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

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

dear "R"/Kollyvas,

you missed my point entirely. Of course the Church decides things in concilarity; however, to expect the "world" or 'majority' Orthodox who are already themselves in either schism or in ecumenistic heresy to come together in a Pan Orthodox council to condem themselves is never going to happen. that is why I wrote, that the Arians who were the majority did not form an Ecumenical council (as the majority) and proceeded to condemn themselves. It was the Orthodox 'minority" who who condemned the Arians at the 1st EC.

I don't really have a disagreement with you, other than in this regards. do you really think the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek State church, Antioch, Moscow Pat., and so on are going to condemn the New Calendar and all their ecumenism? If so, this is very wishful thinking.

Instead, it will be up to those Churches who have maintained the Orthodox Apostolic Tradition who must convene any kind of council. To date, only local churches have condemned Ecumenism, i.e, the ROCOR, the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (Matthewites/Florinites) and so on.

I brought up the 1593 sigillion to demonstrate that the Church already proclaimed any deviation from the Holy Traditions and Orthodox Calendar as Anathema. in 1935, a synod of bishops (the Genuine Orthdox Church of Greee) then applied the anathema as it was already in existence as a line in the sand for the Church. This Sigillion/anathema was done in "conciliarity".

So, if you believe that heresy and schism can or must be fought from within the ill Churches, and that only until a Pan Orthodox council condemns their ecumenism, please share with us your thoughts on the realistic probability of this happening, as I really cannot see that happening.

respectfully in Chirst,
Nectarios

[ioannis]

That the Church does not function without counciliarity, neither in unity, nor in resistance...Defying it is rebellion against the Church.

You have also said that the Church tolerated the Filioque heresy, and every other heresy, and you conclude above by saying the Church does not function without counciliarity.

I must say simply - it has always been anything but.

This is just shameless and cunning, and it is intolerable that you would think to lead people without having any semblance of the truth. The Church tolerated the errors?! One cannot believe what one reads!

The Church never tolerated heresy for any space of time, but struck at its source as soon as it reared its horrible head.

Indeed, it is known that the seeds of the Filioque heresy in Augustine, the great teacher of the Westerners. Already during the fourth and fifth centuries, Latin theologians discussed this tenet. The Filioque first appeared in Spain at the Councils of Toledo in 547 and 589. Although it sprang from Orthodox motives, it was a rationalistic extrapolation which appeared during the theological battle against another heresy. From Spain, the Filioque found its way into the local confessions of the Frankish nation a little after 767.

It was not widely known and never had any official definition until it was in the hands of Charlemagne's "theologians". At this time, as soon as it was heard in Jerusalem by the Eastern Church, it immediatley caused eastern bishops to break communion with the Latins and caused a great stir. The Eastern bishops brought the heresy to the attention of the Western bishops at which time the Pope summarily rejected the addition and, in the Church of Saint Peter, placed two silver plaques which had the Symbol of Faith inscribed in Greek and Latin without the Filioque.

This heresy was put to rest until it turned up again by Pope Nicholas I. Immediatley, again, the Church reacted and those who understood the heresy condemned it before any council was convoked. This is why St. Photius was exiled.

Again we see the same happen with the Nesorian heresy. When Saint Hypatius understood what opinions Nestorius held, immediately, in the Church of the Apostles, he erased his name from the diptychs, so that it should no longer be pronounced at the Oblation. This was before Nestorius' condemnation by the Third Ecumenical Council.

When the most pious Bishop Eulalius learned of this, he was anxious about the outcome of the affair. And seeing that it had been noised abroad, Nestorius also ordered him to reprimand Hypatius. For Nestorius was still powerful in the city. Bishop Eulalius spoke thus to Hypatius: "Why have you erased his name without understanding what the consequences would be?" Saint Hypatius replied: "From the time that I learned that he said unrighteous things about the Lord, I have no longer been in communion with him and I do not commemorate his name; for he is not a bishop." Then the bishop, in anger, said: "Be off with you!
Make amends for what you have done, for I shall take measures against you." Saint Hypatius replied: "Do as you wish. As for me, I have decided to suffer anything, and it is with this in mind that I have done this." From the Life of Saint Hypatius.

So when the Orthodox priests of Constantinople ceased to commemorate
their bishop, Nestorius, they did not await the judgment of a council. And fortunately so. A council was indeed convoked in Constantinople.
What, however, was its judgment? It justified Nestorius and anathematized the Orthodox!

And the same thing happened at the time of the Iconoclasts. Orthodox Christians broke communion with the Iconoclasts and did not wait for a council. But a "Ecumenical Council" was finally convoked in 754, and what did it say? It condemned the Orthodox, again! Fortunatley, the Orthodox did not think as you do.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Ioanis wrote:

And the same thing happened at the time of the Iconoclasts. Orthodox Christians broke communion with the Iconoclasts and did not wait for a council. But a "Ecumenical Council" was finally convoked in 754, and what did it say? It condemned the Orthodox, again! Fortunatley, the Orthodox did not think as you do.

