Anathema on Ecumenism

Methodius · Post by **Methodius** » Thu 10 July 2003 2:18 pm

Well then since the Antiochians commune Monophysites, that makes each of them heretics and anathemized. So anyone in communion with Antioch would also be under anathema too?

Nektarios14 · Post by **Nektarios14** » Thu 10 July 2003 2:27 pm

Which would mean Serbia is under Anathema as is ROCOR and those in communion with the ROCOR.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 10 July 2003 2:29 pm

Which means the only right believing bishop in the world is Valentine of Suzdal. Finally, I got it.

Nektarios14 · Post by **Nektarios14** » Thu 10 July 2003 2:32 pm

Which means the only right believing bishop in the world is Valentine of Suzdal. Finally, I got it.

That MODERNIST...[gasp]TRIMS HIS BEARD[/gasp] so that means there is nobody left, Peter!

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 10 July 2003 3:00 pm

I did not write the ROCOR's anathema. I'm just asking a question and am quite sad that people find the destruction of God's children funny.

Now did those people who signed the Balamand agreement declare they recognize "Grace" in the Latin system or not? Its in black and white, has anyone read it?

Is there someone here who says Bartholomew and the 15 other signators are Orthodox?!

And what of the OCA, did they not issue a joint agreement with the Latins that they recognize their Baptism?!

Do these new confessions of faith fall under the ROCORS anathema from 1983 or not?

If so, does this not present a most a most serious question for anyone who would say ROCOR never denyed Grace among the new-calendarists?

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Thu 10 July 2003 3:20 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
And what of the OCA, did they not issue a joint agreement with the Latins that they recognize their Baptism?!?

From the document Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An Agreed Statement of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999 at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/ ... ptism.html

C. The Results of our Investigation:"We Confess One Baptism"
The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Thu 10 July 2003 3:29 pm

Interesting questions, OOD. I know where to find a copy of the Balamand Agreement, and I've seen some remarks of late regarding baptism from Met. Hierotheos (and I'll reread both documents today), but where can I get a copy of the actual joint RC/OCA agreement?

I also plan on asking some questions from others before I say anything again here, such as:

Does one link in a chain infect/effect the whole chain? E.g., does ROCOR fall under it's own anathema when it is in communion with Serbia or Jerusalem, who are in communion with this or that Local Orthodox Church, and said Local Church gives communion and accepts the sacraments of this or that heretical body?
Does the anathema effect/apply to only those within ROCOR herself? Ie. is this (anathema) a pronouncement by a Local Council that is meant to only effect the Local Church issuing it, whereas it is thought (and was thought in 1983) that the context outside said Local Church cannot be spoken of at present?
The Antiochians started communing monophysites sometime around 1993 (I'll look up the exact date later). What groups, who claim to hold to the "one link infects the whole chain" ecclesiology," broke communion with ROCOR and all those who were part of the chain in 1993? What of those who waited until later in the 1990's? Why did they wait? If heresy is heresy (ie. it's a black and white issue), and communing heretics means that there must be an automatic cutting of ties with whoever is communing them (or whoever is in communion with the Church that is communing them), then why did some traditionalist groups wait for years to cut off communion?