OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 07:40:55 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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If A Patriarch becomes a heretic, what do I do? Theoretically?  (Read 2211 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« on: January 23, 2014, 04:25:04 AM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,662


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2014, 09:50:49 AM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?
Pray for him and let his brother bishops work it out. Thats my opinion.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2014, 10:08:38 AM »

History can truly teach us many things.  Why not take a look at the events that transpired before, during and after Patriarch Nestorios was himself denounced a heretic.
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_en/E3e1006Dog,maAgape.pdf
(Do not let the title fool you, this is truly about what happened with Nestorios and how the other Patriarchs, Fathers and the Faithful dealt with him.

If you want the actual canon and the explanation of the canon as to how/when a Bishop/Patriarch/Priest may be deposed and/or considered heretic:
http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2010/12/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2%20Folder/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2.pdf

Also with an Afterword by St.Nikodemos the Hagiorite
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2014, 12:41:48 PM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?
Pray for him and let his brother bishops work it out. Thats my opinion.

PP

Agreed, to a point.

There is an order to such things. If a bishop is in error, he ought to be corrected by his fellow bishops. If that does not happen, that he ought to be corrected by others. When nothing is done and God does not see fit to send a St. Maximos the Confessor, then God himself corrects said bishop with a timely death before more damage can be done.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2014, 01:26:29 PM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?
Pray for him and let his brother bishops work it out. Thats my opinion.

PP

Agreed, to a point.

There is an order to such things. If a bishop is in error, he ought to be corrected by his fellow bishops. If that does not happen, that he ought to be corrected by others. When nothing is done and God does not see fit to send a St. Maximos the Confessor, then God himself corrects said bishop with a timely death before more damage can be done.

You lost me at "timely death". Did you know that some bishops not only remain in heresy, but are even succeeded by other heretical bishops without any apparent end to the succession of heresy? E.g. Pope of Rome.

For whatever reason, God has allowed heresy to persist long after the original heretics in many cases.
Logged
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2014, 09:25:59 PM »

Ha, well that's false. Chambessy agreement anyone? Hurray for Eucharistic communion with non-Chalcedonians!  Roll Eyes
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,689


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2014, 09:31:37 PM »

Ha, well that's false. Chambessy agreement anyone? Hurray for Eucharistic communion with non-Chalcedonians!  Roll Eyes

When your Patriarch is busy proclaiming himself "First Without Equals", I would say you have better things to worry about than what Arabs in foxholes do on Sunday morning. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2014, 09:34:01 PM »

Oh don't worry, I have problems with the EP myself, you see, I belief he is a self-condemned, manifest and unrepentant...*gank*

Hence my issues.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,689


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2014, 09:38:53 PM »

Oh don't worry, I have problems with the EP myself, you see, I belief he is a self-condemned, manifest and unrepentant...*gank*

Hence my issues.

On what basis do you conclude this?  Where are you getting your information? 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,636



« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2014, 09:47:09 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 09:49:05 PM by augustin717 » Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,139


This is where I choose to tread


« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2014, 10:26:25 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.

QFT.

Seriously, this is why we have other bishops.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 7,202


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2014, 09:01:41 AM »

If you can, take him out to lunch or something.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2014, 09:49:23 AM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?
Pray for him and let his brother bishops work it out. Thats my opinion.

PP

Agreed, to a point.

There is an order to such things. If a bishop is in error, he ought to be corrected by his fellow bishops. If that does not happen, that he ought to be corrected by others. When nothing is done and God does not see fit to send a St. Maximos the Confessor, then God himself corrects said bishop with a timely death before more damage can be done.

You lost me at "timely death". Did you know that some bishops not only remain in heresy, but are even succeeded by other heretical bishops without any apparent end to the succession of heresy? E.g. Pope of Rome.

For whatever reason, God has allowed heresy to persist long after the original heretics in many cases.

Sorry to have lost you, but really, in some cases, what can you do? Sometimes, it seems as if we are living in the days of Ezekiel 8-9.

Obviously, if it's blatant heresy, one doesn't have anything to do with such a bishop. But, as I said, there is still an order to things. Otherwise we would be Protestants, or just plain crazy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2014, 10:27:32 AM »

You, an Antiochean, start attending the next parish nearer to you, that is under the jurisdiction of a Patriarch who is still Orthodox, for example Greek, or Russian Orthodox or OCA.
Logged

kyril
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2014, 10:33:19 AM »

sorry, mis-read. you are Greek Orthodox. So move to some other jurisdiction.
Logged

kyril
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2014, 10:57:00 AM »

I see much speculation in this thread.  Instead, we should be looking at what the canons of the Church say.  More specifically, the initial poster asks the question:

Quote
If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him?

Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod

If, however, a Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch begins to preach publicly in Church any heretical doctrine that is antithetical to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned clergy have a right and at the same time an obligation to separate themselves forthwith from that Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, and for this reason not only will they not be subject to any canonical penalty, but will, moreover, even be praised, insofar as they have not thereby reprehended or rebelled against legitimate Bishops, but against false bishops and false teachers, and have not thereby initiated any schism in the Church, but on the contrary have delivered the Church, as far as possible, from schism and division.

Archimandrite John (a well-known Russian Canonist [later Bishop of Smolensk—Trans.]), having in view the historical circumstances of the Church of Russia, observes, in his interpretation of the present Canon, completely correctly and in accordance with a rigorous conception of Canonical science, that a Presbyter who secedes from his own Bishop by reason of heretical teaching [on the part of the latter] will not be culpable, but praiseworthy, yet when and only when the said Bishop begins preaching a doctrine that openly contradicts the teaching of the Orthodox Church and has been formally condemned by the Church (6) and if he proclaims this false doctrine openly, publicly, and in Church, with resolute intent to subvert Orthodox teaching and to uphold heresy; if otherwise (if, that is, a Bishop expresses some private opinion of his on matters of faith and morals which might appear to someone as incorrect, if the Bishop in question expresses his erroneous doctrine in a narrower circle of particular persons, so that it is attainable that the doctrine in question be corrected within this narrower circle, the peace of the Church not being breached), in such a case no Presbyter has the right to secede high-handedly from his own Bishop and create a schism; otherwise, he will be subject to the injunction prescribed regarding these matters by the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon.

(Related Canons: Thirty-first Apostolic Canon; Sixth Canon of the Second OEcumenical Synod; Third Canon of the Third OEcumenical Synod; Eighteenth Canon of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod; Thirty-first and Thirty-fourth Canons of the Synod in Trullo; Sixth Canon of the Synod of Gangra; Fourteenth Canon of the Synod of Sardica; Fifth Canon of the Synod of Antioch; Tenth, Eleventh, and Sixty-second Canons of the Synod of Carthage; Thirteenth and Fourteenth Canons of the First-Second Synod).

• “Note that the present Apostolic Canon decrees that clergy may without peril secede from their Bishops if they reprehend them for wrong belief” (Theodore Balsamon, Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 97C [commentary on the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon]).
• The faithful of Constantinople, both clergy and people, walled themselves off from Patriarch Nestorios prior to any Synodal judgment, because this man was preaching a newfangled and reprehensible heresy; that is, “they reprehended a false bishop and false teacher.”


Source: http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2010/12/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2%20Folder/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2.pdf

- Added by PtA after receipt from poster
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 03:06:16 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2014, 11:05:25 AM »

I see much speculation in this thread.  Instead, we should be looking at what the canons of the Church say.  More specifically, the initial poster asks the question:

Quote
If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him?

Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod

If, however, a Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch begins to preach publicly in Church any heretical doctrine that is antithetical to Orthodoxy, then the aforementioned clergy have a right and at the same time an obligation to separate themselves forthwith from that Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, and for this reason not only will they not be subject to any canonical penalty, but will, moreover, even be praised, insofar as they have not thereby reprehended or rebelled against legitimate Bishops, but against false bishops and false teachers, and have not thereby initiated any schism in the Church, but on the contrary have delivered the Church, as far as possible, from schism and division.

Archimandrite John (a well-known Russian Canonist [later Bishop of Smolensk—Trans.]), having in view the historical circumstances of the Church of Russia, observes, in his interpretation of the present Canon, completely correctly and in accordance with a rigorous conception of Canonical science, that a Presbyter who secedes from his own Bishop by reason of heretical teaching [on the part of the latter] will not be culpable, but praiseworthy, yet when and only when the said Bishop begins preaching a doctrine that openly contradicts the teaching of the Orthodox Church and has been formally condemned by the Church (6) and if he proclaims this false doctrine openly, publicly, and in Church, with resolute intent to subvert Orthodox teaching and to uphold heresy; if otherwise (if, that is, a Bishop expresses some private opinion of his on matters of faith and morals which might appear to someone as incorrect, if the Bishop in question expresses his erroneous doctrine in a narrower circle of particular persons, so that it is attainable that the doctrine in question be corrected within this narrower circle, the peace of the Church not being breached), in such a case no Presbyter has the right to secede high-handedly from his own Bishop and create a schism; otherwise, he will be subject to the injunction prescribed regarding these matters by the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon.

(Related Canons: Thirty-first Apostolic Canon; Sixth Canon of the Second OEcumenical Synod; Third Canon of the Third OEcumenical Synod; Eighteenth Canon of the Fourth OEcumenical Synod; Thirty-first and Thirty-fourth Canons of the Synod in Trullo; Sixth Canon of the Synod of Gangra; Fourteenth Canon of the Synod of Sardica; Fifth Canon of the Synod of Antioch; Tenth, Eleventh, and Sixty-second Canons of the Synod of Carthage; Thirteenth and Fourteenth Canons of the First-Second Synod).

• “Note that the present Apostolic Canon decrees that clergy may without peril secede from their Bishops if they reprehend them for wrong belief” (Theodore Balsamon, Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 97C [commentary on the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon]).
• The faithful of Constantinople, both clergy and people, walled themselves off from Patriarch Nestorios prior to any Synodal judgment, because this man was preaching a newfangled and reprehensible heresy; that is, “they reprehended a false bishop and false teacher.”

Thanks. Who is this Archimandrite, later Bishop John? As the last footnote reveals, it can be problematic to restrict the canon only to instances where a bishop is promoting a heresy that has already been condemned by a synod. Sometimes a heresy is apparent because it clearly contradicts the teaching of the Fathers, but has not yet been formally condemned in council.
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,399



« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2014, 11:54:24 AM »

The situation nowadays is not the same as it was in the times of say the Fathers when harsh direct confrontations were common. In my experience, it's generally not easy to do something about a heretical hierarch because of the layer of "security" that he has around him in order to protect his power. At the same time, in our times information and communication can happen through a few types and clicks and anybody can easily expose the situation.

I have something somewhat related on my blog in terms of whether it's ok to criticize clerics: http://theosis888.blogspot.ro/2014/01/criticizing-clerics.html
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 11:56:01 AM by IoanC » Logged

Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2014, 12:01:41 PM »

I don't have that information right now, though, this will be helpful as it reinforces what was previously said in the canon and interpreted:

Interpretation by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite

That which the foregoing Canons decreed concerning Bishops and Metropolitans, the same is decreed by the present Canon, and all the more so, concerning Patriarchs. This Canon says that if any Presbyter, Bishop, or Metropolitan should withdraw from communion with his Patriarch and fail to mention his name according to custom (the latter applies only to a Metropolitan; for a Presbyter mentions the name of his Bishop, and a Bishop the name of his Metropolitan) before disclosing the charges against their Patriarch to the Synod, and before the Patriarch has been condemned by the Synod: all of these, I say, are to be completely deposed: Bishops and Metropolitans from all Hierarchical officiation, and Presbyters from all sacerdotal officiation. However, these provisions are to take effect if Presbyters secede from their Bishops, Bishops from their Metropolitans, or Metropolitans from their Patriarchs on account of certain criminal charges, such as fornication, sacrilege, and other grave delinquencies.7* But if the said First Hierarchs are heretics and preach their heresy openly,8* and those subject to them separate themselves from them for this reason, even before a Synodal judgment has been pronounced concerning this heresy, those who separate themselves are not only not condemned for their act of separation, but are actually worthy of due honor, as Orthodox Christians, since they have not caused any schism in the Church by their separation, but have, rather, delivered the Church from the schism and heresy of their false bishops. See also the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon.


Notes:
7 However, the Thirty-first Apostolic Canon judges the one who separates inculpable, if he knows that his superior is unrighteous.
8 According to Balsamon, from this wording in the Canon it appears that one should not separate himself from his Bishop if the latter entertains some heresy, but keeps it secret and does not preach it; for it is possible that he will subsequently correct himself of his own accord (Patrologia Græca, Vol. CXXXVII, col. 1069A [commentary on the Fifteenth Canon of the First-Second Synod]).


Source: http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2010/12/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2%20Folder/E3a3b004Ermhneia15-1&2.pdf

- Added by PtA after receipt from poster
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 03:06:30 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2014, 12:18:17 PM »

Quote
In my experience, it's generally not easy to do something about a heretical hierarch because of the layer of "security" that he has around him in order to protect his power.
You're right, this has happened in my experience as well and we can see it in the modern state of the Church.  Though it is not easy, as you say, something can be done about a heretical hierarch and that is: separate from him (as the Canons above state that one can do).  This is, for example, what some of the Old Calendarist Orthodox Groups have done when they have seen some of the "canonical" Orthodox Hierarchs pray with catholics, protestants and involved with hindus, buddhists, etc. in ecumenical conferences.  Though I don't agree with all of the Old Calendarist groups, some of them, especially the moderate (which are very few, though I only know of one) -have even had public support of some "canonical" clergy- these have been a great model for Orthodoxy. 