I stand corrected in writing that the "majority" heterodox did not have their own "ecumenical councils". the Iconoclasts as you point out, did indeed have their council, and this also backs up my point, that they did not condemn their own error. Likewise, the 'majority' Orthodox will not condemn themselves, and our respective bishops/synods are correct in seperating themselves from heresy and schism.

nectarios

[Kollyvas]

At one time St. Maximos the Confessor was the last living Orthodox Christian--monothelitism was triumphant. Then the Spirit of God acted and renewed the Church and Orthodoxy triumphed. WE MUST HAVE FAITH!!! Bishops holding arian and semi-arian views were indeed present at Nicea and Constantinople and by Conciliar decree were called upon to repent--the empire was the mechanism which convoked the councils. Indeed, St. Nicholas was even deposed for striking arius. nestorios was present at Ephesus. monophysites were present at Chalcedon, etc. Regarding the filioque, once it was introduced in N Spain (It seems the Church at Seville may not have adopted it), Gaul, Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, it was never removed, yet the East remained in communion with the West, with the Emperor addressing Charlemagne at his coronation as "most pious & Orthodox." Conciliar decision had not been reached yet. Likewise, Councils and anathemas can be sited by both sides to justify their positions--the calendar reform you speak of they will justify by saying IS NOT the papal reform, but a different one, etc. So there is no other vehicle to resistance, either within or without, save conciliarity. NO Canon, NO Council gives the right to one synodeia or even local church to depose and excommunicate the rest...that is ultramontanism. In nothing that I put forward do I deceive: I even make it a point to justify resistance. The implication I am misleading ANYONE is uncalled for.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

[ioannis]

NO Canon, NO Council gives the right to one synodeia or even local church to depose and excommunicate the rest...that is ultramontanism.

We have not excommunicated anyone. The Holy Fathers say these men, the ecumenist heretics are "self-condemned", and we are jsut recognizing the obvious.

In addition, EVERY Holy Father, Every Saint, and Every Council that talked about heresy and heretics (and there were many), said to flee these men, for they are "not bishops, but false bishops". And they say, the same is true for those in communion with them.

[1937 Miraculous Cross]

Dear Mr. Malleev-Pokrovsky,

you wrote:

Likewise, Councils and anathemas can be sited by both sides to justify their positions--the calendar reform you speak of they will justify by saying IS NOT the papal reform, but a different one, etc. So there is no other vehicle to resistance, either within or without, save conciliarity.

this just proves my point: that the 'majority" Orthodox who are currently in error with New Calendar schism and ecumenism, will not condemn themselves in any conciliar Pan Orthodox council. They will continue what they have always done by JUSTIFYING matters as you mention above.

You also are correct in pointing out that the Arians indeed were present at the 1st EC....but, I would point out that they were not the majority present at that council. for a new Pan Orthodox council to take place that is Apostolic, then it would have to be the "Traditional" Old Calendarists running it as the majority. Historically, when the heretics had their "councils" as with the Iconoclasts, they were the majority at their council, and of course they did not condemn themselves.

So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter of councilarity. I do not believe a council of New Calendarists as the majority, will ever condemn themselves of their numerous errors. Given that, the Old Calendarists have history on their side to flee from such in error and to apply the anathemas and canons against them.

respectfully in Christ,
nectarios

[Kollyvas]

The Fathers call for Councils to resolve disputes--they have since before the Council of Jerusalem...I refer you back to the post I provided siting +Metropolitan Hierotheos. Now, regarding Nicea and Constantinople, the ecclesiastical climate then was such that in a majority of territories which the Church covered that the arians/semi-arians either were ruling/pulling the strings/bullying others and rebellions were arising on the part of the Orthodox. This caused disruptions in the Church and in the empire which threatened the integrity of the social fabric of the empire. It was not a foregone conclusion that the Orthodox would triumph at Nicea, and there were many quite ready to accomodate the arians there. The arians hoped that by ingratiating themselves to the emperor, they could impose their will. Nicea was no Orthodox pep rally. Truth triumphed. Likewise, we only have to allude to the circumstances of monothelitism and iconoclasm to appreciate that numbers are not what won the day for Orthodoxy, but the sovereignty of Truth...If we don't have the Faith to see this through, we shouldn't be pounding our chests saying we're Orthodox--HAVE FAITH!!! THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKS. Whether you are in resistance or not, your obligation is to work toward a conciliar resolution of these disputes and restoration of Communion with regularization of synodeias which otherwise would be constituents of local churches.
R