Before I begin, let me just say that I post this hoping that we can all come to a fuller understanding on these issues through this thread. This first post is not an article or even a formal statement on my position, it is where my understanding currently is on the issues dealt with, and I post not only because I perceive wrong beliefs in others (and wish to help), but because I assume that I have errors in my own beliefs, which I hope others will help me see. With that said, I'd like to say a few words about ecclesiology.
I've noticed on a number of boards, among various jurisdictions (including traditionalist ones), that many people have incorporated neo-papal patriarchalism into their beliefs. There are two main varieties of this unorthodox belief. The first type assigns to Constantinople a sort of papal-like power, and it is said that only those who are in communion with Constantinople can be fully Orthodox. In other words, if you are not in communion with Constantinople, you are "semi-Orthodox" at best ("semi-Orthodox" is their term, I don't myself affirm that you can be such a thing). Some go even further than this and say that you cannot even be "semi-Orthodox," but are totally outside Orthodoxy, if you are not in communion with Constantinople.
The second type of neo-papal patriarchalism states that a Church must be in communion with one of the recognized Autocephalous Churches, one of the ancient Patriarchates, or something to this effect (there are other variations) to be considered Orthodox. It needs to be noted that different people will give different answers regarding which Churches are "recognized" as being Autocephalous Churches, Patriarchates, etc. Both these types of neo-papal patriarchalism are unorthodox, but I've seen both affirmed on the net (the second type is especially popular).
Neo-papal patriarchalism is an error because it deviates from the traditional criteria used to establish or confirm Orthodoxy. There are three criteria that must be met to be Orthodox: 1. proper apostolic succession, 2. a living Orthodox faith within a group of living Orthodox people, and 3. canonical validity in the original formation, and the continuation, of the group. The idea that you must be attached to a specific Patriarchate, or that you "must be in communion with at least one," are both ecclesiological innovations. Here's what one of the more respected modern Orthodox Christians said:
"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: The Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses [...] At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a decisive signifigance in the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology [...] The fate of the Church, neither is, nor can be, any longer in the hands of... the 'Pentarchy' or of the 'autocephalies' (understood in the narrow sense)... And new local Churches appear to be rising on the horizon, such as the Japanese, the African and the American, and their freedom in the Lord must not be removed by any 'super-Church' of the papal type (cf Canon 8, III Ecumenical Council), for this would signify an attack on the very essence of the Church." - Justin Popovich, On Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church, 4-5
In the article that the above quote comes from, Saint Justin was protesting the way in which the planned Ecumenical Council was being organized and approached. One of his protests was of an ecclesiological nature: some of the Orthodox groups (he mentions Moscow and Constantinople by name) were trying to set the Council up so that it would bring about their less-than-holy ambitions, while other Orthodox groups were being excluded entirely. Saint Justin was totally against this, though, and spoke up for the other Churches, who had less political weight, but who were to be considered Orthodox groups. And what does Saint Justin identify as an aspect of "papal ecclesiology"? The assertion that one bishop, or a group of bishops (e.g., those identified as heads of "autocephalies"), can be considered above other bishops. Such administrative divisions are fine so long as they don't interfere with the Church's correct functioning and belief: but neo-papal patriarchalism does interfere: it wants to make a bishop or group of bishops a type of "special body of bishops" that somehow gives validity (or even Orthodoxy!) to other "lesser" bishops, which is totally unorthodox.