In your blog, you say:
Quote
Criticizing is allowed, but not judgment. To criticize something, a work, is to crown it. But if a cleric is judged, as all people tend to do because they are the ones who emanate the force and grace of God -- and the whole world has their eyes on them -- yet they are also human and have the possibility to be saved easier than you because they have their graces and the working of The Church in their hands, and...if only they have a little bit of conscience; but...God forbid!
The situation here is not judging.  No Hierarch is being "judged."  Instead, people are following the canons of The Church.  If the canons do allow for separation from that heretical bishop -this is not judging him.  This is actually being "canonical."  The Fathers wrote the canons for a reason; they're not ornaments, just to stay in the books looking pretty; they're there for a purpose; serving a purpose: to exercise them!
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,399



« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2014, 12:23:00 PM »

Quote
In my experience, it's generally not easy to do something about a heretical hierarch because of the layer of "security" that he has around him in order to protect his power.
You're right, this has happened in my experience as well and we can see it in the modern state of the Church.  Though it is not easy, as you say, something can be done about a heretical hierarch and that is: separate from him (as the Canons above state that one can do).  This is, for example, what some of the Old Calendarist Orthodox Groups have done when they have seen some of the "canonical" Orthodox Hierarchs pray with catholics, protestants and involved with hindus, buddhists, etc. in ecumenical conferences.  Though I don't agree with all of the Old Calendarist groups, some of them, especially the moderate (which are very few, though I only know of one) -have even had public support of some "canonical" clergy- these have been a great model for Orthodoxy.  

In your blog, you say:
Quote
Criticizing is allowed, but not judgment. To criticize something, a work, is to crown it. But if a cleric is judged, as all people tend to do because they are the ones who emanate the force and grace of God -- and the whole world has their eyes on them -- yet they are also human and have the possibility to be saved easier than you because they have their graces and the working of The Church in their hands, and...if only they have a little bit of conscience; but...God forbid!
The situation here is not judging.  No Hierarch is being "judged."  Instead, people are following the canons of The Church.  If the canons do allow for separation from that heretical bishop -this is not judging him.  This is actually being "canonical."  The Fathers wrote the canons for a reason; they're not ornaments, just to stay in the books looking pretty; they're there for a purpose; serving a purpose: to exercise them!

Well, separation is really the last resort after you've tried everything for a long time. Otherwise, you are just being fanatical and will even destroy the concept of eccesiology itself. Personally, I've seen really bad heirarchs, but none to make me really wish to separate. Not saying it's impossible, though.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 12:23:52 PM by IoanC » Logged

Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2014, 12:38:09 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,399



« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2014, 12:44:57 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

Sorry, personally, I was speaking about the case of a heirarch including a bishop, not particularly a patriarch. Yes, it's that much more complicated and delicate as far as dealing with a patriarch.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 12:45:10 PM by IoanC » Logged

jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,975


« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2014, 12:49:58 PM »

If it ever becomes apparent that a Patriarch is an open and manifest heretic, like a gnostic or espouses Nestorian heresies, is it my responsibility as a layman under his eparchial synod to sever communion with him? And would that be manifested in me severing communion with the entirety of the eparchial synod? How far down the line does the contagion of heresy travel? I know those who hold communion with an open heretic are condemned for holding that same heresy, but does that apply to those who hold communion with THEM?

First, one must be sure that the Patriarch is in fact an “open and manifest heretic.”  The 15th Canon of the First-Second Council pertains to how clergy and bishops must respond if their Patriarch begins to preach openly in the Church a heresy that has been condemned by a past council or Father.  One must first be sure that such a heresy is being openly preached in the Church.  Our information age is also marked by the rapid spreading of disinformation, and so people are often quick to believe things that are quoted in an article or on a website without verifying the context of the remarks, the meaning of the remarks, the accuracy of the translation, etc.  If a bishop or priest is concerned that their Patriarch is openly preaching a condemned heresy, they must first verify that this is true, and if the Patriarch is openly and unrepentantly preaching heresy, they are to cease commemorating him until such a time that the Patriarch is called to trial.  The non-commemorating priest or bishop remains in communion with the rest of the Church while refusing to commemorate the Patriarch, and this act of “protest” is done to raise an alarm bell within the Church which will hopefully lead to the Patriarch being called to trial.  At such a trial, the Patriarch would be given the opportunity to explain himself and either be acquitted if innocent, called to repent if he is guilty, and deposed if unrepentant. 

