Holy Canons Related to the Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

DIscussion and News concerning Orthodox Churches in communion with those who have fallen into the heresies of Ecumenism, Renovationism, Sergianism, and Modernism, or those Traditional Orthodox Churches who are now involved with Name-Worshiping, or vagante jurisdictions. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.

Moderators: Maria, phpBB2 - Administrators

DavidS

Postby DavidS » Tue 13 May 2008 8:16 am

Meletios Metaxakis, was a Freemason. He gained the patriarchate illegally and un-canonically. He was voted against 11 to 1. He was implanted by Freemasons.

I suggest Papadosis read "The Struggle Against Ecumenism," by the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.

The current EP is schismatic because they are in violation to a host of canons. They changed the calendar, which violates the Council of Nicea and are thus schismatic according to the canon of Saint Basil [sanctioned with ecumenical authority].

The calendar change from "old" to "new" was illegal for many reasons.

1. It goes against the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2. The Gregorian Calendar was condemned by Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century which placed under anathema anyone who would change the calendar and the Paschalion.

3. We have no need to convene another Council condemning the NC, because the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Pan-Orthodox Councils of the 16th century have already done this for us.

DavidS

Re: Wrong

Postby DavidS » Tue 13 May 2008 8:18 am

Papoutsis1 wrote:WRONG! Try that answer again as you have just gone against the canons and the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils.

Peter


Oh really? Which ones? Be precise. The EP is as virtually un-canonical as the Roman Catholic religion.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 11:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Postby joasia » Thu 15 May 2008 12:55 am

CHRIST IS RISEN!
****************************************
Deviation away from debate on liturgical and theological matters in the WCC—again, the foremost ecumenical force in the religious world—is a fact. In 1995, during his visit to the WCC in Geneva, Œcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, admitting that theological dialogue had come to an impasse, said: "This should not discourage us. And even if theological dialogue is, unfortunately, making no progress, it does not in any way prevent member Churches from...envisioning a World Council of Churches aligned for the wonderful cooperation of all Christian powers on the ethical, social, mission, and service front, independently of their basic theological differences..." ("The Informer," official Greek-language publication of the Permanent Delegation of the Œcumenical Patriarchate to the WCC, 11-1995/12. p. 24).

The WCC has become increasingly preoccupied with the interfaith movement, moving beyond the Christian communities to dialogue with the non-Orthodox. Hence, Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Mt. Lebanon, speaking at a meeting of the Central Committee of the WCC in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in January of 1971, made reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit "independently of Jesus Christ and his Church" (see the official Greek-language publication of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, "The Church Beacon," Vol. LIII, No. 2, pp. 232-241). In 1990, in Hong Kong, the WCC organized an Interfaith Consultation which issued the following statement: "We have to learn to recognize in our neighbors the presence of the divine, spoken of in different ways in different traditions: the Shekina in the Jewish tradition, the Holy Spirit of the Triune God to the Christians, the Atman to the Hindus..." ("Ecumenical Press Service," No. 34, 90.10.41). This reflects a statement made in the same year at a meeting organized by the WCC in Switzerland, where the participants affirmed that: "We recognize the need to move beyond a theology which restricts salvation to a particular explicit commitment to Jesus Christ..." (Marlin Vanelderen, "Consultation Speaks on Plurality," in "Ecumenical Press Service," No. 3. 90.01.82).

Let us cite but a few statements by respected Orthodox ecumenists who certainly do seem to believe that the Orthodox Church of not the ONE Church of Christ and who openly affirm the ecclesial reality of the heterodox churches:

a) In the introduction to the 1920 Encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, "To the Christian Churches of the Whole World," we see references to "the honored Christian [heterodox] Churches" as "co-inheritors, constituting the same body, and...partakers of God's promises in Christ." We are told in this remarkable document that we must set aside the "prejudices" of the past and work beyond the walls of dogma and doctrine.

b) Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch (also the recipient of an honorary degree from St. Vladimir's Seminary), speaking in January 1987 to an ecumenical assembly in Geneva, during the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity," said: "We are all [Orthodox and heterodox] members of Christ, a single and unique body, a single and unique 'new creation,' since our common baptism has freed us from death." It takes no great theological expertise, let alone anything more than a superficial reading of the Fathers, to understand that, from an Orthodox standpoint, the Body of believers in Christ, the "New Creation," and those "Baptized" in Christ are none other than Orthodox Christians. These words are never applied by the Fathers to the heterodox, and to do so is to acknowledge the reality of "churches" outside the Church.

c) The "Sister Churches" ecclesiology of the Balamand Agreement, signed in 1993, unequivocally states that both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church cannot claim Apostolic Succession as the "exclusive property of one our churches" (Section XIII; see "The Balamand Union: A Victory of Vatican Diplomacy" [Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1994], p. 10). One might argue that the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are one, and therefore that Balamand does not embrace a "Branch Theory" of the Church, but this argument is one certainly open to dispute.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hopko_ecum.aspx
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
MPROCORDsdnt
Newbie
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed 10 March 2010 6:32 am
Contact:

Re: St. Mark of Ephesus never caused a schisim

Postby MPROCORDsdnt » Sun 14 March 2010 6:58 pm

Papoutsis1 wrote:Thanks for the canon lesson however, St. Mark of Ephesus never caused a schismatic movement and took followers away from the one true church. SOOOOOO, what's your point?

God Bless

Peter


Dear Peter,

You were aware that St. Mark of Ephesus REJECTED the Florentine Union and did not commemorate the Uniate Patriarch, nor was he in Communion with him.

So you are right, he never "went into schism," but the Patriarchate and the Emperor most certainly did, while also falling under condemnation for accepting the heresies of the papacy. Likewise, people who separate from schismatic and heretical hierarchs don't necessarily go into schism. Conciliar authority determines where the schism and error is.

It was only after the Turk conquered the City that Orthodoxy was restored by followers of St. Mark of Ephesus.

Jason Bently

Have you been to the East?

http://tserkovnyjevekhi.blogspot.com/

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 5:04 am

Re:

Postby Matthew » Fri 28 December 2012 4:00 am

joasia wrote:Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Mt. Lebanon, speaking at a meeting of the Central Committee of the WCC in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in January of 1971, made reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit "independently of Jesus Christ and his Church" (see the official Greek-language publication of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, "The Church Beacon," Vol. LIII, No. 2, pp. 232-241). In 1990, in Hong Kong, the WCC organized an Interfaith Consultation which issued the following statement: "We have to learn to recognize in our neighbors the presence of the divine, spoken of in different ways in different traditions: the Shekina in the Jewish tradition, the Holy Spirit of the Triune God to the Christians, the Atman to the Hindus..." ("Ecumenical Press Service," No. 34, 90.10.41). This reflects a statement made in the same year at a meeting organized by the WCC in Switzerland, where the participants affirmed that: "We recognize the need to move beyond a theology which restricts salvation to a particular explicit commitment to Jesus Christ..." (Marlin Vanelderen, "Consultation Speaks on Plurality," in "Ecumenical Press Service," No. 3. 90.01.82).


This is terribly heretical. How can men who have been schooled in the Orthodox faith, recount the lives of the saints we celebrate daily for years on end, still speak such blasphemies and lies? A spirit of heaviness, of blindness, has come upon them. They have become blind men searching in the dark in a black room for a black cat that isn't there.


Return to “World Orthodox, Name-Worshiping, and Vagante Jurisdictions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests