Appeal of the First Heirarch of the ROAC to ROCOR(L)

[Mor Ephrem]

"such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians.

But isn't this the position of the "Cyprianites"? Why is this position still not applicable? I've heard some express the opinion that it is not a tenable position anymore because any council or synod summoned to deal with the issue would be dominated by ecumenists and others like them, but this opinion is that of the one who would lack faith in God to lead the Church, IMO.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem,

If I may answer for Seraphim...

The canon says, "on account of some heresy condemned by the fathers". The canon also then calls these people "...not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers;"

Clearly then, Cyprianites are waiting for a council to condemn these people but the canon already says that they must already be condemned!

In addition, the canon states these are not Bishops, in other words, they are without Grace, which is also in opposition to the Cyprian theories.

Sorry for butting in.

[CGW]

"canonical"

My question to those who belong to jurisdictions that may be listed on my vagante web page: How would you draw the line in the sand between the Orthodox wheat and the schismatic chaff?

first - confession of the Orthodox faith
second - canonical foundation

I think you left out

third - apostolic descent

. . . and at any rate, modulo what the website says about Valentin, isn't what it says about Gregory entirely true? He has made all those jurisdictional moves, hasn't he?

[Mor Ephrem]

Mor Ephrem,
The canon says, "on account of some heresy condemned by the fathers". The canon also then calls these people "...not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers;"

Clearly then, Cyprianites are waiting for a council to condemn these people but the canon already says that they must already be condemned!

Dear OOD,

Thanks for your response. I saw the parts which you quoted, and figured someone would point it out to me in a response. On the one hand, you've got a canon speaking about those who espouse/teach heresies condemned by the councils or fathers and calling such "pseudo-bishops", but on the other hand, while the canon does imply that they must already be condemned since they are teaching condemned teachings as their own, it does not speak of simply breaking away, but of walling off before a conciliar or synodal judgement has been rendered. There doesn't seem to be any justification, at least from this canon, for a complete break (as I perceive groups like ROAC and the GOC have done), but only for "walling off". How, then, can breaking away completely (I am avoiding the use of the word "schism" because of a connotation I do not want to imply in my question) before a conciliar/synodal judgement is rendered be justified?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Mor Ephrem,

Yes I see your point.

But I would reason that this canon is speaking to "those persons", in other words, it is advising lay people or a general audience.

And of course it is not within the authority of any lay person to make the declarations you noted, this canon only allows a layperson to wall themselves off - it says it is only withion the authority a synodical decree to make the declarations you speak of.

In fact, our synod has made such a declaration.

In addition, I doubt this canon was exactly anticipating contemporary developments we see today, yet it applies.

[canonical]

Higher jup in this thread someone quoted a canon. In Orthodoxy, this can be a dangerous practice, for the canons are not always what they seems to be. Consider this quote:

"Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say 'either enforce them all or discard them completely.' But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life — theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual — these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. In viewing the canons of the Church, the key factors are Christian knowledge and wisdom which are borne from technical study and spiritual depth. There is no other 'key' to their usage; and any other way would be according to the Orthodox faith both unorthodox and unchristian." --From An Explanation of Canon Law - Orthodox Church in America

[Joe Zollars]

I may dislike Al intently, and he is entitled to his own views about my own church, but griping about the EP isn't going to mitigate problems with any other group. If you are peeved that your chosen affiliation is listed, I really do think that is a problem that you will have to live with. "Misleading" is inaccurate; "contrary to my views" is not.

it is not griping about the EP to simply post the truth about them. I imagine Seraphim was wondering if such abominations as depicted in the pictures are canonical.

Nicholas Zollars