Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[Isaakos]

Again, Explain how st. Meletius of Antioch Was accepted into communion with saints Basil and Gregory and all of Asia Minor when his ordination was from heretics andand therefore, laymen.

Absolutely false, this is cyprianist propaganda, read the original sources by Theodoret of Cyr, that I have already indicated in this link here

Explain how Pope John VIII communed with both St. Photius the great AND the filioquism Franks of the 9th century, because Pope John wanted to implement the anathema against those who add to the creed slowly so as not to alienate people. I suppose st photius was therefore in communion with heretics and schismatic, since he communed with Pope John who communed with those who had been anathematized for adding to the creed and violating the canons?

There was, as reported by Saint Maximus, an orthodox understanding of filioque i.e Spirit sent to the world by the Son.

Explain how St. Cyril of Alexandria allowed the mbera of Patriarch John of Sntiochs synod to commemorate Theodore of Mopsuestia, the father of Nestorianism. I suppose St Cyril was heretical for communing with those who commemorated a man who had taught heretically (though perhaps not intentionally) on certain points of Christology?

Explain how the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased commemorating the pope in 1014, yet the other Patriarcha continued until 1054? I suppose the Patriarch of Constantinople was heretical for communing those who communed with the Pope, and who didn't STOP until 40 years later?

The time to assess the heresy can be long and variable depending on communications, translations etc, which explains communion can be broken in some place, continue in others.

You trusted Archbishop Gregory? The Man deposed by your synod? Ok...

Anyway, he is wrong.

History of the Christian Church, Vol. III.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.ix.vi.html

St Meletius had his ordination from Arians as historians teach.

And apparently Gregory checks nothing he posts because Sozomen SAYS his ordination was by Arians:

http://biblehub.com/library/sozomen/the ... us_and.htm

"The partisans of Meletius, therefore, proposed his association with Paulinus, who condemned the ordination of Meletius, because it had been conferred by Arian bishop"

Sorry, this is the way it is.

[Jean-Serge]

I will have a check to both books and the history in detail if they are online as it seems. Anyway, a bishop ordained by heretics can be received by simple concelebration, which is not recognizing his past ordination. So, the Meletius case, even if correct, would prove nothing.

[Isaakos]

I will have a check to both books and the history in detail if they are online as it seems. Anyway, a bishop ordained by heretics can be received by simple concelebration, which is not recognizing his past ordination. So, the Meletius case, even if correct, would prove nothing.

Wait
wait
Wait,

So a couple hours ago it was "Cyprianite Propaganda" and now it proves nothing? Come on Jean!

What it proves is that if the ordination of heretics can be recognized simply
By concelebration (and it seems even that may have not been done since the Cappadocians and the hierarchy of Asia Minor hadn't written on the need to recognize anything), the the ordinations performed by Cyprian, who did not recognize his deposition, can be also, which flies in the face of those who say the bishops of the former SiR were not received "properly." It also demonstrates that everything is not as clear cut as you would like, and the Church itself in practice doesn't seem to have a problem with that so why would you? How can you be stricter than the Church?

So, recapping:

1. The 1986 synod at least implicitly recognized the Ordination of Archimandrite Cyprian as a bishop in 1979, due to the fact that he was deposed and degraded to the rank of Priest.

2. Being a priest of the GOC, and the GOC being the Church, he was at least at this time part of the Church.

3. No further canonical penalties or actions were applied to him when he refused to recognize his deposition.

4. His particular teachings are the result not of saying "Heretics have the grace of the sacraments" but not being convinced that heretics who had as of yet not been condemned by a synod could fully be spoken of as outside the Church. You will recall this was the exact same thing as Metropolitan Chrysostomos' position of "potential schism" which the Matthewites mistakenly call a heresy. It is not heresy to be unsure that people who have not been subjected to a synodical trial and treated according to the canons are heretics in the fullest sense. It is what the synod called "misbelief."

5. The Hierarchs of the former SiR have renounced the particular teachings of the SiR and embrace our ecclesiology
   And no longer refer to the New Calendarist Churches as Mother Churches, but as fallen, heretical, and outside the Church. They teach and espouse the belief that salvation and the life of Christ is not possible (and therefore incommunicable) within the boundaries of ecumenistic syncretism.

So really, what is there left to say?

[Jean-Serge]

What it proves is that if the ordination of heretics can be recognized simply

They are not recognised simply, they are regularized simply, this is a big difference. Arian were received without baptism, which does not mean their baptism was recognised, but simply regularised with chrismation, if my memory is good. Recognition and regularization are 2 things that you do everything to confuse.

Moreoer, being schismatic and at he same time a priest of the said church is antinomic, and you have still not explained this miracle.

[Isaakos]

What it proves is that if the ordination of heretics can be recognized simply

They are not recognised simply, they are regularized simply, this is a big difference. Arian were received without baptism, which does not mean their baptism was recognised, but simply regularised with chrismation, if my memory is good. Recognition and regularization are 2 things that you do everything to confuse.

Moreoer, being schismatic and at he same time a priest of the said church is antinomic, and you have still not explained this miracle.

In the documents you provided in your blog, does the GOC recognize Metropolitan Cyprian as a Priest?

[Matthew]

Metropolitan Cyprian who died recently or his namesake who joined the GOC-K?

Certainly, we can recognise CALLING someone a priest, even if they are World Orthodox, or I daresay even Roman Catholic. In the case of Metropolitan Cyprian we can go further, I think, and say that because he received his priesthood from within a genuine and canonical synod of Orthodox bishops, his priesthood was genuine, too. Whether or not he retained that priesthood in a grace-filled condition after his declaration that the New Calendarists and Ecumenists in World Orthodoxy who united with the Roman Catholics (see declaration of Balamand on baptism, and lifting of anathemas in 1966 both of which constitute a real union regardless of sharing of the cup or not) have grace indeed and constitute part of the One True Church of Christ. I would say he was bereft of grace after rejecting repeated admonitions over several years to repent of this ecclesiological heresy, in addition, the declaration of his ecclesiology as being heretical and anathematised by the holy synod of genuine Orthodox bishops in Russia, namely, by the synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. There can be no doubt after that event that Cyprian's priesthood no longer maintained the full mysteriological grace of God.

Symeon

[Lydia]

Now that the RTOC has formally condemned this union and said that the GOC-Kallinilkos has fallen from True Orthodoxy into heresy, does this influence anyone's judgment?
This seems a sad step backward for the union of all True Orthodox. Or, perhaps, it is a way of separating the sheep from the goats.
How can those of us searching for the truth find our way? Lord, have mercy.
Most Holy Theotokos, save us from despair.