George Australia wrote: If those who use the term "World Orthodox" were indeed sincere and guiless, they would use the term "UNORTHODOX" or "HETERODOX" to describe those they disagree with and consider 'heretical'.
This is an interesting semantic point; in practice, do you call the papacy "Catholic" or adherents of the pope "Catholics"? I know some refuse to do so on the grounds that "Catholic" signifies universality, only properly attributable to a truly universal church, ie. the true Church. However, if you call them "papists" you have to deal with the etymology of the word "pope", which I know the Greeks sometimes confute with "papa" - one could concievably refuse to call the pope the pope because he is not one's real spiritual father. Likewise, one might refuse to call the "Patriarch of Moscow" or "Metropolitan Laurus" by their ecclessial titles, but this would have the effect of being both confusing (to those not familiar with the civil names held by Drozdov and Laurus) and insulting to those who recognize the validity of their claims to such titles.
I agree with your argument that organizations called "World Orthodox" must be heretical or truly Orthodox, but we do have "Greek Orthodox" and "Russian Orthodox", we have Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Moslems, Pagans, Wiccans, Satanists... they are all either Orthodox or Heterodox, but that doesn't mean the name is meaningless, simply that the name doesn't reflect the Orthodoxy of the group. One could argue that this creates the possibility of having a discussion including people that believe a group is Orthodox and also those people that believe a group is heterodox, since such discussion including both sides is probably impossible in a forum labeled "Heterodox Christianity of the non-Papist Eastern Variety" or something along those lines. I've settled for calling the pope Catholic, the Ayatollah a Moslem, and the Patriarchates "world Orthodox" simply because these words seem to be reasonably effective in communicating what it is that I'm referring to, in a pluralistic setting. Strictly speaking, of course, the patriarchates are not Orthodox - they do not uphold Orthodox doctrine, do not teach what has been held everywhere, at all times, and by all, and often persecute those who do. However, they call themselves Orthodox, and in order to be clear about who it is that we are speaking about and that their actual "Orthodoxy" is at stake in these discussions, "world Orthodoxy" seems to be a perfectly adequate term.
With regards to where ROCOR (L) should be discussed, if there remains any doubt, I think that could be settled by asking a bishop of the ROCOR (L) whether the ROCOR (L) is closer to the Moscow Patriarchate or to the Catacomb Church, Metropolitan Vitaly (in terms of his legacy or his present position), Metropolitan Philaret, and the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. Everyone in ROCOR should be asking themselves this question anyway!
) . I tried to register with my previous name, but no luck.