How are bishops in the ROCOR and in the GOC-K espousing ecumenism?

[Maria]

St. Photius lived long before the Great Schism of 1054. His position cannot be compared with that of St. Matthew as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the time of St. Photius had a strained relationship, but there was no schism at that time.

The Catacomb Bishops also cannot be compared with the position of St. Matthew. These Catacomb Bishops did not form a synod but remained independent out of necessity, yet concelebrated the Holy Mysteries with one another whenever they safely could do so. They knew that Sergius was a betrayer of Christ.

[Isaakos]

St. Photius lived long before the Great Schism of 1054. His position cannot be compared with that of St. Matthew as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the time of St. Photius had a strained relationship, but there was no schism at that time.

The Catacomb Bishops also cannot be compared with the position of St. Matthew. These Catacomb Bishops did not form a synod but remained independent out of necessity, yet concelebrated the Holy Mysteries with one another whenever they safely could do so. They knew that Sergius was a betrayer of Christ.

And they each took a different view as to what extent he was a betrayer of Christ. St. Joseph of Peteograd calls him a schismatic and St. Cyril of Kazan calls him merely errant. Both severed communion with him and both had communion with one another despite the difference of opinion.

The fact is, that our view that the world Orthodox UNIVERSALLY are deprived of grace is a speculative theological conclusion that assumes a great deal. It assumes an even amount of culpability, and a will that acts contrary to Orthodoxy.

Now, this may be true in particular regions. For example in Greece in 1974 Abp AUxentius and his synod declared the New Calendarists deprived of grace. But Metropolitan Photios of Triaditza in Bulgaria has not. Also the Romanians under Met. Glycherie always took the strict stance that the Romanian hierarchy had fallen, but they did not judge outside of Romania.

Each local synod is competent ONLY to declare its conviction in regards to its own region. This is why we need a Pan-Orthodox synod, to apply the regional judgments at a universal level. Because no matter what our personal or regional conclusions are, they are fundamentally less sure and less binding than that which is accomplished at a pan-Orthodox level.

No particular church can declare for the universal church. Unless you are Roman Catholic.

[Maria]

St. Photius lived long before the Great Schism of 1054. His position cannot be compared with that of St. Matthew as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the time of St. Photius had a strained relationship, but there was no schism at that time.

The Catacomb Bishops also cannot be compared with the position of St. Matthew. These Catacomb Bishops did not form a synod but remained independent out of necessity, yet concelebrated the Holy Mysteries with one another whenever they safely could do so. They knew that Sergius was a betrayer of Christ.

And they each took a different view as to what extent he was a betrayer of Christ. St. Joseph of Peteograd calls him a schismatic and St. Cyril of Kazan calls him merely errant. Both severed communion with him and both had communion with one another despite the difference of opinion.

The fact is, that our view that the world Orthodox UNIVERSALLY are deprived of grace is a speculative theological conclusion that assumes a great deal. It assumes an even amount of culpability, and a will that acts contrary to Orthodoxy.

Now, this may be true in particular regions. For example in Greece in 1974 Abp AUxentius and his synod declared the New Calendarists deprived of grace. But Metropolitan Photios of Triaditza in Bulgaria has not. Also the Romanians under Met. Glycherie always took the strict stance that the Romanian hierarchy had fallen, but they did not judge outside of Romania.

Each local synod is competent ONLY to declare its conviction in regards to its own region. This is why we need a Pan-Orthodox synod, to apply the regional judgments at a universal level. Because no matter what our personal or regional conclusions are, they are fundamentally less sure and less binding than that which is accomplished at a pan-Orthodox level.

No particular church can declare for the universal church. Unless you are Roman Catholic.

Ah, now you are promoting the "Cyprianist" position not only of Met Chrysostomos of Florina, but also of the late Bishop Cyprian of the Synod in Resistance. In this age filled with ecumenism, we will never have a Pan-Orthodox Council that is truly Orthodox. Look at the recent robber-council of Crete, which promoted so much falsehood that four churches, including Russia, declined to sign the documents produced. However, the people who ran that false-synod electronically signed their names anyway. In Greece, the clergy who have refused to agree with the Cretan documents of 2016 have been defrocked and refused access to their former parishes.

[Isaakos]

St. Photius lived long before the Great Schism of 1054. His position cannot be compared with that of St. Matthew as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church during the time of St. Photius had a strained relationship, but there was no schism at that time.

The Catacomb Bishops also cannot be compared with the position of St. Matthew. These Catacomb Bishops did not form a synod but remained independent out of necessity, yet concelebrated the Holy Mysteries with one another whenever they safely could do so. They knew that Sergius was a betrayer of Christ.

And they each took a different view as to what extent he was a betrayer of Christ. St. Joseph of Peteograd calls him a schismatic and St. Cyril of Kazan calls him merely errant. Both severed communion with him and both had communion with one another despite the difference of opinion.

The fact is, that our view that the world Orthodox UNIVERSALLY are deprived of grace is a speculative theological conclusion that assumes a great deal. It assumes an even amount of culpability, and a will that acts contrary to Orthodoxy.

Now, this may be true in particular regions. For example in Greece in 1974 Abp AUxentius and his synod declared the New Calendarists deprived of grace. But Metropolitan Photios of Triaditza in Bulgaria has not. Also the Romanians under Met. Glycherie always took the strict stance that the Romanian hierarchy had fallen, but they did not judge outside of Romania.

Each local synod is competent ONLY to declare its conviction in regards to its own region. This is why we need a Pan-Orthodox synod, to apply the regional judgments at a universal level. Because no matter what our personal or regional conclusions are, they are fundamentally less sure and less binding than that which is accomplished at a pan-Orthodox level.

No particular church can declare for the universal church. Unless you are Roman Catholic.

Ah, now you are promoting the "Cyprianist" position not only of Met Chrysostomos of Florina, but also of the late Bishop Cyprian of the Synod in Resistance. In this age filled with ecumenism, we will never have a Pan-Orthodox Council that is truly Orthodox. Look at the recent robber-council of Crete, which promoted so much falsehood that four churches, including Russia, declined to sign the documents produced. However, the people who ran that false-synod electronically signed their names anyway. In Greece, the clergy who have refused to agree with the Cretan documents of 2016 have been defrocked and refused access to their former parishes.

How is it Cyprianism to realize the limits of regional synods? Cyprianism is the false analogy of sick/healthy Orthodox in relation to dogma. In relation to morals and spiritual life is one healthy or sick, but in relation to dogma one is either Orthodox or a heretic. The former SiR Hierarchy do not hold to this and have explicitly set it aside.

The laity may sin, but what’s it got to do with the status of a particular church? The Church is in the Bishop, not the laity. That’s what st. Ignatius teaches.

On the contrary Maria, for Old Calendarists to hold their own Pan-Orthodox synod is an implicit recognition of the scope of the Church, not an illegitimate broadening of the notion.

I’m reading reactionary in your posting for some reason.

[Maria]

And they each took a different view as to what extent he was a betrayer of Christ. St. Joseph of Peteograd calls him a schismatic and St. Cyril of Kazan calls him merely errant. Both severed communion with him and both had communion with one another despite the difference of opinion.

The fact is, that our view that the world Orthodox UNIVERSALLY are deprived of grace is a speculative theological conclusion that assumes a great deal. It assumes an even amount of culpability, and a will that acts contrary to Orthodoxy.

Now, this may be true in particular regions. For example in Greece in 1974 Abp AUxentius and his synod declared the New Calendarists deprived of grace. But Metropolitan Photios of Triaditza in Bulgaria has not. Also the Romanians under Met. Glycherie always took the strict stance that the Romanian hierarchy had fallen, but they did not judge outside of Romania.

Each local synod is competent ONLY to declare its conviction in regards to its own region. This is why we need a Pan-Orthodox synod, to apply the regional judgments at a universal level. Because no matter what our personal or regional conclusions are, they are fundamentally less sure and less binding than that which is accomplished at a pan-Orthodox level.

No particular church can declare for the universal church. Unless you are Roman Catholic.

Ah, now you are promoting the "Cyprianist" position not only of Met Chrysostomos of Florina, but also of the late Bishop Cyprian of the Synod in Resistance. In this age filled with ecumenism, we will never have a Pan-Orthodox Council that is truly Orthodox. Look at the recent robber-council of Crete, which promoted so much falsehood that four churches, including Russia, declined to sign the documents produced. However, the people who ran that false-synod electronically signed their names anyway. In Greece, the clergy who have refused to agree with the Cretan documents of 2016 have been defrocked and refused access to their former parishes.

How is it Cyprianism to realize the limits of regional synods? Cyprianism is the false analogy of sick/healthy Orthodox in relation to dogma. In relation to morals and spiritual life is one healthy or sick, but in relation to dogma one is either Orthodox or a heretic. The former SiR Hierarchy do not hold to this and have explicitly set it aside.

The laity may sin, but what’s it got to do with the status of a particular church? The Church is in the Bishop, not the laity. That’s what st. Ignatius teaches.

On the contrary Maria, for Old Calendarists to hold their own Pan-Orthodox synod is an implicit recognition of the scope of the Church, not an illegitimate broadening of the notion.

I’m reading reactionary in your posting for some reason.

I disagree. You are continually twisting my words and trying to trap me. In addition. you are twisting the words of Met. Chrysostomos, the late Bishop Cyprian, and the Synod in Resistance. Furthermore, although I have given quotes as proofs, you have provided neither. Instead, you are trying to confuse Justice and lead him to perdition.

Know that I am praying for you.

Answer me, please.

To which synod are you now affiliated?

Maria,
Administrator

[Isaakos]

Ah, now you are promoting the "Cyprianist" position not only of Met Chrysostomos of Florina, but also of the late Bishop Cyprian of the Synod in Resistance. In this age filled with ecumenism, we will never have a Pan-Orthodox Council that is truly Orthodox. Look at the recent robber-council of Crete, which promoted so much falsehood that four churches, including Russia, declined to sign the documents produced. However, the people who ran that false-synod electronically signed their names anyway. In Greece, the clergy who have refused to agree with the Cretan documents of 2016 have been defrocked and refused access to their former parishes.

How is it Cyprianism to realize the limits of regional synods? Cyprianism is the false analogy of sick/healthy Orthodox in relation to dogma. In relation to morals and spiritual life is one healthy or sick, but in relation to dogma one is either Orthodox or a heretic. The former SiR Hierarchy do not hold to this and have explicitly set it aside.

The laity may sin, but what’s it got to do with the status of a particular church? The Church is in the Bishop, not the laity. That’s what st. Ignatius teaches.

On the contrary Maria, for Old Calendarists to hold their own Pan-Orthodox synod is an implicit recognition of the scope of the Church, not an illegitimate broadening of the notion.

I’m reading reactionary in your posting for some reason.

I disagree. You are continually twisting my words and trying to trap me. In addition. you are twisting the words of Met. Chrysostomos, the late Bishop Cyprian, and the Synod in Resistance.

Answer me, please.

To which synod are you now affiliated?

Maria,
Administrator

I did answer, remember? I said I was in the process of discernment.

Trap? Who’s trapping? I specifically said your synod was behaving laudably. I misunderstood a sentence and asked for a reference. I disagree with Cyprianism, it’s erroneous.

But the reality of the nuances of life demand a careful approach to the World Orthodox and others who claim to be True Orthodox.

For example, there are neither ACCIDENTAL heretics, schismatics or apostates. Those conditions are acts of the will. If the will is not present, the condition is not subjectively present, and God honors that.

Thats just reality, it’s not a conspiracy or a heresy.

[Maria]

Justice should know that you have been very unstable and that I and others have been praying for you to regain your faith.

Nevertheless, Justice should know that you, Isaakos, have been rocking us with announcements that you have been baptized by Fr. Photios, who is a priest with the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos, only to leave him and join the Synod of Archbishop Stephanos by being chrismated by Father Stephen Fraser of Holy Trinity Church in Phoenix, Arizona. However, one month later, you apostatized, left True Orthodoxy, apparently joining the Greek New Calendarists, only to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church about a month later. Then you reappear a year later saying that you are going to join Monk Kirykos' synod, only to rejoin the Roman Catholic Church one week later. Now more than a year later, you are apparently returning to True Orthodoxy, saying that you are now among us, but you refuse to say which jurisdiction.

Isaakos, I hope this time you are sincere in your convictions and will not lead us yet on another wild goose chase as you change your convictions and jurisdictions.

Again, please realize that I am praying for you.

Calm down, get some sleep, and above all pray.

In Christ,
Maria