Suaiden wrote:Plenty, if there is a canonical requirement in terms of numbers of Bishops. But that's besides the point if I am speaking about specific declarations where the number of signatories are clear and the process can be reviewed. Lukianos, and now you, are asking me to make a general distinction about authority when that is not how the Church works, because the Church does not tolerate illegitimate usurpations nor abuses of authority.
Further, as was rightly pointed out, that if my belief is that there is no competent authority in Orthodoxy at all, considering the number of Bishops in the world, that would indeed be a heresy, but since I denied it twice already, the fact that you seem to ignore that is the problem.
If you were speaking about specific declarations only, you would have a point. But you said in your OP that, according to the "vanguard position", ALL True Orthodox jurisdictions are part of the Church until the disputes are sorted. This is far too bold an assertion, in my mind. I can certainly accept that there is uncertainty about SOME jurisdictions, but why should I believe that all jurisdictions must be in the Church? I think this is where you could probably clarify your thoughts some more to avoid misunderstanding.
I'd be glad to give an example with any single declaration of schism from your Synod to make my point but Lukianos seems very much unwilling to do so, since he runs the risk of undermining his argument. Unfortunately, he still declares people heretical with impunity, and now your totally false statement that "your blanket assertion that none of the True Orthodox bodies we see today has the authority to bind and to loose comes dangerously close to espousing a kind of ecumenism" is something I never said or implied. Declarations of schism with Bishops require depositions and trials. Oftentimes these are not done or done incorrectly and intentionally so. In such cases no one is obliged to recognize them as canonical, because THEY'RE NOT.
There's a difference between what the Bishops can individually bind and loose, what a group of Bishops can bind and loose, and what the whole Synod in unanimity can bind and loose. Any attempts to blur that distinction are deliberately ignoring the canons and tradition of the Church.
So I'm getting a little tired of the claim of heresy, since it seems no one can actually point to a Synodal declaration of same-- FOR FEAR IT WILL BE EXAMINED.
Thank you for your clarification and I think you make a good point. Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church certainly refers to the survival of some community perpetuating His doctrine, but it is not explicit that this should include Synods or even Bishops. I recall V Moss quoting a Russian Catacomb saint prophesying that there may come a time when there are no clergy at all.
I guess since I'm a "heretic", it's suddenly ok to be condescending. Do what you will!
Glad to oblige. You are hereby banned for three days.