A Patriarch who belongs to the Church remains a hierarch of the Church, and serves true and grace-filled mysteries, until such a time that he is either deposed by a synod of bishops or voluntarily departs into schism.  Titus 3:10 says that a heretic is “self-condemned”, and this is true in the case of a heretical Patriarch.  Such a heretical Patriarch is liable to condemnation at the Judgment for unrepentantly teaching heresy whether he is deposed by a council or not.  Until he is deposed and condemned by a council, or until he departs into schism, such a heretical patriarch continues to serve true and grace-filled mysteries even though he is “self-condemned” on account of their preaching of heresy, just as there are many clergy and bishops who are “self-condemned” on account of their sinful lifestyles and yet continue to serve grace-filled mysteries on account of the authority given to them by the Church to serve as priests and bishops.

It is important to note that the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council strictly condemns those priests and bishops who cease commemorating their patriarch when that patriarch is not openly preaching a heresy condemned by a past council or father.  It is also important to point out that the cessation of commemoration is the farthest extent of response allowed by this canon.  It is not allowed for a bishop to both cease commemorating his Patriarch and to cease communion with the rest of the Church which has not adopted this heresy.  If such a bishop not only ceased commemorating his heretical Patriarch but attempted to create an alternative synod of bishops that was not in communion with the rest of the Church, this action would not be in accordance with the canon and would be the creation of a schism from the Church.  Such would lose the grace of the Holy Spirit according to St. Basil’s first canon regarding those who depart in unlawful schisms.

While the 15th canon addresses only the response of priests and bishops to a heretical Patriarch, we are counseled by the Fathers as laity to flee from heretical bishops and are given an example in the person of St. Maximus the Confessor on how to respond when one’s bishop or Patriarch is openly preaching heresy.  In the case of St. Maximus, the confession of faith containing Monothelite teaching, which was basically an extension of the heresy condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, was being openly promulgated and the local churches were being pressured to accept this heretical confession.  There was no question, then, about whether the Patriarch was in fact teaching heresy, and whether the local churches were accepting this heretical teaching.  St. Maximus, as a lay monastic, fled from where this heresy was taking hold and sought out those bishops who remained opposed to this heresy.  In America and in many other places where we have overlapping jurisdictions, it is quite easy to flee from a heretical Patriarch by simply going to another parish in a jurisdiction where the patriarch is not openly preaching heresy.  Even if the openly preaching of heresy becomes widespread and multiple patriarchs being openly teaching heresy, God will always raise up bishops of the Church who will refuse to accept heresy, and our job as Orthodox Christians will be to remain in communion with them.

Unfortunately, in our day, there are all kinds of unlawful schisms that were created for different reasons having nothing to do with the open preaching of heresy condemned by past councils or fathers.  Such groups are always accusing Orthodox bishops of heresy in order to justify the unlawful schisms that were made many decades ago for totally different reasons.  Such groups left the Church voluntarily and unlawfully.  They have no communion with the rest of the Church and are not recognized by the rest of the Church.  According to St. Basil’s first canon, they have forfeited the grace of the Holy Spirit and have no authority to impart the Holy Spirit in baptism nor to ordain priests nor consecrate bishops.  From these we must flee just as fervently as from heretical bishops, as St. Ignatius of Antioch warns that no one who follows a man into an unlawful schism can inherit the kingdom of heaven.
Logged
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,975


« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2014, 12:56:15 PM »

Quote
In my experience, it's generally not easy to do something about a heretical hierarch because of the layer of "security" that he has around him in order to protect his power.
You're right, this has happened in my experience as well and we can see it in the modern state of the Church.  Though it is not easy, as you say, something can be done about a heretical hierarch and that is: separate from him (as the Canons above state that one can do).  This is, for example, what some of the Old Calendarist Orthodox Groups have done when they have seen some of the "canonical" Orthodox Hierarchs pray with catholics, protestants and involved with hindus, buddhists, etc. in ecumenical conferences.  Though I don't agree with all of the Old Calendarist groups, some of them, especially the moderate (which are very few, though I only know of one) -have even had public support of some "canonical" clergy- these have been a great model for Orthodoxy. 

