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

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

CGW,

...and that Gregory's many jurisdiction changes are of no significance ...

I have researched Bishop Gregory's "jusrisdiction changes" very extensivly. I have read the letter he exchanged with Bishop Gabriel and Bishop Laurus regarding our synod, his opposition to ROCOR's communion with Cyprian, and have talked to people who know first hand about his relations while with the Lamians.

And as much as I might have a position with regard to certain matters both for and critically against him (and understand that he is a very vocal detractor of my synod) there is nothing I can see where he did not seem to act in a honest manner and was (at least) not completley without justification. And I might have some personal opinions that would indicate he made some ecclesiastical mistakes, but I can assure you, I have found nothing which seems to suggest he is not now an Orthodox bishop.

And the fact that he was ordained by the ROAC, one would also have to show the ROAC to not be Orthodox otherwise they are bordering on Donatism. Donatism of course says that the Grace of God cannot flow from a sinful bishop or even unworthy bishop despite them being part of the lawful Church.

[CGW]

And the fact that he was ordained by the ROAC, one would also have to show the ROAC to not be Orthodox otherwise they are bordering on Donatism. Donatism of course says that the Grace of God cannot flow from a sinful bishop or even unworthy bishop despite them being part of the lawful Church.

Well, isn't this a problem all around? After all, how are the EP's supposed sins against the canons not being expressed in a sort of donatism?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

CGW,

Well, there is a very important distinction made by the Fathers between personal sins, which every Bishop is guilty of to one degree or another, canonical violations, and publicly preaching heresy.

In short, personal sins of a Bishop are judged and deciding on by spiritual courts, these issues are not subject to priests and laymen's opinions however informed or misinformed. Extreme canonical violations might justify a "walling off", and only in the case of publicly preaching heresy is a bishop not an Orthodox bishop and only the knowing communion with this bishop could a synod be said to not be Orthodox and without Grace.

As far as the ROAC as a whole, well I will leave that to its members here.

[CGW]

In short, personal sins of a Bishop are judged and deciding on by spiritual courts, these issues are not subject to priests and laymen's opinions however informed or misinformed. Extreme canonical violations might justify a "walling off", and only in the case of publicly preaching heresy is a bishop not an Orthodox bishop and only the knowing communion with this bishop could a synod be said to not be Orthodox and without Grace.

The first statement has to be qualified a bit: the personal sins of a bishop are most certainly subject to the judgement of a layman-- but not in a way that is reflected in the polity. If, for instance, a bishop demonstrates to me that he is untrustworthy, then I will rightly treat him as such, whether or not the juridical system of the church chooses to deal with the matter or not. In practice this qualification has to be allowed if one is going to acknowledge the permissibility of changing from a defective jurisdiction to a sufficiently whole one, because the final judgement in such a situation resides in the individual.

That is, in this case, a quibble. The bigger issue lies in the matter of those sins against the canons. Are they personal sins, or are they preaching of heresy? I think it could be argued that the "praying with heretics" issue which is being hammered on here is nonetheless a personal sin, and that therefore a series of pictures of the EP praying with various "heretical" prelates is not evidence of heresy at all.

I will anticipate the next response by pointing out that making actions speak as words effectively eliminates Donatism by making heresy out of all sins of clerics-- or anyone, for that matter.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

CGW,

Reasonable enough.

I will reserve a discussion if praying with heretics as if they are members of the Church is a personal sin or effectively preaching heresy (you can guess my position); One only needs to look at the documents and statements Bartholomew and his predessor's have preached to prove they are heretics.

My favorite has always been Athenagoras, who effectively said union has not come about because it is nessesary to brainwash the people first!

[Joe Zollars]

the lifting of the Anathama's would certainly be preaching heresy as would many of the declerations of the EP, as well as various other "patriarchs." I would suggest that one read the "Kiss of Judas" at http://www.ROACAmerica.org for some insight into this matter.

Nicholas Zollars

[Daniel]

That is, in this case, a quibble. The bigger issue lies in the matter of those sins against the canons. Are they personal sins, or are they preaching of heresy? I think it could be argued that the "praying with heretics" issue which is being hammered on here is nonetheless a personal sin, and that therefore a series of pictures of the EP praying with various "heretical" prelates is not evidence of heresy at all.

If I'm not mistaken there are canons against praying with heretics.

At any rate, do you care to expand on the above quote?