Appeal of the First Heirarch of the ROAC to ROCOR(L)

[Seraphim Reeves]

Mor,

There doesn't seem to be any justification, at least from this canon, for a complete break (as I perceive groups like ROAC and the GOC have done), but only for "walling off". How, then, can breaking away completely (I am avoiding the use of the word "schism" because of a connotation I do not want to imply in my question) before a conciliar/synodal judgement is rendered be justified?

Re-reading the canon in question, the erring bishops are called "pseudo-bishops" - I don't see how one can have any communion with this (how does Orthodoxy have communion with heterodoxy? Bishops with pseudo-bishops?)

Just as a concilliar declaration does not need to occur for anyone to apostacize, neither does such need to take place for heirarchs to apostacize. Such, sadly, is seen in what they confess and teach, or remain in fraternity/obedience towards.

Seraphim

[Joe Zollars]

Higher jup in this thread someone quoted a canon. In Orthodoxy, this can be a dangerous practice, for the canons are not always what they seems to be. Consider this quote:

"Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial. People will say 'either enforce them all or discard them completely.' But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life — theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual — these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. In viewing the canons of the Church, the key factors are Christian knowledge and wisdom which are borne from technical study and spiritual depth. There is no other 'key' to their usage; and any other way would be according to the Orthodox faith both unorthodox and unchristian." --From An Explanation of Canon Law - Orthodox Church in America

Nice way for the ecumenist and new-calandrist pseudo-orthodox "Orthodox" church of America to avoid the canons and what they say.

However one must consider that the canons expressly condemn such activities as the papal calander, ecumenism, and any number of other heretical practices done with zeal by those in the OCA and other heretical groups.

Nicholas Zollars

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Al,

I am failing to grasp your point.

[canonical]

Nicholas,

I gather that you have spent much time studying the canons, in the context in which they were written, and how such canons apply today to specific situations. I bow to your superior, learned knowledge.

As for your label of the "papal calendar." LOL! Wasn't Julius Caesar a pagan? That would make his calendar the "pagan calendar."

Al

PS: Actually, if my parish, or the OCA as a whole were to revert to the pagan Julian calendar, that would be okay with me. (BTW, there are four parishes in the OCA in the "lower 48" that use the Julian Calendar, and the entire Diocese of Alaska is using the pagan calendar. So, some of us OCAers will probably make it to Heaven! Thrice Holy <G><G><G>

[Joe Zollars]

whether or not some ocaers will make it to heaven or not is certainly not my place to judge, however I would point out that the Calander is not what is necessary to be Orthodox.

Nicholas Zollars

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Al,

A piece of wood is just a material which can be thrown in the trash or just as well burned. But once the Church inscribes an Icon of a Saint or the Lord, it becomes Holy, an item to be venerated and a vision of heaven!

So to with the Calendar. It was secular until the Church inscribed its Holy days on it, through countless synods and decrees. It has become holy, and not such that a Freemason can just cast it into the fire in order to pursue a unity with Protestants.

[CGW]

it is not griping about the EP to simply post the truth about them. I imagine Seraphim was wondering if such abominations as depicted in the pictures are canonical.

I would hardly use "was wondering" when "confidently asserting" would be more accurate.

In any case, we seem to be having an exchange of contrary but not contradictory "truths". And yet the "truth" here seems to lie, not in the evidence itself, but its interpretation. The natural conclusion would appear to be that everyone has their problems and that the next stage is going to a round of denials that the EP kissing everyone and everything in sight has no significance (if you like the EP) and that Gregory's many jurisdiction changes are of no significance (if you dislike the EP and like ROAC).