This is false.  None of the Old Calendarist groups were created in response to ecumenism.  All of the Old Calendarist groups were established in 1935 and are not based on the open preaching of a condemned heresy but on the adoption of the New Calendar which was not condemned by a past council or Father.  These groups attempt to point to ecumenist abuses of the 1960s and later to justify their departure from the Church several decades prior, but this is foolishness and a grasping at straws.  There is a reason why no Orthodox Church recognizes any of the Old Calendarist groups as having real priests or bishops.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2014, 01:21:05 PM »

Quote
In my experience, it's generally not easy to do something about a heretical hierarch because of the layer of "security" that he has around him in order to protect his power.
You're right, this has happened in my experience as well and we can see it in the modern state of the Church.  Though it is not easy, as you say, something can be done about a heretical hierarch and that is: separate from him (as the Canons above state that one can do).  This is, for example, what some of the Old Calendarist Orthodox Groups have done when they have seen some of the "canonical" Orthodox Hierarchs pray with catholics, protestants and involved with hindus, buddhists, etc. in ecumenical conferences.  Though I don't agree with all of the Old Calendarist groups, some of them, especially the moderate (which are very few, though I only know of one) -have even had public support of some "canonical" clergy- these have been a great model for Orthodoxy.  

This is false.  None of the Old Calendarist groups were created in response to ecumenism.  All of the Old Calendarist groups were established in 1935 and are not based on the open preaching of a condemned heresy but on the adoption of the New Calendar which was not condemned by a past council or Father.  These groups attempt to point to ecumenist abuses of the 1960s and later to justify their departure from the Church several decades prior, but this is foolishness and a grasping at straws.  There is a reason why no Orthodox Church recognizes any of the Old Calendarist groups as having real priests or bishops.


This is misleading. I'm not going to rehash arguments in favor of the Old Calendarist position here, but here is a good essay for anyone interested:

http://hotca.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-awareness/236-why-the-true-orthodox-are-truly-orthodox

I'll make the general remark that hindsight is always 20/20. We know now that the Christological formula "two natures, one will" is heretical, because it was explicitly condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. However, this formal and explicit condemnation did not exist in St Maximos' time: he had to determine its heretical nature based on his comprehensive knowledge of Tradition. It's easy now to look back and say that "obviously" Monotheletism is heretical and so St Maximos had no choice but to sever communion with the Monothelete bishops, but I don't think we would have thought it obvious at the time, not without St Maximos' theological acuity. If it was so obviously false, it wouldn't have persuaded so many lesser hierarchs and faithful. In the same way, the uncertainty surrounding the heresy of ecumenism is not unexpected; at the same time, uncertainty is not an excuse to do nothing, just as it wasn't during the time of St Maximos.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 01:23:40 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2014, 01:50:41 PM »

Quote
Well, separation is really the last resort after you've tried everything for a long time. Otherwise, you are just being fanatical and will even destroy the concept of eccesiology itself. Personally, I've seen really bad heirarchs, but none to make me really wish to separate. Not saying it's impossible, though.
I agree that separation should be the last resort, this of course, after you try to exhort the hierarch to examine his heretical position and to recant.  I would be very careful with coining as "Fanatical" those faithful that would want to separate from a heretical hierarch simply because following the canons of The Orthodox Church is not being fanatical.  If a heresy is clearly apparent, ecclesiology is actually being destroyed by the heretic himself (or as in this case, the hierarch) and not by the faithful!!!.  
Logged
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,399



« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2014, 01:55:09 PM »

Quote
Well, separation is really the last resort after you've tried everything for a long time. Otherwise, you are just being fanatical and will even destroy the concept of eccesiology itself. Personally, I've seen really bad heirarchs, but none to make me really wish to separate. Not saying it's impossible, though.
I agree that separation should be the last resort, this of course, after you try to exhort the hierarch to examine his heretical position and to recant.  I would be very careful with coining as "Fanatical" those faithful that would want to separate from a heretical hierarch simply because following the canons of The Orthodox Church is not being fanatical.  If a heresy is clearly apparent, ecclesiology is actually being destroyed by the heretic himself (or as in this case, the hierarch) and not by the faithful!!!.  

I don't think it's as simple as "following the canons of the church". You also have to know when and how to follow them and very few could be said to have such discernment, if we are to be humble.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 01:55:22 PM by IoanC » Logged

Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2014, 01:59:37 PM »

Quote
Quote from: Jonathan Gress-- Who is this Archimandrite, later Bishop John?

