You need to find one of the super judgmental, super external, super 'Orthodox' jurisdictions where you and the elders can sit around 'tut tutting' the state of the rest of us.
No thanks, I still have hope that the greek church will see that ecumenism does not work just like they did in the council of Florence. Or until the "VERY SOON" Great and Holy Council (though obviously not more holy than His All-Holiness)
I will give you one example of Bishops and their rules. The late Metropolitan Nicholas refused to grant ecclesiastical divorces to two couples married in one of his churches. The woman wanted to marry a man from her home parish who was also married in the same church. The woman refused to accept this and moved into the jurisdiction of then Bishop Tikhon of the OCA who, without consulting the pastor of the parish from which they came in the ACROD, granted the divorces and the parties were married in the OCA church. This caused a scandal within the original parish when they returned from out of state since the other woman could not remarry in the church as her divorce had likewise been rejected. Since they had received a canonical divorce and been married in the Church, the pastor had little choice but to receive them back. This is real world stuff my friend, not the abstractions and distractions people here fixate upon. Frankly, there were canonical justifications for the actions of either Bishop and since there is no administrative unity in America, stuff like this happens.
That is very interesting, but that is just a product of there being multiple bishops for a single city which is against canons anyway. I thought you were talking about a bishop who just gives out divorces to fit modern expectations to do so.
As to traditions - there are, for example valid Greek and valid Russian ones. There are different rubrics as well. The differences are subtle, but real and they are equally valid.
As to one thousand years? I believe that the Nikonian reforms came within that period, as did the changes to the Greek Euchologian in the 19th century.
A thousand years is just a random number I put out. I simply mean, to be traditional just do not innovate, especially just to accommodate a more secularized people such as today. Is the church supposed to change its mind on things, or the people, brought up with different ideas, supposed to!? I don't see any problem with there being different russian and greek traditions, or even different liturgy rites. Again, it is easy to tell what is innovation and what is traditional in the church today.
I could go on, but facts are boring and never convincing in the face of strongly held opinion.
I wish you did go on
You didn't answer the question about the Jewish doctor.
It is not obvious from what I said?? Yes, I will keep that canon. Even though it meant a kind of doctor which would not be called a "doctor" today.
I didn't say that the lack of emperor was doctrinal only that it was perceived to be an impossibility....but there are plenty of folks like the schismatic, Vladimir Moss, who would argue with you on that point.
I have never read Vladimir Moss and I hope I never do, I really only read church fathers I know they will not be wrong, compared to those today one cannot trust fully because they have not been accepted by councils as having correct teachings.
But I am still confused about this, who ever perceived the emperor as being necessary to the church? I am just talking about the fathers. Were you just talking about those today or the fathers??? But anyway, sounds like an interesting thing to debate for fun, from a secular point of view. How many times did the emperor put heretical patriarchs on the throne, and yet in other instances, putting "Orthodox" patriarchs to replace those patriarchs in other times!