LIVE Q & A TONIGHT

[Suaidan]

[eish]

My 2c.

Apart from what Fr. Joseph says, the big mistake Constantine Zalalas makes here, like all conservative New Calendarists, is something I think we need to hammer them on.

He claims that we are forbidden by the Canons to pray with the non-Orthodox (should say heretics) but that toleration of those who do canonically forbidden acts does not condemn the Church.

However, this presupposes that the non-Orthodox being prayed with by the Orthodox (at least in name) are simply the papists and heathens being prayed with by the ecumenist hierarchs. The Canons do not forbid us to pray with those who call themselves non-Orthodox. They forbid us to pray with those who are non-Orthodox, with little consideration to whether they consider themselves to be Orthodox. Rabid ecumenist hierarchs are not Orthodox, they are heretics. The fact that they pray with the pope of Rome and the Canons forbid that, is not the point. I do not read the Canons to tell me what someone else should be doing but to tell me what I should. The fact is that I am forbidden from praying with heretics, which those hierarchs are, and that is the real trap rather than the much more obvious violation of praying with the pope of Rome.

In any event, after the Great Schism both sides called themselves the Catholic Church for centuries until the very recent phenomenon of letting papists have that title in favour of “Orthodox.” We were not allowed to worship with them regardless if they claimed the same name we did. Maybe we need to start reminding New Calendarists that Uniates also claimed and still claim to be Orthodox, and that they are Uniates. (EP is obvious; MP has the intercommunion deal but is less boastful about it.)

[尼古拉前执事]

Good live video last night, Father Joseph.

[Niles_The_New]

My 2c.

Apart from what Fr. Joseph says, the big mistake Constantine Zalalas makes here, like all conservative New Calendarists, is something I think we need to hammer them on.

He claims that we are forbidden by the Canons to pray with the non-Orthodox (should say heretics) but that toleration of those who do canonically forbidden acts does not condemn the Church.

However, this presupposes that the non-Orthodox being prayed with by the Orthodox (at least in name) are simply the papists and heathens being prayed with by the ecumenist hierarchs. The Canons do not forbid us to pray with those who call themselves non-Orthodox. They forbid us to pray with those who are non-Orthodox, with little consideration to whether they consider themselves to be Orthodox. Rabid ecumenist hierarchs are not Orthodox, they are heretics. The fact that they pray with the pope of Rome and the Canons forbid that, is not the point. I do not read the Canons to tell me what someone else should be doing but to tell me what I should. The fact is that I am forbidden from praying with heretics, which those hierarchs are, and that is the real trap rather than the much more obvious violation of praying with the pope of Rome.

In any event, after the Great Schism both sides called themselves the Catholic Church for centuries until the very recent phenomenon of letting papists have that title in favour of “Orthodox.” We were not allowed to worship with them regardless if they claimed the same name we did. Maybe we need to start reminding New Calendarists that Uniates also claimed and still claim to be Orthodox, and that they are Uniates. (EP is obvious; MP has the intercommunion deal but is less boastful about it.)

Well said. Behind that issue, and what needs to be addressed, is what does it take for a violator of canons to be cut off from the Church, and ceases to be a bishop? Later in that video, Zalalas speaks about grace flows from even a heretical bishop (“for the sake of the remnant”) until he is expelled from the hierarchy. He didn’t elaborate as much as he could have, but if he were to make his case stronger he would have spoken about how Arius and Nestorius was condemned by multiple local councils, yet were invited to sit at the respective Ecumenical council as bishops, and even provide a defense. Why? Because God does not desire with desire the death of the sinner, but that he should return and live. Caiaphas was able to prophesy, as the high priest, despite being an enemy of God and planning to murder him. Fr Joseph makes a good point about how this isn’t the 1920s, but I would have liked to hear a bit more.

Looking at that video from Gregory Decapolite, providing justification from fighting within, most New Calendarists are not doing what St Eustathios did, and activity curbing heresy. Complaining on the internet doesn’t count! The question then, since St John broke communion, and Gregory lists breaking communion in that video as another valid means of fighting heresy, is why is only St Eustathios’ position being promoted, when it would entail the active promotion of True Orthodoxy by clergy, or at least a well respected member of the parish?

[eish]

Good live video last night, Father Joseph.

Wait...can you like your own posts? I'm gonna be sooo popular now.

[尼古拉前执事]

Good live video last night, Father Joseph.

Wait...can you like your own posts? I'm gonna be sooo popular now.

I was messing around on mobile, reacquainting myself with the Cafe and accidentally did that. Whoops!