Timeline Of When Each Local Church Full From Grace

[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.

[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.

[Barbara]

EWW about the dreadful picture and the information BOTH !

I didn't know THAT about Fake-Patriarch Athenagoras being flown to Istanbul on that official aircraft !!! Woah !!!

Helps to know the full story. THANK YOU !

[BenjaminMcCraw]

Upon further consideration it only seems reasonable to conclude that World Orthodoxy fell from grace after the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism was issued. Any earlier synodal condemnations did not have the required number of hierarchs (12) to anathematize the state synods.

I think this is blurring two overlapping but distinction categories.

The first is the deposition of a bishop, and by extension the depositions of a whole state synod which would require 12 sitting diocesan or higher bishops, non of whom can be the accusers. The second category is the anathematizing of a heresy, which can be done by any single bishop in good standing with the church because every bishop has the keys to bind and loose from the Apostles and the obligation to rightly divide the word of truth. By custom anathema typically are not done without the synod and if the originator of the heresy is from a different jurisdiction then by custom the bishops of a different synod wait to let the bishops of that heresiarch condemn them.

In the case of deposition it would be illegal for a deposition to occur outside the proper jurisdiction unless there was no other lawful ecclesiastical authorities to adjudicate the matter. In the case of a heresy it is only by custom to show respect to other jurisdictions and to show unity among the synod that bishops dont usually anathematized by themselves, however it would not be illegal, invalid, or unheard of if they did.

Soul destroying heresy needs to be anathematised by any bishop in good standing in the church without imprudent delay and the only two things necessary is that he be correct that it is a heresy and for him to publicly teach the anathema for it to be binding on all the faithful to flee from the heresy. When it comes to our fight against the institutional patriarchates today in world orthodoxy and the question of when they lost grace we have several overlapping issues. We have the calendar issue which is not a heresy but is worthy of deposition. Praying with heretics and recognizing their mysteries which is not itself a heresy but is worthy of deposition. Ecumenism which is the modern reason behind the calendar change, praying with heretics, and recognizing their mysteries and is itself a heresy. Renovationism especially of the Living Church which is itself a heresy. Collaboration with god fighting authorities which is not itself a heresy but is worthy of deposition. Sergianism which is the modern reason behind collaboration with god fighting authorities and is itself a heresy. Bolshevism which is itself a heresy.

The local synod of Russia anathematized Renovationism and the living church. St. Tikon anathematized Bolshevism and collaboration with them. The Catacomb Church anathematized Sergianism. The Genuine Greek and Romanian synods rightfully fought from the beginning against the calendar change, praying with heretics, and recognizing their mysteries though in the beginning they didnt yet directly by name anathematize the modern reason behind it. ROCOR anathematized Ecumenism, and all of the Genuine Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian synods today have upheld and reinforced that Anathema with their own Anathemas. I dont think our project was without value and though God only knows the exact dates i believe our previous rough estimates are close.

[Thomas_Deretich]

the state church of Greece, which was condemned by the Matthewites' 1957 encyclical and was signed by the requisite number of hierarchs.

I don’t believe the loss of grace is contingent on the number of bishops. But I am curious how many bishops you think signed in 1957 or subsequently

[Theodore813]

Upon further consideration it only seems reasonable to conclude that World Orthodoxy fell from grace after the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism was issued. Any earlier synodal condemnations did not have the required number of hierarchs (12) to anathematize the state synods.

Hmmm….doesn’t a local council operate in a similar fashion to an ecumenical council? Meaning, it is the role of the bishops to discern what is true in Heaven and to bind/loose on earth? Can a church sever themselves off from the Church, depriving themselves of sacramental grace, even before the convening of a local council?

[BenjaminMcCraw]

@BenjaminMcCraw

The only exception might be the state church of Greece, which was condemned by the Matthewites' 1957 encyclical and was signed by the requisite number of hierarchs. We don't have any of the canons and documents from the catacomb councils, anything written online regarding them is merely speculation. Patriarch St. Tikhon's anathema could be said to apply to the Sergianists, but it remains a fact that Lazar Zhurbenko allowed his parishioners to commune in MP churches in the 1980s when there were no nearby FROC parishes. But like you said only God knows the exact dates.

@haralampopoulosjc

I read the 1957 encyclical you provided, thank you. Though the heading reads "Declaration Against the New Calendarists, Modernists and Ecumenists" there is nothing in the body of the text that anathematizes ecumenists by name or concept like a quick example i made up of what it could say or something similar "to all those who do not believe the Church is One as we profess in the creed, that the church is to be found invisibly among members of different sects, or the church is broken into branches each equally or by degrees of participation together are considered the church, ect. Anathema!" The closest that the text says is this:

We denounce the “official” [church] as innovationist, as schismatic, as cacodox, paving directly towards heresy.
We have no communion with the cacodox “official” [church], not recognizing the validity of its mysteries, not considering its acts and condemnations against us to
have any authority.

Which is good but its not specific.

We may not have the primary sources for the catacomb synods but neither do we for the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D. but in a similar fashion we accept the oral tradition on these synods that we have in our communities on faith. I agree with you on St. Tikon and if Lazar Zhurbenko allowed that I believe that is a terrible sin that he would have to answer to God for, Lord have mercy on him. I dont judge him for it personally or think less of him, were i in his same shoes i could have just as easily committed the same sin.