriests" in English.
http://metropolsynodgoc.blogspot.com/p/ecclcommunion.html

Quote
4.  Re: WR Antiochians and ROCOR...Is not their confession of faith the Nicene Creed?  If not, what is it, and precisely how is it different from *your* confession of faith?  This is from the website of St. John the Baptist WR Antiochian Church in Maryland:

Nice touch with the Latin; the Nicene Creed in Latin is fine too if you strike the word "filioque" from it.

The creed is the same for all of us. This is correct. However, we should not take a minimalist approach. The creed is an exposition of the main dogmas of our faith, but it can be held to by heretics. When we believe in "One, Holy, Apostolic Church", we believe in the Councils of that Church, and the teachings expounded therein. The creed, for example, says nothing about the Holy Icons. That doesn't mean that we can "skip them".

Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books:

1) The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, Fr George Macris
2) New Zion in Babylon, Vladimir Moss
3) The Struggle Against Ecumenism, HOCNA
4) Russia's Catacomb Saints, I.M. Andreyev
5) Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? same author

That's a start.

Now, the ROCOR is unique in that she "stood apart" from so much of these disasters-- until the period of union began to "shake out" those who were faithful to Her original teaching. Sadly, that led to splintering among the traditionalists until the 2007 union with the MP.

Now the Orthodox traditionalists are just trying to pick up the pieces.

Quote
6.  What are the "heterodox" principles or beliefs you keep referring to?  Can you specify, please?

Can you point to a specific context? I'd be glad to answer, but as you can see, a lot's been tossed around....

Quote
7.  Please define "apostolic succession", especially with regards to those bishops you have referred to as athiests.

The Orthodox teaching of Apostolic Succession is the teaching that the Bishops hold the line of succession to the Apostles in terms of the Grace of the Church being passed down from the Apostles to the Bishops of the present day. A good definition is right on OrthodoxWiki: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.

Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  Grin).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #144 on: April 06, 2011, 12:43:10 PM »


What I was referring to, specifically, is that heterodox, nor atheists, cannot be granted the grace of the Apostles, because they are not Orthodox (Apostolic Succession, unlike the Roman teaching, is not mechanical: it does not confer the grace onto someone incapable of receiving it.) During the Soviet period, the "Bishops" ordained at the behest of the Soviet government were sometimes not Orthodox, and in some cases did not believe in God.

I usually use the example of vesting Jehovah's Witnesses. You can vest one, "ordain" him, and he can "ordain" whomever he wishes, but the grace of the Church is not being passed down. This is, effectively, what happened with the MP; apostates continued ordaining apostates, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, sometimes good and well-meaning people with nominal Orthodox faith were made "Bishops". But because their ordainers were themselves defective, they can't hold the grace of the episcopate.

I hope that helps.

I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #145 on: April 06, 2011, 12:44:24 PM »

Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  Grin).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Oh! I thought you meant how something I had referred to as "heterodox" was heterodox, not heterodoxy itself. "Heterodox" is commonly interpreted as "not Orthodox", and that is precisely how I meant it.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #146 on: April 06, 2011, 12:46:49 PM »

I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.

Can you please explain how it sounds like Donatism? I can't possibly see how. I'd be glad to address it, if you could help point out the similarity.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #147 on: April 06, 2011, 12:53:36 PM »

I'm sorry, but the above statement regarding the years of Communist persecution in the Russian Church sounds suspiciously like Donatism.

Can you please explain how it sounds like Donatism? I can't possibly see how. I'd be glad to address it, if you could help point out the similarity.

First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #148 on: April 06, 2011, 12:55:55 PM »

Yes, it does help some.  Thanks for the references.  I'll add them to my ever-growing list of books to be read (if only had the *time*  Grin).

You, yourself, have just used the term "heterodox" in this post (2nd t last paragraph).  So, what do you mean by it in *that* context?  You and others have used it a number of times before without really explaining it in any context.  So........?

Oh! I thought you meant how something I had referred to as "heterodox" was heterodox, not heterodoxy itself. "Heterodox" is commonly interpreted as "not Orthodox", and that is precisely how I meant it.