A celebrated preacher and commentator on Canon law, Bishop Ioann remains a leading authority on the interpretation of the Holy Canons. He was born in Moscow on June 5, 1818, to the family of a Priest. After graduating from Moscow Theological Academy in 1842, he held the Chair in Canon Law at Saint Petersburg Theological Academy from 1844 to 1854, during which time, while still an Archimandrite, he wrote his most important work, the two-volume Опыт курса церковного законоведенія [Opyt  ursa tser ovno­o za onoveeniya, “The Experientia„ Course of Ecc„esiastica„ Jurispruence”] (Saint Petersburg, 1851–1852), the first attempt by a Russian clergyman to treat with the Holy Canons systematically, which earned him a doctorate of theology in 1853; in this work, he emphasizes the necessity of placing any given Canon within the context of Patristic tradition by considering the historical circumstances that lead to its issuance and by comparing it to other similar Canons and even to parallel secular legislation. Appointed Rector of Saint Petersburg Theological Academy in 1855 and Rector of Kazan Theological Academy in 1857, he held these posts until 1864. In 1865, he was Consecrated Bishop of Vyborg, a Vicariate of Saint Petersburg, and in 1866, he was appointed Bishop of Smolensk; his Episcopate was brief, however, as he reposed on March 17, 1869.—Ed.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2014, 02:09:22 PM »

Quote
Quote from: Jonathan Gress-- Who is this Archimandrite, later Bishop John?

A celebrated preacher and commentator on Canon law, Bishop Ioann remains a leading authority on the interpretation of the Holy Canons. He was born in Moscow on June 5, 1818, to the family of a Priest. After graduating from Moscow Theological Academy in 1842, he held the Chair in Canon Law at Saint Petersburg Theological Academy from 1844 to 1854, during which time, while still an Archimandrite, he wrote his most important work, the two-volume Опыт курса церковного законоведенія [Opyt  ursa tser ovno­o za onoveeniya, “The Experientia„ Course of Ecc„esiastica„ Jurispruence”] (Saint Petersburg, 1851–1852), the first attempt by a Russian clergyman to treat with the Holy Canons systematically, which earned him a doctorate of theology in 1853; in this work, he emphasizes the necessity of placing any given Canon within the context of Patristic tradition by considering the historical circumstances that lead to its issuance and by comparing it to other similar Canons and even to parallel secular legislation. Appointed Rector of Saint Petersburg Theological Academy in 1855 and Rector of Kazan Theological Academy in 1857, he held these posts until 1864. In 1865, he was Consecrated Bishop of Vyborg, a Vicariate of Saint Petersburg, and in 1866, he was appointed Bishop of Smolensk; his Episcopate was brief, however, as he reposed on March 17, 1869.—Ed.

Could you provide a source for this quote please?
Logged
Nektarios_In_E.S.
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Buenos Aires, Central and South America
Posts: 117


« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2014, 02:16:47 PM »

Page 14 of the pdf file:

http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2009/02/26/20090226aStSeraphimEcumenism%20Folder/20090226aStSeraphimEcumenism.pdf
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2014, 03:56:48 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

This deserves reposting, because it's correct.  He is not the Orthodox Pope.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2014, 04:13:56 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

This deserves reposting, because it's correct.  He is not the Orthodox Pope.

He's in the GOAA, which is under the EP.
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2014, 04:44:55 AM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

This deserves reposting, because it's correct.  He is not the Orthodox Pope.

He's in the GOAA, which is under the EP.

In a sense, but he is primarily under his bishop, not the EP.  If he believed his own bishop was falling into heresy, that would be a different matter.  I've read that the fullness of the Church should be able to be found in each bishopric, but I'm interested to reading other opinions.

I'm not dismissing concerns the poster may have, but as others stated, it is more appropriate for the bishops "under" the EP to deal with those concerns, rather than individual parishioners. 
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2014, 12:57:42 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

This deserves reposting, because it's correct.  He is not the Orthodox Pope.

He's in the GOAA, which is under the EP.

In a sense, but he is primarily under his bishop, not the EP.  If he believed his own bishop was falling into heresy, that would be a different matter.  I've read that the fullness of the Church should be able to be found in each bishopric, but I'm interested to reading other opinions.

I'm not dismissing concerns the poster may have, but as others stated, it is more appropriate for the bishops "under" the EP to deal with those concerns, rather than individual parishioners. 

That's basically true. I'd be interested if there were any bishops in the EP who were not ecumenists, however.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2014, 01:31:25 PM »

It seems many here are muddling this up badly. Unless the patriarch is MY bishop (as opposed to being the head of the synod in which my bishop sits), I have no reason to react to what I "think" is his heresy. It has already been stated - it is an issue for his brother bishops.

Unless the OP lives in Constantinople, directly under the EP, he is whistling Dixie.

This deserves reposting, because it's correct.  He is not the Orthodox Pope.

He's in the GOAA, which is under the EP.

In a sense, but he is primarily under his bishop, not the EP.  If he believed his own bishop was falling into heresy, that would be a different matter.  I've read that the fullness of the Church should be able to be found in each bishopric, but I'm interested to reading other opinions.

