Discussion and criticism of GOC-K & SiR Union

[Archimandrit Nilos]

This was a false pseudo-union from two Akakian-Florinites parasynagogues.

[Matthew]

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.

I don't even know why you brothers are debating any of this. When you have two millenia of a church stretching over most of (if not at other later times, all) the world involving all kinds of cultures, languages, nations, continents, and personages of power and influence, it is inevitable that one will be able to find and pick out exceptions here and there to the rule of canon law. That is not the point. The Church is big enough to absorb a few instances outside of the canonical order or exceptional slowness in correcting them. The bottom line for us is that we hold to the middle royal road of the standard canonical order and procedure. I don't care that so and so got his ordination from arians. What I cling to and uphold as the standards is the canonical standard rule and normative manner of dealing with heretics or those in communion with them. That is the point. If anyone wants to gainsay what I have just said, then they are advocating chaos and the overthrow of dogma and the distinction between Truth and Orthodoxy on one hand and heresy and those outside of the One True Church on the other. And frankly, I have no time or interest in debating that with anyone foolish enough to love their own opinion to such a thick-headed extent.

[Matthew]

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.

Yes, it is all very sad. I found it extremely hard to leave the World Orthodox Church. I had not taste for what seemed to me to be a divided and squabbling mish mash of old calendarists. But at the end of the day, I could not deny that World ORthodoxy had fallen from the pure confession of faith of St Mark of Ephesus the "pillar of Orthodoxy" who saved Orthodoxy from union with Rome, as he says, "We have separated ourselves from the Latins FOR NO OTHER REASON than that the Latins are heretics." The union of the latins has already happened and is real -- though indirect, by the lifting of anathemas and the joint recognition of each other's baptisms and one and the same in grace. I came to the conclusion -- and it took a long time to get there -- that the cross Christ was asking all those who would remain true to Him was to bear with the instability and scandal of disintegrating synods due to heresies or communion with teachers of heresies. That is our lot, our struggle, our cross, our thorn to bear for remaining true to Christ. We each have to reach the point inwardly that we accept this as a gift from God, to have some patience in suffering to offer to Christ in our love.

[Matthew]

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?

The problem is that you overlook the glaringly obvious. Even if we were to accept that the crafty document of union were a genuine repentant renunciation of the heresy of Kyprianite ecclesiology, which I highly doubt, you STILL have Bishop Chrysostom of Etna running around saying you are wrong! "We have renounced NOTHING". IN other words, They repent of nothing, they remain KYPRIANITE in their faith, at least Chrysostom does and you are now in FULL communion with a bishop who openly and unabashedly confesses himself to be so. How many heretics preaching with bared head their heresy does it take to deprive one of grace? 500? 100? 40? No. just one, and you are all brought down to his level. The weakest link in the chain dictates the strength of the chain. Those bishops who tolerate Chysostom are themselves heretical because though they might not personally believe that the New Calendarist ecumenists and papophiles have grace, their ecclesiological error is that they do not believe union and communion with someone who does will drive out their grace. And THAT, dear brother, is NOT Orthodox Ecclesiology.

[Barbara]

Very WELL SAID< Icxypion.

{Except that I believe he is now Archbishop - or no, Metropolitan !] Chrysostomos. Does anyone have information on when
and how that elevation was made ? Would it seem that it was a reward for the Etna hierarch's stringent support of that union? }

[Maria]

Very WELL SAID< Icxypion.

{Except that I believe he is now Archbishop - or no, Metropolitan !] Chrysostomos. Does anyone have information on when
and how that elevation was made ? Would it seem that it was a reward for the Etna hierarch's stringent support of that union? }

Since only Archbishop Kallinikos carries the title of Archbishop in the GOC-K, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna was reduced in rank to a Metropolitan as part of the union with the GOC-K. Met. Chrysostomos has retired due to ill health with an appointed bishop already in place to take over his administrative duties.

[Barbara]

Oh ! I hadn't heard that. Thank you so much, Maria.
Happy St Nicholas Day, tomorrow, too.