Concerning Kirikos, the Holy Trinity Icon, and his schismatic faction

[Orthodox in Michigan]

My very limited understanding of the situation after reading both sites confession of faithregarding the 1971 cheiorthesias seems to be mostly about the argument as to what happened and how it is to be defined.

It is very tricky since one could see the intricacies of the argument between the two
Also mentioned that the two meet for talks , both seem to agree should not of happened
However goc-s says it cannot be denied it did occur without defining the exact way it occurrd or the excat interpertation .it leaves a blank spot , although they say it should not have happened , does any one have any imput on theis subject it seems it would only concern goc
Members , was this 1971 act a robber act and should it be acknowledged?

[Agios_Irineos]

Members , was this 1971 act a robber act and should it be acknowledged?

So is this only a Mathewite forum now? ROCOR chierothesia is a robber act and single handed consecration is A OK and how dare anyone suggest correction or completion is even something to be contemplated or apparently even mentioned? (But don’t forget that when one leaves his synod he can go form a new synod with people from another country with ROCOR derived orders).

This my friends is GOC self-delusion in full flower. “The slightest deviation (even by a single member) from canonical perfection renders your synod graceless and heretical. All my deviations were completely necessary, clearly permissible economía and can’t even be questioned.”

By your standards the Church died in the first four centuries, but by all means carry on. You posed it as a question, so here is my answer: No it was not a robber act, and yes, unless you believe that by ignoring something it goes away, you should probably “acknowledge”it.