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox
   /ˈhɛtərəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[het-er-uh-doks] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, especially in theology; unorthodox.
2.
holding unorthodox doctrines or opinions.
(from dictionary.com)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #149 on: April 06, 2011, 01:01:10 PM »


First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.

Thank you.

First, your source begins with the following: "That was how should those who lapsed during the persecutions be accepted back into the Church, especially lapsed clergy. Doctrine was not involved."

I would argue that doctrine was heavily involved, because of the heresy of Sergianism. However, you seem to be missing my point. The Bishops, according to the canons, can never be made at the behest of the government, and this is in regards to Christian Emperors. How much more so would that be true for an atheist government? Nor are we even touching the fact that NON-ORTHODOX were "made Bishops" and participated in consecrations! The two are hardly comparable except that both involve Bishops protesting elections.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #150 on: April 06, 2011, 01:08:45 PM »

You come here using protestant sources as "truth" to justify your position when the plain and simple fact is the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome or the Anglicans.  This undisputed FACT addresses everything you say and the sharp Truth of it guts your whole protestant line of reasoning.

There you go again. It seems you don't understand that both those statements were issued by hierarchs of World Orthodoxy. You seem to want to continue to pretend they are Protestant in origin.

Were you actually *in* ROCOR before 2000? Because no person who's been in ROCOR for a long time would even question the authenticity of the statements I am quoting. They'd use another line of argument altogether, but this "Protestant" name calling tells me your experience with Orthodox Traditionalists is limited, meaning that your time in ROCOR probably is as well.

It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #151 on: April 06, 2011, 01:13:49 PM »

It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Well, if that's all you have left, maybe you can explain the yearly joint celebrations in which both Catholics and Orthodox receive from one chalice? Maybe you can explain why when the Pope visits he is commemorated by Patriarchal deacons as the First Bishop of the Church? Maybe you can explain why "Orthodox" Bishops receive from a Roman Chalice and are not punished by the Synod and even defended by their people?! You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video.

Back when ROCOR was in communion with the SiR, they used to have lots of videos showing stuff like this. But, since I am pretty sure you're new to ROCOR, you probably didn't know that.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #152 on: April 06, 2011, 01:16:10 PM »

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
FrAugustineFetter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles
Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #153 on: April 06, 2011, 01:27:01 PM »

If I might add my two cents in here.  There seems to be a false dichotomy created in the World Orthodox mind, and though I hate to use this much abused term, I will say that this is "Western Captivity."
You are either forced into a neo-papist patriarchal church view (that is, each of the patriarchs are equivalent to the pope), and thus papism, and if you don't accept that you are protestants.  Reminds me of the Papists apologists who accuse the Eastern Orthodox of being protestant because they have no central earthly figure giving orders, etc.
Perhaps one should read Socrates the Byzantine historian, who goes over the whole Arian controversy in the 4th century, or one should meantion how describe 2, then 3, bishops in Antioch, all mutually refusing to accept each other, while none of them accepted the Arian Patriarch.  The Eustathians refused to accept St. Meletius because he had been consecrated by Bishops professing the Creed of Antioch, which was the same as Nicea, but, refused to add 'homousius', and they declared him to be without grace.  Or, who Bishop Luciferus from Sicily came a consecrated another Orthodox bishop and it produced even more confusion.  Or about, how, many Orthodox bishops never trusted other ones, or had communion, because no one was sure who was a secret Arian, or Sabellian, (as we later learned was teh charge against St. Athansius, or his friend Marcellus of Ancyra), and that there was never the slightest charge that these bishops and clergy and laity in a horrific situation were denying the believei n "One Catholic Church".  Extradordinary times produce extraordinary problems.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #154 on: April 06, 2011, 01:28:05 PM »

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  Grin!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  Roll Eyes)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #155 on: April 06, 2011, 01:37:14 PM »


First a source:http://orthodoxwiki.org/Donatism

And an excerpt: 
Quote
The issue came to a head in 311, Caecilian was consecrated bishop of Carthage. His consecration was disputed by many Carthaginians because one of the three consecrating bishops, Felix, bishop of Aptunga, had surrendered copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors and was considered a traditor. A subsequent council of some seventy “purist” bishops formalized the dispute and declared Caecilian’s consecration invalid. They then elected as bishop Majorinus, who had denounced “Roman collaborators” and refused to reconcile clergy who had lapsed.

Your claim that the Russian Church is completely invalid because of a "false" bishop or two during a seventy year period seems to be right along the same lines.

Thank you.

First, your source begins with the following: "That was how should those who lapsed during the persecutions be accepted back into the Church, especially lapsed clergy. Doctrine was not involved."

I would argue that doctrine was heavily involved, because of the heresy of Sergianism. However, you seem to be missing my point. The Bishops, according to the canons, can never be made at the behest of the government, and this is in regards to Christian Emperors. How much more so would that be true for an atheist government? Nor are we even touching the fact that NON-ORTHODOX were "made Bishops" and participated in consecrations! The two are hardly comparable except that both involve Bishops protesting elections.

You bring up the canons.  Yet how many times have the canons not been followed exactly to the letter?  The canons state a priest must be 30 years of age, how many times has a younger man been privileged to serve in this position?  

Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

Further, I see no substantiations of any allegations of "Sergianism" within the Russian Church.  Patriarch Sergius must have been an evil and vile man indeed to have completely poisoned a Church that existed for a thousand years in just eight short months.

Indeed, it seems the situation is exactly that of the Donatist schism.  I see no heresy within the Russian Church of the Communist era, just a bishop or two who "surrendered the copies of the holy books" (or the names of anti-government collaborators) to the Communist persecutors.  That some didn't maintain their faith as steadfastly as the martyrs is a given: it is so in any period of martyrdom.  
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #156 on: April 06, 2011, 01:58:58 PM »

You know, for all of our to-ing and fro-ing here; for all the debate about who is who and what is what and what is who; for all the squabbling about who is "more" Orthodox than whom, who is "really" Orthodox and who isn't, and on and on ad nauseum, I'm going to try to cut through the crap (am I allowed to say that here?) and boil this down to the simplest thing I can, being myself somewhat of a simpleton  Wink.

So...here goes: At the Last Judgment, will we be held accountable for which church we attended?  Will we be held accountable for which jurisdiction we belonged to?  Will we be held accountable as to whether we were Orthodox, heterodox, True Orthodox, False Orthodox, or any other -dox?  Or.....will we be held accountable for "every idle word..."; for whether we have chosen Him instead of the other; for whether or not we have repented of our sins; and for whether or not we have loved our enemy, loved our neighbor, etc., etc., etc.?  What is it that is really of ultimate importance?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #157 on: April 06, 2011, 02:09:19 PM »

You bring up the canons.  Yet how many times have the canons not been followed exactly to the letter?  The canons state a priest must be 30 years of age, how many times has a younger man been privileged to serve in this position?  

Neither here nor there. There is a difference between a prohibition and a guideline. You can, as a Bishop, decide whether someone needs to wait to the age of 30 to ordain him a priest; you can't ignore a direct prohibition to, for example, pray with heretics.

Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism.

Quote
Further, I see no substantiations of any allegations of "Sergianism" within the Russian Church.  Patriarch Sergius must have been an evil and vile man indeed to have completely poisoned a Church that existed for a thousand years in just eight short months.

No need to poison it at all, simply to ignore it. You are aware that the entire Moscow Patriarchate received its origins from 19 Bishops working with Stalin, six of whom were renovationists?

Shumilo continues: “The so-called ‘hierarchical council’… took place on September 8, 1943. In all 19 hierarchs took part in it, six of whom were former renovationists who had been hastily consecrated not long before the ‘council’, and also several loyal bishops who were specially freed from prison and sent to Moscow in planes. At the given assembly there were no bishops from the occupied territories, nor from the emigration, or, still more, those who did not agree with Sergius and his ecclesiastical politics, who continued to languish in
Soviet concentration camps. As the patriarchal historian D. Pospelovsky notes: ‘… At that time there were at least some tens of bishops in exile and the camps… Some of the imprisoned bishops refused to recognize the ecclesiastical politics of Sergius after 1927 as the condition of their liberation. At that time the Catacomb Church was still very active.’” (Moss, New Zion in Babylon, part IV, p.37)

So 1/3 of the Bishops that formed what became the MP were in fact renovationists. ALL of them operated under orders from Stalin. And ALL of the MP's Bishops come from these same 19 men.

