Why this new section and forum?

[尼古拉前执事]

I have never been a fan of the Community forum being our most popular place for posts, as it makes it appear that this forum is more interested int he world than in Orthodoxy itself. In looking at the forum and doing my quarterly sweep of it, moving posts to a more appropriate forum section, if applicable, I had an idea.

What is we moved all of these World Orthodoxy posts to one section? Besides putting all these news stories in one section, it would also move almost all of our polemical posts to one section as well. This way, if someone is trying to avoid polemics and just wants spiritually profitable information, they can easily avoid the later.

While some posts were moved from the other forums of Praxis, Sacred Scripture, Theology & Tradition, Traditionalist Orthodox Churches, etc.; most were moved from the misc section. I am sure there are more I need to move - and in time I shall.

Whether the stories be positive or negative, they will go here. However since the most-polemic posts are about World Orthodoxy, it also helps clean up other forums and keepsd the polemics mostly in the Polemical Controversies Sub-Section that the World Orthodoxy folder is in.

Here is how we define some of the words we use in the forum's description:

New Calendarists: Those Churches that are using the new calendar rather than the traditonal Orthodox Calendar. This would include the Ecumenical Patriarchate, OCA, GOA, OCA, The Greek State Church, etc.

Ecumenists: Definitely the churches involved in the WCC and other univerasalist organizations. Churches that have established some form of communion with other denominations or accept mysteries outside the Church as having grace. The Antiochian, Alexandrian & Moscow Patriarchates would be included here.

"World Orthodox": The groups above or those in communion with the above groups.

While on some matters I definitely do not agree with ROCOR-L, Cyprian TOC, HOCNA, Old Rite Russian Orthodox Old Believers, etc. posts on these synods remain in the Traditionalist Orthodox Churches section.

I hope that helps clarify any questions that people may have on the creation of this new sub-section and forum.

[尼古拉前执事]

:bump: I have bumped this up as one of our forum members, at the time he wrote some of his recent posts, seemingly did not appear to have recalled this statement where I gave the reason for us creating this section of the forum nor the fact that we did not define the Cyprianites as World Orthodox and stated that posts about them should still go in the Traditional Orthodox section even if the administrators of the Euphrosynos Cafe do not personally agree with their unique ecclesiology. :bump:

[George Australia]

:bump: I have bumped this up as one of our forum members, at the time he wrote some of his recent posts, seemingly did not appear to have recalled this statement where I gave the reason for us creating this section of the forum nor the fact that we did not define the Cyprianites as World Orthodox and stated that posts about them should still go in the Traditional Orthodox section even if the administrators of the Euphrosynos Cafe do not personally agree with their unique ecclesiology. :bump:

Father Deacon,
I did recall this statement in my posts, in fact I quoted it. As I pointed out, the administrators define the Patriarchate of Serbia as "World Orthodox" , and ROCOR is in communion with the Patriarchate of Serbia, and we "Cyprianites" are in Communion with ROCOR. So why are we not "World Orthodox"? Haven't we "sought communion with ....the heresies of Ecumenism" as defined by the administrators? I have already asked this question twice and received no answer. Is the bumping up of this thread the best answer I can expect?
I will stand with the Patriarchate of Serbia thank you very much, even if it means being labled "World Orthodox" with them.
George

[尼古拉前执事]

Dear George,

Based on this idea, then why would the Synod of Cyprian not be in direct communion with the Serbian church and the JP then? Why only ROCOR? Also if you are in communion with them through ROCOR (although this is temporary it seems as your synod said they will break communion upon ROCOR and the MP uniting) then are you not also - through Serbia - in communion with members of "World Orthodoxy" that you consider heretical? I ask you this since you disagreed with the statement that none of the so-called "World Orthodox" were heretical.

[George Australia]

Based on this idea, then why would the Synod of Cyprian not be in direct communion with the Serbian church and the JP then? Why only ROCOR? Also if you are in communion with them through ROCOR (although this is temporary it seems as your synod said they will break communion upon ROCOR and the MP uniting) then are you not also - through Serbia - in communion with members of "World Orthodoxy" that you consider heretical? I ask you this since you disagreed with the statement that none of the so-called "World Orthodox" were heretical.

Father Deacon,
You know our position on this, you have ridiculed it often enough.
We consider Ecumenism an error, that is, it has an "heretical character" but we alone, nor any local synod alone can condemn it as heresy. The ROCOR anathema against ecumenism was fundamentally a local anathema- it cannot apply to the whole Church, we therefore seek a unifying general Orthodox Synod to decide this matter. If you don't believe that this is our position, then read it on our website by clicking the link below:
http://www.synodinresistance.gr/tautotitaen.htm
I may consider some heirarchs heretical, but our Synod cannot act for the entire Body of Christ- that would be ceasropapism. The only way any local Synod can claim to act for the entire Body of Christ is when they consider themselves and themselves alone the sum total of the Body of Christ.
Our Synod holds that we alone cannot decide that an Orthodox Church is heretical and/or schismatic and Graceless- hence your oft repeated mockery of us as believers in "holy heretics"- and this, because we do not claim to be able to act on behalf of the whole Church.

George

[尼古拉前执事]

Dear George,

While I do disagree with the Cyprianite TOC's unique ecclesiology, I do not believe I have ever intended to mock or ridicule it. If you have personally felt mocked or ridiculed by my disagreement with this ecclesiology, then I apologize to you and ask your forgiveness.

Since Ecumenism is in essence condemned by seeking union with those already labeled as heretics by the Ecumenical Councils my viewpoint is that another Ecumenical Council does not have to be called to call communion with Monophysites or putting the Pope on the Dyptiches heretical.

If an 8th Ecumenical Council was called by the "World Orthodox" were to be called then you synod would most likely not be called as it is considered schismatic by many in "World Orthodoxy".

If this "8th Ecumenical Council" declared Ecumenism to be good and that all should be on the New Calendar then following your synod's position would they have to follow such decisions?

These are just a few questions that make the Cyprianite Ecclesiology unacceptable to me. Again I state this not to cause you person offense but to explain my feelings on the matters at hand.

[George Australia]

Since Ecumenism is in essence condemned by seeking union with those already labeled as heretics by the Ecumenical Councils my viewpoint is that another Ecumenical Council does not have to be called to call communion with Monophysites or putting the Pope on the Dyptiches heretical.

If, as you said on this thread, the "Cyprianites" are not in direct Communion with the Patriarchate of Serbia by virtue of the fact of being in communion with ROCOR- then why is all of "World Orthodoxy" in communion with monophysites by virtue of the fact of being in communion with Antioch who are in alledged pseudo communion with them?
The Pope is certainly not currently on the Dyptych of Constantinople- whose Dyptich is he on?

If an 8th Ecumenical Council was called by the "World Orthodox" were to be called then you synod would most likely not be called as it is considered schismatic by many in "World Orthodoxy".

The recent talks between us and the Church of Greece don't seem to indicate that we are viewed as "schismatic".

If this "8th Ecumenical Council" declared Ecumenism to be good and that all should be on the New Calendar then following your synod's position would they have to follow such decisions?

These are a lot of "ifs". This would simply not happen, because we have Christ's promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. Wouldn't you say that a local Synod is more likely to return such a decision on ecumenism than a general ecumenical one?
Should we not have an Ecumenical Synod because you fear an unfavourable outcome?
George