You are not a substitute for such a synod either, but that's what you are trying to be here. The councils do not state your position; you interpret them as endorsing it. It is precisely this intepretation that is the probloem, because in your theology, you aren't a definitive source of such a statement.
No synod has definitively spoken on the Subject, we have no episcopal decrees on it. I have none that directly support my posistion (though as has been pointed out, some that indirectly support it) and you have none that directly support yours. You seem to be trying to compensate for you inability to argue your posistion by trying to place the burden of proof on me. First of all, you are the one arguing for people's condemnation, not I...it is you who should demonstrate that they are diserving of Condemnation for their actions...it is reasonable to assume one is Innocent until Guilt can be proven and established. You would have us assume guilt of wrong doing until innocence can be proven. Secondly, as no Synod has formally addressed the matter, neither opinion is 'fully endorsed' by the Church, thus it is subject to debate...which is exactly what I thought I was doing, but you seem to wish to simply harp on the fact that there are no Synodal Decrees on the issue, and thus somehow that automatically makes you right.
Your bishops (and especially your bishops in synod) are. An OCA priest speaking as a representative for his bishops is better than you,
Since I dont have to go into what I think of the OCA's current situation right now, I wont...but don't cite some priest of theirs who has an internet advice column as authoritive. The GOA through Holy Cross has a similar programme, if I had so desired, last year I could have signed up for a class that would have allowed me to answer such questions proposed online...if that had happened, perhaps you would be citing my statements in your arguments...LOL.
and your implication that the bishops themselves would, in synod, express a different position is outlandish to the point of near disingenuity.
This is not at all outlandish, as an example, in the recent Excommunication of Archbishop Christodolous (which, thanks be to God, has been resolved) I know of three Bishops of the Oecumenical Throne, for certain and off the Top of my Head though I'm sure there were many more, who privately supported Archbishop Christodolous, and some of whom had made public statements implying such support if not openly declaring it. But when the Synod met, and the Archbishops and Metropolitans of the Oecumenical Throne Summoned and Assembled, in spite of some disagreement in the debates, not one Failed to Sign the Document of Excommunication, and the Synod Spoke with One, Unified, Unanimous Voice...there was not a single dissenter. Those three bishops I mentioned, they Signed in spite of the Private Opinions they had previously made.
You have yet to come up with a single modern bishop to endorse-- not be misinterpreted as endorsing-- your position. It's reasonable to believe that every single Orthodox bishop out there-- yea, and with them every Anglican bishop, every Catholic bishop, every presbytery and every Methodist conference-- endorses my position and rejects yours. You are simply refusing instruction from your own church.
I couldn't care less about the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist Hierarchy...but as far as the Orthodox Hierarchy, you have yet to find a Bishop to direclty Endorse your Posistion, in fact the one Quote you gave from a Bishop, the Oecumenical Patriarchate, on closer inspection seemed to support my posistion. So since the vast majority of Modern Bishops are Silent on the Issue (and I do not believe they would agree with you, most are not that rash when it comes to condemning people, espeically our Fathers and Past Orthodox for their Social Practices...Remember, the Church even supported the Tzar in Russia when Serfdom (which is essentially slavery) was the law of the land) perhaps you would care to actually DEBATE the issue rather than begging it.
You can say that until the cows come home. Trullo was not so accepted in the West, and the West has always considered it a local, Eastern council and has always rejected some of its canons. It's not ecumenical, even if the present Orthodox churches accept it as binding.
Since the debate here is about what the Orthodox Posistion is, not the posistions of the Heresiarchs in the West, their Opinion about our Oecumenical Synods really isn't relevant. But with that Said, in defence of the Synod in Trullo Session 4 of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod states:
There are certain affected with the sickness of ignorance who are scandalized by these canons [viz. of the Trullan Synod] and say, And do you really think they were adopted at the Sixth Synod? Now let all such know that the holy great Sixth Synod was assembled at Constantinople concerning those who said that there was but one energy and will in Christ. These anathematized the heretics, and having expounded the orthodox faith, they went to their homes in the fourteenth year of Constantine. But after four or five years the same fathers came together under Justinian, the son of Constantine, and set forth the before-mentioned canons. And let no one doubt concerning them. For they who subscribed under Constantine were the same as they who under Justinian signed the present chart, as can manifestly be established from the unchangeable similarity of their own handwriting. For it was right that they who had appeared at an ecumenical synod should also set forth ecclesiastical canons. They said that we should be led as (by the hand) by the venerable images to the recollection of the incarnation of Christ and of his saving death, and if by them we are led to the realization of the incarnation of Christ our God, what sort of an opinion shall we have of them who break down the venerable images?
And then in the first canon of the said Synod:
Seeing these things are so, being thus well-testified unto us, we rejoice over them as he that hath found great spoil, and press to our bosom with gladness the divine canons, holding fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by the holy trumpets of the Spirit, the renowned Apostles, or by the Six Ecumenical Councils, or by Councils locally assembled for promulgating the decrees of the said Ecumenical Councils, or by our holy Fathers.
In light of the Statement in Session 4, there is no way this could not be construed as a promulgation of the Canons of the Synod in Trullo. Thus we see, that Nicea II both Decrees the Synod in Trullo to be an Extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, and then Promulgates the Canons in her Own Canons...Thus giving the Canons of Trullo the Same authority as the Canons of Nicea II...the Authority of Canons of an Oecumenical Synod.
Furthermore, though the Pope of Rome at the time of the Synod of Trullo did not sign the Canonical Decrees of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod, they were eventually accepted by Pope Hadrian I, demonstrating an eventual acceptance of the Canons in the West, for in writing to Oecumenical Patriarch Tenasius he says, 'All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images [Canon 82 of Trullo].'quod erat demonstrandum
That's all rather beside the point, as again you are having to interpret the council to get it to agree to your claim.
And just as much interpreting is going on here about the words of current Bishops, as demonstrated by our debates about the Meaning of the Oecumenical Patriarch's speech that you brought up. But this is a significant part of DEBATE, I presented Canons and Patristic Quotes that Supported my Posistion. If you want to dismiss them, you should start my arguing how Canons protecting the Rights of Slave Owners or Anathematizing radical Abolitionists are consonant with your posistion, namely that Slavery is Sinful. Then I address your arguments, and so on and so forth, thus we make progress through Discussion...there's a little more to debate than defining Authority and Appealing to it...And when your definition of Authority excludes the Oecumenical Synods and Father of the Church, there's a whole new problem introduced. We dont have a theological or moral oracle that we ask questions and magically answers appear...Rome has tried to create that, but the Orthodox do not even want it; synods must take time and decide and even then, that often is not the end of it, other Synods will have to accept it as well as the Church as a whole, it's a slow and difficult process that includes much DEBATE...not nearly as clear cut as you'd like to make it out to be.
Surely you can find one who teaches as you would teach.
Should be trivial considering the volumes that have been wirtten on the Subject by current Bishops. They probably consider it a non-issue, which it is until someone either tries to reinstitute it or tries to go back and Condemn Saints and Fathers of the Church thousands of years after their deaths; neither of which are significant concerns, except for on this thread. But as I've said before, you haven't presented any resounding defences of your posistions either. I'm still waiting for that Synod condemning the Fathers of the Church and the Oecumenical Synods to defend your seemingly infallible posistion.