Quote
Indeed, it seems the situation is exactly that of the Donatist schism.  I see no heresy within the Russian Church of the Communist era, just a bishop or two who "surrendered the copies of the holy books" (or the names of anti-government collaborators) to the Communist persecutors.  That some didn't maintain their faith as steadfastly as the martyrs is a given: it is so in any period of martyrdom.  

"Surrendering copies of the Holy Books" and effectively sentencing martyrs to their deaths are very different things, and the fact that you can blithely make that comparison is extremely disturbing.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #158 on: April 06, 2011, 02:13:41 PM »

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  Grin!  Yikes!  

I believe I answered that question with a reference to a series of books.

Quote
Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books....
-----

You are asking me to point to a specific item, but the truth is that one must look at the cohesive whole of the behaviors of official Orthodoxy to demonstrate the inconsistency of their doctrinal teaching as opposed to the traditional Orthodox teaching. I am not going to get into a game of "well, this hierarch did this, but *this* hierarch did that." That's a waste of time.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 02:14:11 PM by Suaiden » Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #159 on: April 06, 2011, 02:14:29 PM »

It does not matter from which source you pull from, the key point which deflates your argument is that the Orthodox Church has no communion with Rome.   No matter how much smoke and mirrors you set up to avoid this fact, it is the only point I need to address to debunk your assertions.

Well, if that's all you have left, maybe you can explain the yearly joint celebrations in which both Catholics and Orthodox receive from one chalice? Maybe you can explain why when the Pope visits he is commemorated by Patriarchal deacons as the First Bishop of the Church? Maybe you can explain why "Orthodox" Bishops receive from a Roman Chalice and are not punished by the Synod and even defended by their people?! You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video.

Back when ROCOR was in communion with the SiR, they used to have lots of videos showing stuff like this. But, since I am pretty sure you're new to ROCOR, you probably didn't know that.

The only thing you have given so far are links to protestant blogs and volumes of claims.   Go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  If you say these are yearly events - and there used to be lots of videos showing this stuff like this - then you should have no problem posting videos for us to see.


Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #160 on: April 06, 2011, 02:21:19 PM »

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  Grin!  Yikes!  

I believe I answered that question with a reference to a series of books.

Quote
Quote
5. Are you saying that our (ROCOR, Antiochian, OCA, GOA, etc.) bishops do *not* "adhere obediently to the principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and do not use their power to excuse themselves from doing so."?  If so, how are they not?

That's a very good question. Unfortunately, there just isn't enough space to write about the abandonment of the faith on the part of the official hierarchy. I would suggest a few good books....
-----

You are asking me to point to a specific item, but the truth is that one must look at the cohesive whole of the behaviors of official Orthodoxy to demonstrate the inconsistency of their doctrinal teaching as opposed to the traditional Orthodox teaching. I am not going to get into a game of "well, this hierarch did this, but *this* hierarch did that." That's a waste of time.

Kinda the answer I expected  Sad .  You really *must* be a lawyer  Roll Eyes Sad.

I'm thinking it's time to move on to a different thread or topic.......
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #161 on: April 06, 2011, 02:22:18 PM »

Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #162 on: April 06, 2011, 02:25:33 PM »

Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Yup.  I think he's a lawyer  Grin!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FrAugustineFetter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles
Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 06, 2011, 03:04:07 PM »

Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.
Logged

ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #164 on: April 06, 2011, 05:56:40 PM »

Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Your friend claims there is video of Orthodox bishops communing with Latins, which he says happens yearly.  We are waiting for him to post a link to these videos which should be readily available, if his claim is true.   He also ducked out on a major point concerning the captivity of the EP under the Turks which shows the futility of his position concerning the MP.  Stuff like this does not fair well for your claims.

This is not a matter of "different understandings".   It is a matter of you folks making unstable arguments to justify your separate existence from the Church while you claim the Church is not the Church.
You would have us believe that the "real" Church has been smashed to smithereens with barely any communion with each other, yet somehow invisibly united. 
 
