joasia wrote:Someone recently told me that the more important factor of the Orthodox Church is not the calendar but the Myrr that is used. Simple-minded people have created an arguement that originates from the calendar issue...that's where you get the old calendarist Greeks, but what really counts is the Myrr that is used.
"The important factor" is the modernist reformation that was attempted, of which the calendar change was the most prominent. The other changes either didn't come about or were not as easy to see. The faithful refer to the calendar change, but I think also behind that is all the other reforms and ecumenism. In other words saying "new-calendarists" is short-hand referring to the calendar change, all the other reasons behind it and the problems that accompanied it.
joasia wrote:The Apostolic succession is the first consideration but then the Myrr that is used is a great consideration.
The Apostolic Succession is through the episkopate. When the Church runs out of myrrh she makes more.
joasia wrote:So the explanation, given me, is that Vladika Laurus joined with the MP because he was running out of Myrr from the ligitamate source.
As others have noted ROCOR had plenty of myrrh. The thing I remember being said at that time was that ROCOR would begin to use the MP myrrh, as opposed, (I suppose), to her own.
joasia wrote:Perhaps this subject has been talked about already, but this is the first time I've heard that the Orthodox Church is defined by the integrity of the Myrr.
No, the Orthodox Church is defined by its true confession of faith. The Apostolic Succession of a bishop is defined by his true confession and his being ordained by a true confessing bishop. A true Orthodox bishop makes true myrrh from his true faith, (as well he performs true baptisms, ordinations etc because of his true confession).
joasia wrote:I have never read anything on this forum that explained the autheticity of whether a group was the true(Orthodox) Church of Christ because of the holiness of the Myrr the clergy use.
Again, the holiness of the myrrh comes from the holiness of the confession of faith and true apostolic succession of the bishop and church. This doesn't mean that when a bishop falls away from the Church that his myrrh becomes 'unholy', no, it is still the same as when it was made, but its use by him is ineffectual because he is not a bishop anymore.
joasia wrote:It seems that if that was the basis of the arguement for joining with the MP or Constantinople(NC against OC), that it would have been put out there a long time ago.
No, it is not the basis, as Romanos pointed out, there was no lack of myrrh. The basis is more likely to be Russophilia and a desire to join the broad way, desiring the world's recognition.
joasia wrote:So what is he trying to explain? Even in the forums that I used to be in on Yahoo Groups or MSN(I don't remember), there was never any mention, by the ecumenists, that the Holy Myrr is with the original Patriarchates and that those who seperated, like the old calendarist Greeks and ROCOR disconnected from that.
It seems to me that what he is trying to explain is some kind of made-up argument. Again, when the Church runs out of myrrh it makes more. One of the ingredients is myrrh from a previous batch. Of course that batch would have been made by true confessing bishops. (One wouldn't add myrrh made by iconoclasts, Arians, the MP, new-calendarists, etc.)
