MP, ROCOR, ROAC, ROCiE, HOCNA Unification

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 15 May 2004 1:09 am

ROCOR is not "the church." Hence its local anathemas can be mistaken.

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Sat 15 May 2004 1:12 am

ania wrote:
Why didn't they follow their own bishops? Actually, I really don't have time to wonder why... work calls...

They did. Their bishops helped form ROAC. It was not a one-bishop construction!

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Sat 15 May 2004 8:03 am

Here are some early morning rambling thoughts.

anastasios wrote:
ROCOR is not "the church." Hence its local anathemas can be mistaken.

You'll have to explain this one, Anastasios. Because this idea seems to ruin the catholicity of the church as I understand it. One bishop surrounded by his flock is the Church in its fullest, just as much as 12 bishops gathered together in a local synod is the Church in its fullest, just as much as all orthodox bishops gathered together are the whole Church. Hence, one bishop can speak for the Church,just as much as 12 bishops can at a local synod, just as all bishops gathered togather do at a full blown ecumenical council. Why else would canons and such from local councils or even individual bishops be accepted at Chruch wide councils?

This also plays into why anathemas can not be only local. Heresies are something that can spread through out the whole church. So when one local Church anathematizes a heresy it is speaking for the church.

In short, if ROCOR is orthodox then the anathema is orthodox, and the only reason, I can see, of another local church not accepting the anathema is because maybe they fall under it.

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Sat 15 May 2004 10:33 am

Anastasios,

ROCOR is not "the church." Hence its local anathemas can be mistaken.

While I do not believe it to be "mistaken", I really believe this is the only line which can be taken by those who wish to bury/ignore the anathema against ecumenism.

Seraphim

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 15 May 2004 1:48 pm

1) Daniel: one cannot unilaterally make an anathema. Yes an anathema would be universal; I am saying that an anathema issued by a local bishop or synod of bishops, lacking the consensus of the Church, would not be an anathema. If ROCOR admits that other Churches are Orthodox it would need their input and consent to impose an anathema. The Orthodox Church is conciliar.

2) Seraphim: I don't think the anathema in and of itself was bad. However, it simply doesn't apply to anyone because no "World Orthodoxy" Church teaches the Branch Theory. Some individual Orthodox I have met believe it and they would be condemned but no Church as a whole has taught it.

anastasios