In simple terms, the status of a body as Orthodox
, fundamentally boils down to whether or not they are in fact Orthodox.
That may sound odd, but it's amazing how neat, quasi-Papist ecclessiologies typically miss this fundamental point. Besides Orthodoxy of faith, canonicity of foundation is almost as important (though not as, since even this in some measure can
be qualified, as history demonstrates.)
In "good times" (which if you look at the record, doesn't really comprise much of the Church's history), perhaps pointing to the larger, more or less "monied" and secularly favoured institutions which identify themselves as "the Church" is a safe bet, and requires little if any further inquiry.Unfortunately
, such superficial estimations are not always indicative of reality. Simply pointing to "communion with this or that Patriarch" in troubled times solves nothing, and as history would instruct us (since some here seem very big on learning the lessons of history) would often have put one in league with heresiarchs (bearing in mind that several occupents of the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople have been heretics, as was at least one Pope of Rome prior to the schism of 1054, etc.) Such appeals to mere "officialdom" then, or even "majority rules" would have been futile - and obviously all of these blaspheming players, would have insisted they
were the Church, and those who would have nothing to do with them were the ones in err, and would have kindly dubbed them as "schismatics" or "rogue clergy."
This is not to say that it cannot be that the "odd men out" are in fact simply rogue clergy, or schisms. That does, and has certainly happened. However, what I can say, is that unlike in Roman Catholicism (where being out of step with the Pope and those in his communion is a sentence in itself), Orthodoxy knows of no intrinsic power, in the act of being in communion with this or that diocese of Patriarchate, to render one "Orthodox."Rdr. Serge
Neo-papal-patriarchalism sounds more like cult in-language than anything I've read by actual Eastern Orthodox or anybody else.
Well, I've heard this phrase used by authors who I know are in communion with ROCOR and who are ROCOR clergy themselves - in fact, a birdy told me you yourself (strictly speaking) are a cleric in ROCOR (a Reader.)
think the matter here is Justin has arrogated to himself the right to reject the commonly understood Orthodox communion (to which most of you belong or at least identify with), judging it as not orthodox, while either still claiming to be Eastern Orthodox himself or even that his favourite church or sect at the moment (he's changed his mind a few times in the past couple of years) is the only Orthodox church left on earth. Making the same historical mistake as the Russian Old Believers: those who won't learn from history, etc.
...or he could be like lots of other confused Orthodox in troubled times, just trying to make his way with a clean conscience. Yes, there have been "Old Believer" style situations a plenty; but then again, there were also "Arian/Semi-Arian" style situations as well.
While I'm not sure what final conclusions Paradosis has made (if he has), I do agree with him on one thing - there is a heretical ecumenism which is endemic in much of "Orthodox officialdom", and it goes unpunished; can we take that lack of punishment as an endorsement? IT's hard not to, when the perpetraitors themselves bare Patriarchal title.
may not agree that such a heresy exists, obviously your Church (or so I was told) does - ROCOR anathematized it in 1983, and that Synodal anathema appears in the list ROCOR condemns every year on the Sunday of Orthodoxy
, alongside Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.
God as He shows Himself in His creation is logical and orderly.
Unfortunately, people are not - and discerning who is who, can be a difficult thing. I do agree though, God eventually
sorts it out with us
(though rarely without us.)
Necessary to see 'where he's coming from' to understand his opposition to the commonly understood Orthodox Church.
Perhaps - so I imagine you will object in no wise to my indication of your ecclessiastical affiliations and clerical status, right? Btw., I find it very odd that a clergyman would not identify himself as such when dealing with others, particularly Orthodox on an Orthodox forum.