I'm not dismissing concerns the poster may have, but as others stated, it is more appropriate for the bishops "under" the EP to deal with those concerns, rather than individual parishioners. 

That's basically true. I'd be interested if there were any bishops in the EP who were not ecumenists, however.

Quite naturally you would. Perhaps we should revisit the threads on defining "ecumenism" and at when it attains heresy. Of course that is not the direct issue in this thread and every preceding times the definitions are attempted here, the topic dies.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2014, 04:46:59 PM »

Before we define 'ecumenism, should one not define just what it means to be a heretic in the Orthodox sense?
Logged
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,958



« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2014, 05:41:38 PM »

His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not a heretic and anyone who claims so is guilty before God of libel.

Also, he did not proclaim himself "first without equals", but Metropolitan Elpidophoros used that term in order to explain the concept of primacy in the Orthodox Church. As the local bishop of Constantinople, the EP is equal to all Orthodox bishops. As the Patriarch of Constantinople (primate of one patriarchate), he is equal to all primates of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

There is nothing heretical about this, and whoever claims otherwise either does not understand properly what Met. Elpidophoros is talking about, or is applying his anti-Roman feelings to the EP.
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 25, 2014, 05:45:17 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


POST OF THE MONTH NOMINEE, please! Grin
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #39 on: January 25, 2014, 05:55:49 PM »

The procedure of a layman breaking communion with a pattiarch is as follows:
1. Under suspicion of heresy you consult with same minded brethren on he Internet to establish your suspicions.
2. All pertaining  canons , preferably as updated by ROCOR before their apostasy to world orthodoxy
  are copy pasted on an internet board. This will stand in place of a synodical condemnation .
3 you cease crossing yourself or bowing when the said patriarch is commemorated in public services.  If you can muster enough courage you'll chant in audible voice "anathema" thrice now whenever mention is made if him.


POST OF THE MONTH NOMINEE, please! Grin

Nice to see you posting again.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2014, 06:26:18 PM »

Excuse me? guilty before God of "libel"?.
Logged

kyril
Jonathan Gress
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,911


« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2014, 06:41:02 PM »

His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not a heretic and anyone who claims so is guilty before God of libel.

Also, he did not proclaim himself "first without equals", but Metropolitan Elpidophoros used that term in order to explain the concept of primacy in the Orthodox Church. As the local bishop of Constantinople, the EP is equal to all Orthodox bishops. As the Patriarch of Constantinople (primate of one patriarchate), he is equal to all primates of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

There is nothing heretical about this, and whoever claims otherwise either does not understand properly what Met. Elpidophoros is talking about, or is applying his anti-Roman feelings to the EP.

I think when people say Pat Bartholomew is a heretic, they are thinking of cases like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18qUIwh0Ss
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2014, 06:56:34 PM »

His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is not a heretic and anyone who claims so is guilty before God of libel.

Also, he did not proclaim himself "first without equals", but Metropolitan Elpidophoros used that term in order to explain the concept of primacy in the Orthodox Church. As the local bishop of Constantinople, the EP is equal to all Orthodox bishops. As the Patriarch of Constantinople (primate of one patriarchate), he is equal to all primates of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. But as a primate of the worldwide Orthodox Church (that's the original sense of the , he is the only one, and no other Bishop is equal to him in that regard.

There is nothing heretical about this, and whoever claims otherwise either does not understand properly what Met. Elpidophoros is talking about, or is applying his anti-Roman feelings to the EP.

I think when people say Pat Bartholomew is a heretic, they are thinking of cases like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18qUIwh0Ss

I think most of us are well aware of the criticism against Pat. Bartholomew.  The question of when it is appropriate for parishioners to determine that, independent from their own bishops, he is a heretic and act in conjunction with those conclusions is what is relevant to the OP. 

There will clearly be very pronounced disagreements on this issue.  All part of the fun (confusion) of OC.net, where everyone with a claim and flavor of Orthodoxy is part of that big, happy family.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Gorazd
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Istanbul and Chambésy
Posts: 1,958



« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2014, 07:08:03 PM »

Voicing disagreement on specific issues is one thing. I understand if people feel uncomfortable with the Pope of Rome reading the Bible in an Orthodox liturgy.

If everyone calls another, and especially our primate, a heretic and considers himself to be competent to judge on that, the worst of protestantism has reached our Church.

As Saint Justin Popovic said: "After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith."
And quite some who call themselves Orthodox seem to have the same pretense.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,944


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2014, 11:38:14 PM »

^POM
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.161 seconds with 73 queries.