Question If ROCOR joins MP will all ROCOR threads go here?

[尼古拉前执事]

I do not agree with the Cyprianites, but neither do I call them 'World Orthodox'. However when ROCOR-L does go in to union with the MP I will ask that new threads will go in this thread. The old threads would not be moved as it was a bout a ROCOR before they succumbed.

Dear in Christ OOD,

I have three questions.

1) Are you saying by this that "World Orthodox" is defined by what you consider to be "World Orthodox"?

I may be wrong, but I thought the definition of "World Orthodox" is any church in communion with the Patriarchates that have fallen into one heresey or another. Again, I do not see why you object to the term if your own synod uses it George.

[尼古拉前执事]

I remember when this was brought up a few weeks ago. At the time, I couldn't figure it out at first, but after a while the answer that I assume is correct did come to me. You must have left before I expressed my thoughts. As worded, it does not say that people within Orthodoxy have to fall into the heresies listed, for it is enough if they merely "sought communion with" those heresies. Certainly, some Protestants are iconoclasts. Therefore, when he mentions iconoclasts, I believe that Dcn. Nikolai was speaking of those Protestants who participate in the WCC and who some Orthodox (from one perspective) have sought communion with (given all the agreed-statements and whatnot).

Thank you Justin. You are quite correct in the meaning there.

[George Australia]

Dear Fr. Deacon Nicholas,

I may be wrong, but I thought the definition of "World Orthodox" is any church in communion with the Patriarchates that have fallen into one heresey or another.

Am I therefore wrong when I say that the definition of "World Orthodox" keeps changing? Only 2 short months ago, when you started the "World Orthodox" section, you gave the following definitions:

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.
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 3130#23130

So 2 months ago, "World Orthodox" meant "being in Communion with Ecumenists and New Calendarists". Today, only two months later, "World Orthodox" means "being in Communion with any Patriarchate".
Where does the Georgian Patriarchate stand? It is niether Ecumenist nor New Calendarist. It therefore has the same status that ROCOR has in that it is not currently in heresy itself, but is in Communion with so-called 'heretics'- so why is the Georgian Patriarchate "World Orthodox" and ROCOR not? By this definition, ROCOR is already "World Orthodox" by virtue of being in Communion with the Patrirachates of Jerusalem and Serbia is it not? Why then must you wait for the rapprochment of ROCOR and the MP before requesting that ROCOR related posts be moved to the "World Orthodox" section?

when ROCOR-L does go in to union with the MP I will ask that new threads will go in this thread. The old threads would not be moved as it was a bout a ROCOR before they succumbed.

By your own definition above, they are already "World Orthodox".
And why is it that you say:

I do not agree with the Cyprianites, but neither do I call them 'World Orthodox'.

when we are in Communion with ROCOR and therefore in defacto Communion with the Jerusalem and Serbian Patriarchates?
Despite the apparently clear definition of "World Orthodox" you give above, there appears to be an arbitrary assignment of the term "World Orthodox" to juristictions, even when they meet the criteria of the definition.

Again, I do not see why you object to the term if your own synod uses it George.

Could you please quote a Synodal Decision or Decree of the Synod in Resistance which uses this term? I personally object to making divisions where there are no divisions. I do not accept that all of those in Communion with the Patriarchates are in heresy. A local Church is not 'heretical' simply because they are in Communion with a Patriarchate. And please do not tell me that you don't equate the term "World Orthodox" with heresy when you have said:

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'.

The term is just a more gentle way of saying that.

George

[尼古拉前执事]

I should have said the simple definition as i do not see either of the definitions going against one another. If you do not like division and think none of "World Orthodoxy" is in heresy then why are you in Synod of Cyprian and not in "World Orthodoxy", especially when your Synod has said upon union with the MP they will break with ROCOR-L?

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear List,

Deacon Nikolai said:

...especially when your Synod has said upon union with the MP they will break with ROCOR-L?

I guess Katya said something earlier that we all draw the line in the
sand at different times. I wrote something on a different topic line that people leave ROCOR when their spiritual conscience gets too disturbed by the "rapproachment" process.

So, as an add on to Dn. Nikolai's comment, I read recently that
Bp Michael of Boston (ROCOR-L) concelebrated with Met. Vladimir (MP) in St. Petersburg. If there is concelebration, when do you say there is union? Is there "official" union when things are on paper, and is there "unofficial" de facto union already in practice?

Nectarios

[George Australia]

I should have said the simple definition as i do not see either of the definitions going against one another. If you do not like division and think none of "World Orthodoxy" is in heresy then why are you in Synod of Cyprian and not in "World Orthodoxy", especially when your Synod has said upon union with the MP they will break with ROCOR-L?

Father Deacon,
Now, firstly, I did not say that I'm sure that "none of World Orthodoxy is in heresy" as you put it, did I? You see Ecumenism as an error, I see Ecumenism as an error, some Bishops and theologians both within and outside those Churches which are making Ecumenist advances see Ecumenism as an error- but some do not. This does not mean that the heresy is any less an heresy, but just as the situation was not clear during the Iconoclasm, so it is that it is not clear enough for everyone to see that false Ecumenism is manifestly an heresy- by "false", I mean, not based on dogmatic unity. The union of repentant heterodox individuals and groups with the Orthodox Church is "true" Ecumenism.
Given this, I find the current the situation with ROCOR and the Synod in Resistance is delicate, and will wait and see what happens. I have spoken with Bishop Chrysostomos here in Australia, and although I am not at liberty to disclose all we discussed, I am more hopeful as a result. Suffice it to say that given certain criteria, the rapproachment of ROCOR with the MP could be deemed acceptable to maintain union with ROCOR. I am hoping the position of the Synod in Resistance regarding the rapproachment proves to simply be a catalyst to the MP and ROCOR clearing their difference with truth and true reconcilliation. I am waiting to see what happens. I am certainly opposed to the suspending of Communion simply because ROCOR has rapproached a "Patriarchate".
So, no, I do not like division in the Church- do you? But where others may see "schism", we see "suspended Communion". Schism cannot be healed without deciding which is the Orthodox Church and the non-Orthodox one repenting of it's error and being absorbed into the Orthodox Church. Suspended Communion or "walling off" says nothing of the presence or absence of Grace in the group walled off from, and it is this which people confuse with a notion that we believe in "holy heretics". The Synod in Resistence is disliked by some traditionalists because we do not declare schisms- and I find this very strange.
To "wall off" is also a sad situation, but it gives more hope for healing.
This is the best answer I have at the moment to your questions. In return, could you plase provide the best answer you have at the moment to my questions which were and still are:

Where does the Georgian Patriarchate stand? It is niether Ecumenist nor New Calendarist. It therefore has the same status that ROCOR has in that it is not currently in 'heresy' itself, but is in Communion with so-called 'heretics'- so why is the Georgian Patriarchate "World Orthodox" and ROCOR not? By this definition, ROCOR is already "World Orthodox" by virtue of being in Communion with the Patrirachates of Jerusalem and Serbia is it not? Why then must you wait for the rapprochment of ROCOR and the MP before requesting that ROCOR related posts be moved to the "World Orthodox" section? "

George

[paul]

You mean to tell me that you think because ROCOR has not yet joined with Moscow that they are not already apart of "World Orthodoxy"?

"I say unto you, That whosever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart".

The Church is a woman. We refer to it as "She". A church who looks upon ecuminism with lust in its heart is already gone awhoring with ecuminism. Like Hosea's wife with strange Gods.

paul