Timeline Of When Each Local Church Full From Grace

[haralampopoulosjc]

New Timeline:

Greece/Constantinople (1935, when the three bishops of the GOC declared the State Church and Ecumenical Patriarchate to be schismatic and graceless)

Moscow Patriarchate (1943, Metropolitan Sergius is uncanonically elected as the Patriarch of Moscow, creating the false Soviet Church)

Jerusalem (1948, Patriarch Timotheos joins the WCC)

Alexandria (1948, Patriarch Christopher II joins the WCC)

What are your thoughts on the full eucharist communion with full synodal approval of the state synods with the synodally anathematized heretical groups specifically the "Living Church" and the Soviets? Do you think this is not enough to constitute the fall of a state synod? I think SavaBeljovic made a good case for leniency in 1945 under the mistaken assumption of many people of the repentance of the Soviet Church under Patriarch Alexy I initially. There does have to be a point however where being in communion with them constitutes a fall of the synod don't you think?

I'm not sure if any of the other Eastern Patriarchs were in communion with the Living Church besides Constantinople. In any case, it's not a problem for the Greek True Orthodox, since we'd already separated from the State Church in 1924. In my opinion, it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to condemn the innovating local hierarchy as graceless before they actually become graceless. This is according to the canons, a bishop cannot judge another bishop outside of his jurisdiction. He can break communion with him, and he should if that bishop is a heretic, but it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to bring that bishop to trial, or to anathematize him.

[BenjaminMcCraw]

I'm not sure if any of the other Eastern Patriarchs were in communion with the Living Church besides Constantinople. In any case, it's not a problem for the Greek True Orthodox, since we'd already separated from the State Church in 1924. In my opinion, it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to condemn the innovating local hierarchy as graceless before they actually become graceless. This is according to the canons, a bishop cannot judge another bishop outside of his jurisdiction. He can break communion with him, and he should if that bishop is a heretic, but it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to bring that bishop to trial, or to anathematize him.

Both Constantinople and Alexandria were concelebrating with the Living Church from 1925. I agree that this doesnt directly affect the Greek True Orthodox because the State Synod of Greece was not in communion with the Living Church at any time. The Local Synod of Russia anathematized and condemned as graceless the Living Church and any in communion with them in 1923. I agree with most of what you said except that bishops cannot judge those outside of their jurisdiction, I don't think this is correct. A bishop should anathematize heresies regardless where they are, only by custom should bishops outside of the relevant jurisdiction allow the bishops in their own jurisdiction to anathematize the heretics first. If they are being negligent, refusing to do so, and it is leading souls astray then out of the love of neighbor and for the salvation of souls the bishops should anathematize those heretics even outside of their jurisdiction, because the Dogmas of the Faith are universal.

[haralampopoulosjc]

I'm not sure if any of the other Eastern Patriarchs were in communion with the Living Church besides Constantinople. In any case, it's not a problem for the Greek True Orthodox, since we'd already separated from the State Church in 1924. In my opinion, it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to condemn the innovating local hierarchy as graceless before they actually become graceless. This is according to the canons, a bishop cannot judge another bishop outside of his jurisdiction. He can break communion with him, and he should if that bishop is a heretic, but it is necessary for a local synod of bishops to bring that bishop to trial, or to anathematize him.

Both Constantinople and Alexandria were concelebrating with the Living Church from 1925. I agree that this doesnt directly affect the Greek True Orthodox because the State Synod of Greece was not in communion with the Living Church at any time. The Local Synod of Russia anathematized and condemned as graceless the Living Church and any in communion with them in 1923. I agree with most of what you said except that bishops cannot judge those outside of their jurisdiction, I don't think this is correct. A bishop should anathematize heresies regardless where they are, only by custom should bishops outside of the relevant jurisdiction allow the bishops in their own jurisdiction to anathematize the heretics first. If they are being negligent, refusing to do so, and it is leading souls astray then out of the love of neighbor and for the salvation of souls the bishops should anathematize those heretics even outside of their jurisdiction, because the Dogmas of the Faith are universal.

Of course, you're right, bishops can and have anathematized other bishops outside of their jurisdiction (the Eastern Patriarchs all anathematized Pope Vigilius). What I'm saying is that bishops are not automatically excommunicated for preaching heresy and that it takes another bishop to depose them, for him to be officially outside of the Church.

[BenjaminMcCraw]

Of course, you're right, bishops can and have anathematized other bishops outside of their jurisdiction (the Eastern Patriarchs all anathematized Pope Vigilius). What I'm saying is that bishops are not automatically excommunicated for preaching heresy and that it takes another bishop to depose them, for him to be officially outside of the Church.

I completely agree. The canons do not enforce themselves but must be enforced by believing bishops.