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,831


WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 06, 2011, 06:40:35 PM »

Well, now it's just the True Orthodox versue the World Orthodox, the anti-ecumenist versus the ecumenist, the traditionalist versus the modernist.  What did people expect was going to happen to this thread; these are intractable problems since people come from different understandings.

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.  I hope I also clarified, that we were not saying the Eastern Liturgies are bad! We were just saying that the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Can't we all just get along?  Except for your jurisdiction, which doesn't want to get along with anyone.   Wink 

Quote
By being reactive, we might reject the problem, give up, or feel inadequate to deal with the problem. If the problem is persistent, we might struggle or exit. As the conflict develops, we perceive it as a threat, and we may blame, attack or withdraw. These behaviors constitute our fear reaction system. I like to call it our self-protective system. The brain systems associated with fear reaction are very, very old, dating back to the earliest vertebrae animals. Although highly adaptive in the uncertain and dangerous environment of 20,000 years ago, the system is largely maladaptive in our modern, complex culture.

source

So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   Huh
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #166 on: April 06, 2011, 06:49:50 PM »

Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Here. Let me correct myself. I think that's a dumb argument, there is no real comparison, and since you know it so well, can you please demonstrate how the two are similar.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #167 on: April 06, 2011, 06:52:51 PM »

The only thing you have given so far are links to protestant blogs and volumes of claims.   Go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  If you say these are yearly events - and there used to be lots of videos showing this stuff like this - then you should have no problem posting videos for us to see.

I said three different things. You really want a bunch of videos and pictures?

Really?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #168 on: April 06, 2011, 06:54:41 PM »

So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   Huh

Does it matter whether we were Orthodox or not? Whether we were Christian or not? Whether we believe in God or not? Why stop at membership in "World Orthodoxy"?
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,043



« Reply #169 on: April 06, 2011, 06:56:06 PM »

I hope I answer the questions from the two fellows that asked me the difference between the old Western Orthodox liturgy and the Tridentine mass.

You did. Thank you for your explanation.  Smiley

Quote
the Liturgy celebrated by Sts. Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, Bede, Theodore of Cantebury, Martin the Confessor, Dunstan, etc, can still be used in their essential form.

Agreed.
Logged

ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #170 on: April 06, 2011, 07:09:13 PM »

"You can say there's no communion with Rome, but there's plenty to go around at the highest levels. Some of it's on video."

 
Again, go ahead and post for us the videos of "Orthodox" bishops receiving communion with Rome.  You say this is a yearly event. You say some of it is on video.  Well, let's see the video.

Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #171 on: April 06, 2011, 07:21:35 PM »

Quote
Quote
Going based off your above statement, you might as well say that Constantinople has had invalid succession since the rise of the Ottoman Empire because the Patriarchs served at the whim of the Ottoman Emperor, or before that even when Emperors in defiance of the canon replaced the Patriarch.

"This is a common comparison made by those defending Sergianism."

Everyone see this?  He just ducked out because he can't answer such a direct fact without contradicting himself in general.

Here. Let me correct myself. I think that's a dumb argument, there is no real comparison, and since you know it so well, can you please demonstrate how the two are similar.

Not dumb, just an argument you are trying to avoid.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ottoman_rule_and_Eastern_Christianity
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #172 on: April 06, 2011, 07:29:20 PM »

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

My brothers, have you missed the point?  The gentlemen writing here as "Suaiden" and "FrAugustineFetter" as well as their bishop in New York John LoBue genuinely believe that the Russian Church is the Satanic Empire.  They have told me, more than once, that I am a priest of Satan as also my Metropolitan Hilarion and if you read the article in the OP you will see it stated officially.  To his eternal credit in heaven the other MAB member writing here with the screen name of "PapaSymeon" disagrees with both his bishop and these two other gentlemen.   
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #173 on: April 06, 2011, 07:33:51 PM »

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  Grin!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  Roll Eyes)

In the belief system of the people whom you are addressing  and of their NY bishop all the Churches you mention are part of the Satanic Empire.  Their "baptisms" serve only to pollute further and their Eucharist is mushy bread and wine on a spoon.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,831


WWW
« Reply #174 on: April 06, 2011, 07:43:33 PM »

So, because people come from different understandings, the problems are intractable?  Some would accuse "World Orthodoxy" of being self-protective and yet, you are also being self-protective.  As another poster already pondered, on the Day of Last Judgment, does it matter whether or not we were a part of "World Orthodoxy" or against it?   Huh

Does it matter whether we were Orthodox or not? Whether we were Christian or not? Whether we believe in God or not? Why stop at membership in "World Orthodoxy"?

