OCA Receives uniate Monastery

[Natasha]

I don't want to play your game Nevski. I don't make strong statements against people, I merely told you some facts.

I am not going to continue this conversation because it is only going in circles.

I hope you are adequately illuminated.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

It is not crystal clear??? :shock:

http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 0269#10269

This is exactly why I originally asked you Nevski, before I gave any reply, what would be reasonable to you for evidence. A black and white document from the Antiochian Synod itself, stating everything I have said, that the OCA is in communion with the Monophysites as declared so by Antioch's own bishops in an official letter.

Well you will have to forgive us poor "schismatics" for taking these things to mean what they say.

---

Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What pious man will keep silence, or who will remain altogether at peace? For silence means consent. Oftentimes war is known to be praiseworthy, and a battle proves to be better than a peace that harms the soul. For it is better to separate ourselves from them who do not believe aright than to follow them in evil concord, and by our union with them separate ourselves from God.
Saint Meletius the Confessor

[gbmtmas]

Nevski, let me clarify. OOD is saying that the OCA is in communion with the Antiochians. The Antiochians are in communion with the Monophysites. Thus the OCA is in communion with the Monophysites, as to be in communion with someone, to commune them, to concelebrate with them (As Antioch & the OCA do and Antoch & the Monphysites do) is to share one Faith, one ecclesiology.

Let's see hear...ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. Jerusalem and Serbia are in communion with Antioch. What does this mean for ROCOR?

gbmtmas

[尼古拉前执事]

Let's see hear...ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. Jerusalem and Serbia are in communion with Antioch. What does this mean for ROCOR?

gbmtmas

According to my bishop and the Serbian Patriarch and a Serbian Metropolitan we are not! :shock:

[Nevski]

Let's see hear...ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. Jerusalem and Serbia are in communion with Antioch. What does this mean for ROCOR?

gbmtmas

According to my bishop and the Serbian Patriarch and a Serbian Metropolitan we are not! :shock:

Very good. What about according to logic, then? It has been alleged in this thread and in the "The OCA" thread that the OCA is "in communion with" the Oriental Orthodox by virtue of its being in communion with the Patriarchate of Antioch. In your mind, does that logic hold or not? If the answer is yes, then the two bishops you reference above must be wrong. If the answer is no, then posters here such as OOD and Natasha must be wrong. Which is it?

[尼古拉前执事]

I do not understand what you are getting at, according to the sources above, ROCOR is NOT in communion with Serbia or the JP.

[gbmtmas]

Let's see hear...ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. Jerusalem and Serbia are in communion with Antioch. What does this mean for ROCOR?

gbmtmas

According to my bishop and the Serbian Patriarch and a Serbian Metropolitan we are not! :shock:

I followed the link you provided me. It says:

He also stated that we may only commune in those Orthodox Churches with whom we are in communion; ... only the TOCs of Greece (Metropolitan Cyprian), Rumania and Bulgaria. He stated that we have a special relationship with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and may commune in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchure, but that we refrain from communing in JP parishes elsewhere in the world.

It would seem to me that whether you commune in all the JP parishes in the world, or whether you commune in the JP Church of the Holy Sepulchre from the hands of JP clergy, ROCOR is in communion with the JP, which is in communion with Antioch and Constantinople and the MP. I'm not trying to be a pain-in-the-neck here. I'm merely pointing out that the recent accusation about the OCA supposedly being in indirect communion with the Non-Chalcedonians via Antioch really can only be made from a group that has absolutely no Eucharistic ties with "world Orthodoxy."

Regarding the Serbians:

I followed the link you so graciously provided me. It seems from the discussion that ensued, that it was not clear whether this was a consistent view of the Serbians--especially when members of this forum pointed out that during Patriarch Pavel's visit, members of the ROCOR clergy "served."

Paradosis, Mate, Though the statement of Pat. Pavel may be true, (I have no idea if it is or not), I would be careful of the source. Vertograd is not to be trusted. When Pat. Pavel came to America a while back, (I think 2 summers ago), we went to Ohio to see him. There were ROCOR people there (besides us), and a ROCOR priest was serving, as well as 2 of Met. Lavr's personal sub-deacons. I would very much like to see the date of the statement. The only 2 years menitoned are 1998 & 1918. If I were you, I would wait for the responce of the people you sent the letter too. Ania

Of course, we could dismiss that as "hear-say" along with the alleged communing of Copts in OCA parishes. After watching this discussion about the OCA and the Non-Chalcedonians, I think that only members of OOD's and Julianna's groups (or a member of HOCNA) could make such an allegation and be consistent. The same allegation coming from a member of ROCOR, however, does not hold the same consistency--given ROCOR's own Eucharistic communion with the JP, inconsistent relationship with Serbia, and possible communion (forthcoming) with the MP--nyet?

gbmtmas