All bishops are essentially equal in power, one bishop (or a selected group of bishops) aren't validity-bestowing bishops. You might say, in a certain way (ie. properly understood), that Orthodox bishops share validity with those whom they are in communion with, but it has certainly never been Orthodox (it is papal) to claim that a bishop or group of bishops authoritatively speak for the entire Church regarding who is Orthodox and who is not. Each local Orthodox bishop can accept or reject communion with any other bishop, and while this can have an effect on the actions of the Church at large, it certainly doesn't force other Churches to follow along (The only exception to this would be a true Ecumenical Council or a God-inspired "pan-Orthodox" Council; these are the only two ways that an authoritative pronouncement that was binding on the whole Church could be made regarding the Orthodoxy or non-Orthodoxy of a certain group)
I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read the documents from the early Church (especially the first 3 centuries) can buy into such a system. Church government, for administrative purposes, certainly grew more elaborate as time moved on. But as Saint Justin said, this governmental evolution that took place later, while not inherently bad in itself, cannot be allowed to interfere with the proper expression and living out of the Orthodox faith. Part of that faith is Orthodoxy existing on the local level; the focus is on the local bishops in the local community, not the top of some administrative hierarchy:
"The order of the episcopate was not something that existed in itself, or itself, and over or apart from the local Church. It was definitely within the Church, and since the visible Church could be defined only in terms of the body of Christ locally manifested in its mystagogical life, the episcopate was definitely of local character. [...] Therefore bishops were equal because communities were equal. One local manifestation of the body of Christ could not be more body of Christ or less than another. Likewise the living image of Christ (the bishop) could not be more image or less image than another image because Christ, whose image the bishops are, is identically One and Equal with Himself." - John S. Romanides, The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch, 7
The idea that that any Church can somehow bestow validity, just because it is ancient or one of the generally "recognized" Churches, is unorthodox. When they told Saint Maximus that everyone was against him, and asked why he didn't also join in communion with them, he didn't say "well gee, to be Orthodox I have to be in communion with a patriarch, so my answer is that I'm in communion with Rome". He instead answered "tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you whether I can be in communion with you." Likewise, Saint Mark of Ephesus (before he knew that some of the Bishops in the east were on his side), did not say "Well I guess I'll have to stay in communion with those who accept the council of Florence since you have to be in communion with certain bishops to be considered Orthodox." Rather, he was ready to break any and all ties with those who accepted the false council of Florence.
While it's a bit too polemical at times, Orthodoxinfo gives a lot more information, canonical references, patristic support, and so forth than I can give. I suppose some might ask "But if you are Orthodox, won't you be in communion with other Orthodox bodies? I mean, what's the big deal?" Well, there are a number of things that makes this a "big deal". First, it's Orthodox thought, a theological view/problem should never, ever be approached as a "light topic". Second, this is an ecclesiological issue, and in Orthodox ecclesiology the Church is the theanthropic body of Christ, the only organism with the sacraments and the sure course to salvation. This issue is much more than words games, then, but goes to the heart of discussion on Christ himself, and our salvation. Another reason that this is important is because, at the end, there will be a "falling away," with the Church once again becoming a small group:
The world-wide extension or the universality of the Church is only an outward sign, one that is not absolutely necessary. The Church was catholic even when Christian communities were but solitary rare islands in a sea of unbelief and paganism. And the Church will remain catholic even unto the end of time when the mystery of the "falling away" will be revealed, when the Church once more will dwindle to a "small flock." - Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, and Tradition
Let's suppose that someone grows up (or even comes to the Church) hearing and believing in neo-papal patriarchalism (though he probably wouldn't know it by that name). Now lets suppose that the end comes, and the overwhelming majority of the Church--as saints, prophets and theologians have predicted--falls away, with only a few small churches here and there being Orthodox. What will or can that Orthodox person do? They believe that you have to be in communion with so and so, so how can they leave communion with them, even if so and so now appears to be totally corrupted? The person is left outside Orthodoxy because he misunderstands what criteria places you inside Orthodoxy. I hope this doesn't sound far-fetched, because it's gonna happen (ie. it's not a hypothetical example to prove my point). Archbishop Averky talks a bit about all of this.
So if communion with so and so bishop(s) is not a sign of Orthodoxy, what is? I'd again say the three criteria I brought up earlier. The first criterion deals with the proper (valid) apostolic succession. The second criterion deals with a group holding firm to the Orthodox faith, and real people within the group living that faith out. The third criterion is having validity in the formation and continuation of the group. I'll add that it is my belief that ROCOR meets all of these criteria at the present time. If ROCOR were to break communion with both Jerusalem and Serbia (which, IMO, isn't likely, but is certainly possible), they would still be Orthodox.
Justin
PS. I don't mean the "falling away" to be a sensationalistic thing, where I think that, at this very hour, most of the Orthodox jurisdictions are fallen and that everyone needs to change jurisdictions. I bring it up only because it will, someday, happen; and that we need to be wary.
). God Bless!