Because, I'm presenting the situation in a light favorable to your jurisdiction.  I mean, being elevated to an Autonomous Metropolia only to be summarily excommunicated - that must really hurt.   Sad
Logged
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #175 on: April 06, 2011, 07:45:14 PM »

I was taking a look at the lists of clergy with Milan and I see that Archbishop Luca of Torcello is not on those. Where has he gone?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,272


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #176 on: April 07, 2011, 10:11:27 AM »

Oy Vey!!!  Now *this* is getting ridiculous!  What, precisely is not "Orthodox" about those whom you refer to as not being True or Traditional Orthodox?  And, please, don't say that they are "heterodox"  Grin!
I may not be the brightest of bulbs, but I do know that the word "heterodox" means:
het·er·o·dox

No, I mean they are actually not Orthodox, some other religion, or atheist, but are ordained at the behest of the KGB anyway. Maybe I can explain with an example?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1470259/posts

Let me try to be more specific, as I'm clearly not getting across what I'm trying to.  Do you consider members, including bishops of course, of the OCA, ROCOR, AOCA, ACROD, GOA, etc. to be "heterodox"?  If so, can you please explain precisely how so in a manner that does not just say that they are not True Orthodox or Traditional Orthodox?

I'm beginning to think I've fallen down the proverbial rabbit hole here  Grin!  Yikes! 

(You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?  Roll Eyes)

In the belief system of the people whom you are addressing  and of their NY bishop all the Churches you mention are part of the Satanic Empire.  Their "baptisms" serve only to pollute further and their Eucharist is mushy bread and wine on a spoon.

Gee, and here I thought "we" were the "good guys"  Cry Cry Cry.  Guess I'll have to go and buy a black hat now  Grin.  At least it won't show the "dirt" quite as much  Grin!  I'll just have to be sure to keep it out of reach of my shedding cats  Wink.  (Aren't there some folks who think cats are "satanic", too?  Eeeeek!)

Your comment explains much, really, so thanks for that.  What it doesn't explain is, if these folks truly believe that, why are they even talking to "us"?  If it's in the hope of bringing us to some kind of "conversion" or whatever, it certainly doesn't help their cause to be accusatory, evasive, even more evasive, and to provide us with strange, convoluted arguments.  The whole thing really is very sad and divisive.  (I've heard that Satan loves to foment division--but I guess that's "our" fault, eh?)

Just as an aside, the more I read about the Milan Synod and their "sisters", the more the word "cult" or "cult-like" comes to mind.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
FrAugustineFetter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles
Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #177 on: April 07, 2011, 09:15:57 PM »

I'm glad I answered the liturgical questions of Alpo and the Finnish fellow.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #178 on: April 07, 2011, 09:25:07 PM »

I personally believe it is very foolish to take sacraments from excommunicated "True Orthodox" priests. But hey, if you feel your soul is safe receiving the Body of Christ from somebody in communion with at most a willy wonka coloured vest wearing person in a basement, then what can I say. Don't be fooled guys, this is protestantism dressed up with an orthodox coating. How can you be a priest if every single orthodox church is not in communion with you or your patriarch or Archbishop defrocked you ? The apostolic canons clearly forbid wandering priests or bishops. PERIOD.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 09:27:01 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
FrAugustineFetter
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of Americas and British Isles
Posts: 89


WWW
« Reply #179 on: April 07, 2011, 09:32:39 PM »

Well I'm glad I answered your questions on the liturgical texts.
Logged

Tags: Milan Synod 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »   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 0.19 seconds with 72 queries.