Question for open discussion.....

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

gbmtmas

Post by gbmtmas »

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

Chrysostomos,

Nestorius was deposed for heresy and started his Church.

IIRC, Nestorius did not start his own Church. It's been a while since I've read this; but the book, published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery on the Homilies of St. Isaac of Syria, gives a great history of the Church of Persia. I think it also states that Nestorius did not go East and start his own Church. The Church of Persia was strongly dyophysite in its Christology and eventually adopted a nestorian Christology around the 7th century. I highly recommend this book, not only for the interesting history it provides on the Persian Church, but also (of course) the writings of St. Isaac.

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Nicholas wrote:
Chrysostomos wrote:

It's one thing to talk, another to commune.

Then what do you make of the Antiochians who concelebrate and commune with monophysites? Or the MP that had an official policy of communing Roman Catholics? Just to name a few policies of communion.

I'd be interested to see that policy. I know it certainly doesn't exist today. There have been other examples in Russian Church history when the Church gave communion to Catholics.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

A DECLARATION OF COMMUNION WITH HERESY
by the Patriarchate of Antioch

To All Our Children,
Protected By God,
Both Clergy and Laity of
The Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Apostolic See with the sister Orthodox Syriac Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both churches whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. Those attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be one, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father.

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syriac Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern area where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit upon His holy apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had brought forward the phase of our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to initiate a quick desire for our Church in the See of Antioch, for a unity that preserves for each Church its original Eastern heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and profits from its rich traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more brightness and elegance that has lacked for centuries before.

Therefore, the Holy Synod of Antioch saw fit to translate the brotherly approachment relationship between the two Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox for the edification of their faithful wherever they happen to be.

The Holy Synod of Antioch has decided the following matters:

1) The complete and mutual respect between the two Churches for their rituals, spirituality, heritage and holy fathers; and the full protection of both the Antiochian and Syriac liturgical practices.

2) The incorporation of the fathers of both Churches and their heritage in general in the Christian education curriculum and theological teaching; and the exchange of theological professors and students.

3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.

4) Organizing meetings of both Synods whenever need and necessity may arise.

5) Leaving every Church as a reference for its members in all matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption etc.

6) If two bishops of the two different Churches meet for a spiritual service the one with the majority of the people will generally preside. But if the service is for the sacrament of holy matrimony the bishop of the bridegroom will preside.

7) Whatever has been previously mentioned does not apply to the concelebration among the bishops in the Divine Liturgy.

8) Whatever has been said in number six applies to the clergy of both Churches.

9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony. The same priest will keep an independent record for both Churches and transmit the registration of the members of the sister Church to its spiritual authority.

10) If two priests of both Churches happen to be in a certain community they will take turns, and in case they concelebrate the one with the majority of the people will preside.

11) If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate, presiding naturally belongs to the bishop even though being in the community of the priest on the condition that there are people of both Churches.

12) Ordinations into the Holy Orders are performed by the spiritual authorities on candidates in every respective Church prefereably in the presence of the brothers from the other sister Church.

13) Godfathers, Godmothers and witnesses in the sacrament of holy matrimony are allowed to be chosen from the members of both Churches without any discrimination.

14) In all mutual celebrations the first clergyman in ordination will preside over the ceremony.

15) All organizations from both Churches will co-operate in all matters whether educational, cultural and social for the enrichment of the brotherly spirit.

We promise you on this occasion to continue strengthening our relationship with the sister Church and all other Churches for all to become one community under one Shepherd.

User avatar
Chrysostomos
Member
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue 17 June 2003 10:57 am
Contact:

Expound on this comment OOD

Post by Chrysostomos »

OOD said:
With regard to the canons, each one has "weight". Some are more important than others, and they are not "rules".

OOD,
Could you expound on this more? So canons are subjective, dependent upon the situation? Who determines which are more important than others? Who determines the weight?

You've perked my interest, awaiting your response.....

With humble bow,

Rd. Chrysostomos

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

Chrysostomos,

The more you learn the Orthodox faith you will not only know, but sense with an instinct, what is weightier.

And to do this, just read the Holy Fathers, they will describe everything to you because they have set the example.

Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

bogoliubtsy wrote:
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:

Chrysostomos,

Nestorius was deposed for heresy and started his Church.

The Dontasts started their chruch.

The Monophysite leaders were deposed and started their Church

The Ecumenists broke with Orthodoxy and started their church

ect, ect. ect.

One difference. These elusive ecumenists have not been condemned by a council of the entire Church. The other folks you mentioned were.

But does there really need to one? Ecumenism is essentially an amalgam of a bunch of already condemned heresies. It puts everone on the same level, no one has any more truth than anyone else. Non-Chaldeans are on the same footing as the Orthodox, who inturn are on the same footing as the filioque confessing Latins, who inturn are on the same footing as the Protestants who refuse to call the Ever-virgin, Theotokos.

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Daniel,
You should send letters to the various Jurisdictions asking if they accept the Branch Theory. Also, see the OCA's Q&A section of their webpage where they provide their answer to this question. As far as not needing a council to decide this matter. Perhaps you are right. It seems obvious to you and I that the type of harmful ecumenism that is going on should be stopped. But at the same time, was it not obvious to many that Donatism, Nestorianism, etc. were also immense heresies? Yet, they had to be refuted through councils and the consensus of the Church. Ecumenism that is being practiced today, in my opinion, is wrong. However, I don't believe that it equates to "gracelelssness" on that part of the Churches involved. If it did, that would mean that many of the great elders and martyrs of the past 50-100 years have been outside the pale of Orthodoxy - Elder Paisios, Papa Nicholas Planos, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, St. Justin Popovich, the New Martyrs of Russia who were not part of the Catacomb Church, and others. I can't accept this.

Post Reply