I Believe In ONE Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church...

[SouthernOrthodox]

I agree not to commune with the likes of the EP, GOA, but I think the underlining issues for me anyway, is no to condemn a whole jurisdiction of the Orthodox church because of one, two or ten of its Priest. I am certain they think they are right we know we are right so the only commonality is the Orthodox in our name. Kind of sounds like a good starting point.

[Chrysostomos]

I mean when the EP, OCA, ect. ect. recogize RCC and Protestant "baptisms" as real Baptisms, they are recognizing that they have the Mysteries of the Church, and can make people members of the Church of Christ.

Ioannis brings up a valid question.

I did the same in a previous post, and no replies except from Ioannis. It is a difficult challenge in providing an answer to my questions in the post.

Here's the post link: http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... ght=#30103

The challenge to this is that it creates an uncomfortableness in us all. We all might even feel the desire to basically push off the discussion. Frankly, I understand. Yet, if we continue to push it off, then are we not also part of the problem, rather than the solution?

Have the "World Orthodox" Churches come out with any "official" correspondence in regards to the reception of baptisms from Catholic and Protestant Churches. Basically to the effect saying: "We acknowledge that their baptisms are as "valid" as our Orthodox Baptisms and as such confirm them as Eastern Orthodox Christians."

If not, why not?

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!
He is and ever shall be!
First and foremost, the Church does have its problems in certain jurisdictions, resister and SCOBA--they seem to be almost universal these days, for we are ALL sinners. Now, let's say ecumenical excesses exist, which they do. Let's also be quick to recognize that through the centuries there have been canonical abuses, making no apology for them. The question then becomes does one have the authority to unilaterally excommunicate the rest, even one diocese, one synodeia?! St. Maximos lacked this authority, nor did he pretend to it, but he set the stage for the SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In a similar circumstance, St. Basil the Great...so where might it be found? Perhaps in Tertullian's wayward days, but that delegitimizes the approach. Yes, resistance is valid IN CONJUNCTION WITH counciliarity. Moreover,it is Christian charity to love your brothers and sisters; dismissing them as heterodox because certain personages in their jurisdictions have made compromises is narrow and sectarian. Orthodoxy has no need of popes. As is being neglected, I have emphasized COUNCILIAR CONDEMNATIONS OF ecumenism, sergianism, renovationism, unionism with Rome, while a SCOBAn and a loyal son of the MP--surely my Orthodoxy is not deficienT?! Moreover, the question that is begged is succinctly:

What authority. what council of Oikumenical character, has made that determination to hallow one diocese while deposing and excommunicating all the rest?!

The boundaries of schism are in sight...Resistance only works when it is oriented toward the restoration of the Oikumene, not rejection of it.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[ioannis]

Have the "World Orthodox" Churches come out with any "official" correspondence in regards to the reception of baptisms from Catholic and Protestant Churches. Basically to the effect saying: "We acknowledge that their baptisms are as "valid" as our Orthodox Baptisms and as such confirm them as Eastern Orthodox Christians."

Yes they have. There are numerous documents that demonstrate this. But more importantly, the belief has penetrated almost all of thier churches.

This is not a "canonical violation" as Kollyvas would have it; not any more at least than the Filioque was a "canonical violation". And yes, we are "all sinners" as Kollyvas says, but we are not all heretics.

Kollyvas says: "St. Maximos lacked this authority, nor did he pretend to it, but he set the stage for the SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. In a similar circumstance, St. Basil the Great...so where might it be found?"

Kollyvas, don't just say it, demonstrate this for us, because I have a completley opposite picture which I can demonstrate with regard to these great saints.

[Kollyvas]

Was monothelitism condemned and rejected by the Church by fiat of St. Maximos or by the Sixth Ecumenical Council? Likewise arianism? The filioque dispute came to a head after centuries of intercommunion between East and West...it was introduced in Toledo in 589 to batlle arianism, and only in 1054 were the latins finally excommunicated by the Church of Constantinople. Yes, St. Photios did cease Communion with Rome, but a later Council restored it. So, dispensing anathemas and combatting heresy does have an individual obligation but only by/from/through COUNCILIARITY--outside its province is no Canonical Orthodox structure. Until a Council condemns the local churches in question, they are Orthodox and their believers Orthodox Christians...Conversely, until the views of resisters are heard in Council, their voicing their opposition in separation does not necessarily mean schism: only when they arrogate the role of Counciliar authority.
R

[ioannis]

Kollyvas,

You make blanket one-liners that are not true, and so many of them that it is impossible to respond. For instance, you say, "The filioque dispute came to a head after centuries of intercommunion between East and West". This is not true. Neither is what you wrote about the saints you named and I will be happy to talk about any single one of them, just let me know which.

[Kollyvas]

I am more than happy to begin with whichever one you wish and continue down the list. I don't lie or mislead, for I don't believe it advances Orthodoxy. I'm quite open. But, for instance, with the question of the filioque, which originated in Spain in the 6th cent. and spread to Gaul, Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and finally Rome, the Holy Patriarchs of the East did maintain Communion with the Church of Rome and her Bishops. The Byzantine emperors did recognize the court of Charlemagne and his title of "Holy Roman Emperor" and even sent emmisaries. The Franks were invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council and other councils, so...St. Maximos never imposed anathemas or excommunicated anyone. St. Basil did not single-handedly root out arianism in the Church, so....
R