I Believe In ONE Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church...

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!
He is and ever shall be!
First and foremost, the Church does have its problems in certain jurisdictions, resister and SCOBA--they seem to be almost universal these days, for we are ALL sinners. Now, let's say ecumenical excesses exist, which they do. Let's also be quick to recognize that through the centuries there have been canonical abuses, making no apology for them. The question then becomes does one have the authority to unilaterally excommunicate the rest, even one diocese, one synodeia?! St. Maximos lacked this authority, nor did he pretend to it, but he set the stage for the SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In a similar circumstance, St. Basil the Great...so where might it be found? Perhaps in Tertullian's wayward days, but that delegitimizes the approach. Yes, resistance is valid IN CONJUNCTION WITH counciliarity. Moreover,it is Christian charity to love your brothers and sisters; dismissing them as heterodox because certain personages in their jurisdictions have made compromises is narrow and sectarian. Orthodoxy has no need of popes. As is being neglected, I have emphasized COUNCILIAR CONDEMNATIONS OF ecumenism, sergianism, renovationism, unionism with Rome, while a SCOBAn and a loyal son of the MP--surely my Orthodoxy is not deficienT?! Moreover, the question that is begged is succinctly:

What authority. what council of Oikumenical character, has made that determination to hallow one diocese while deposing and excommunicating all the rest?!

The boundaries of schism are in sight...Resistance only works when it is oriented toward the restoration of the Oikumene, not rejection of it.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[ioannis]

Have the "World Orthodox" Churches come out with any "official" correspondence in regards to the reception of baptisms from Catholic and Protestant Churches. Basically to the effect saying: "We acknowledge that their baptisms are as "valid" as our Orthodox Baptisms and as such confirm them as Eastern Orthodox Christians."

Yes they have. There are numerous documents that demonstrate this. But more importantly, the belief has penetrated almost all of thier churches.

This is not a "canonical violation" as Kollyvas would have it; not any more at least than the Filioque was a "canonical violation". And yes, we are "all sinners" as Kollyvas says, but we are not all heretics.

Kollyvas says: "St. Maximos lacked this authority, nor did he pretend to it, but he set the stage for the SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In a similar circumstance, St. Basil the Great...so where might it be found?"

Kollyvas, don't just say it, demonstrate this for us, because I have a completley opposite picture which I can demonstrate with regard to these great saints.

[Kollyvas]

Was monothelitism condemned and rejected by the Church by fiat of St. Maximos or by the Sixth Ecumenical Council? Likewise arianism? The filioque dispute came to a head after centuries of intercommunion between East and West...it was introduced in Toledo in 589 to batlle arianism, and only in 1054 were the latins finally excommunicated by the Church of Constantinople. Yes, St. Photios did cease Communion with Rome, but a later Council restored it. So, dispensing anathemas and combatting heresy does have an individual obligation but only by/from/through COUNCILIARITY--outside its province is no Canonical Orthodox structure. Until a Council condemns the local churches in question, they are Orthodox and their believers Orthodox Christians...Conversely, until the views of resisters are heard in Council, their voicing their opposition in separation does not necessarily mean schism: only when they arrogate the role of Counciliar authority.
R

[ioannis]

Kollyvas,

You make blanket one-liners that are not true, and so many of them that it is impossible to respond. For instance, you say, "The filioque dispute came to a head after centuries of intercommunion between East and West". This is not true. Neither is what you wrote about the saints you named and I will be happy to talk about any single one of them, just let me know which.

[Kollyvas]

I am more than happy to begin with whichever one you wish and continue down the list. I don't lie or mislead, for I don't believe it advances Orthodoxy. I'm quite open. But, for instance, with the question of the filioque, which originated in Spain in the 6th cent. and spread to Gaul, Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and finally Rome, the Holy Patriarchs of the East did maintain Communion with the Church of Rome and her Bishops. The Byzantine emperors did recognize the court of Charlemagne and his title of "Holy Roman Emperor" and even sent emmisaries. The Franks were invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council and other councils, so...St. Maximos never imposed anathemas or excommunicated anyone. St. Basil did not single-handedly root out arianism in the Church, so....
R

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

this is all very simple. why all the discussion about conciliarity and so on? Which Churches created the first disturbance in the unity of the Church in the 20th Century? (actually, this is just a manner of speaking, for there is not real "split' within the Church, there is only splitting FROM the Church!)

So, it is clear that the Freemasonry inspired change in the liturgical calendar caused the first "disruption". It has only gotten worse since then. At this point, do you really think the schismatic/heretical "world Orthdox" are going to summon a Pan-Orthodox council to condemn themselves, to condemn their new calendar, to condemn their joint prayers with pagans and heterocox, and so on? No, of course not. Never in any of the Ecumenical Councils were the Arians, or Nestorians, or Monophysites in the majority during those councils. At this point, to expect those who have harmed and "soiled' the Church to call for a council to condemn themselves in "counciliarity" is realistically not going to happen, as it has never happened before.

Only those who are Orthdox can do this. In 1935 a synod of living bishops applied the 1593 Anathemas (and several other local church condemnations of the new calendar) to the State Church of Greece.

[Here is the 1593 Sigillion, section 7, anathema:
"Whosoever does not follow the customs of the Church which the 7 Ecumenical councils have decreed, AND the Holy Pascha AND CALENDAR which they enacted well for us to follow, but wants to follow the newly-invented Paschalion and the new calendar of the atheist astronomers of the Pope; and opposing them, and wishes to overthrow and destroy the doctrines and customs of the Church which we have inherited from our Fathers, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA AND LET HIM BE OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND THE ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITHFUL.

If we consider the 1st EC that fixed the dating of Holy Pascha, we have to ask why was this necessary? Why couldn't different local churches celebrate Pascha on different days according to the traditions they received? The Celtics could celebrate it on the Jewish Passover, the Greeks on the next Sunday, and so on? The obvious reason is about the liturgical UNITY of the Church.

The Gregorian calendar destroys the unity of the Church. The so-called "revised" Julian/New Calendar, destroys the liturgical unity of the Church. The Sigillion makes it clear that any deviation from the "customs" of the Chuch and the "Holy Pascha and calendar" that the Holy Fathers enacted for us to follow, is anathema.

For those, who still defend the Revised Julian by splitting hairs on this issue, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Abp of Cyprus all condemned the Revised Julian in 1924, after the adoption of this schismatic calendar!

So, for those who want unity in the Church, first of all the True Orthodox church is not broken assunder...it is One. but for you who are of the "majority" Orthodox...all your bishops have to do is return to the Orthodox Calender which the Fathers enacted for us to follow, for your bishops to stop praying with heterodox and pagans at WCC, World day of Prayer events, and so on, for you bishops to renounce the unilateral lifitng of the Anathemas by Pat. Athenagoras against the Roman Cath. church, and for them to renounce the Balamand Accord "twin Lungs' of the church ecclesiology with the RCC, and for the Antiochians to renounce their communion with the Monophysites.

So, why is it that the focus is all on how the Old Calendarists are so mean spirited and in disarray? These things are only partially true. We are not mean spirited, and yes there may be disunity and divisions, but this is paltry compared to the spiritual violations I mention above by the "majority' Orthodox.

in Christ,
Nectarios Manzanero

[Kollyvas]

Well, what Father or Council has upheld your condemnations of everyone else? And the fatal flaw that you are neglecting is that at one time, arianism, monophysitism, monothelitism, ikonoclasm possessed sizeable majorities in the Church BEFORE COUNCILIAR CONDEMNATION. I have faith in the Holy Spirit...it's how the hand of God works.
R