Schism

[Jean-Serge]

Bartholomews statements that Nathanael quoted are of the worst kind.

I have, of course, no sympathy form them.

But are they enough ground to break communion?

I am not sure

I just say this...I am not sure.

But I will read more...

I think we should not fall into a new sort of clericalism. Batholomeus is thE Patrairch of Constantinople but does not represent the Patriarchate of Constantinople... The only representation of this Patraiarchate would be its synod... So if Bartholomeus says a particular thing, I would like him to be removed by its synod, I would like people to write to the synod and lauchu a canonical trial... It seems nobody dared to do so... Is it enough to break communion? I am not sure...

Another point, recognizing the heretical mysteries is uncanonical too and deserves a removal according to the Apostles' canons. So the authors of recognition sould face canonical trial. But a canonical trial must offer the "culprit" the possibility of retractation...

At this time, I saw no canonical trial against the hyper-ecumenists ... I am aware of no such initiative... Unfortunately...

But at the same time, some canons allows to withdraw from sheperds disguised in wolf but only in the perspective of a future canonical trial...

So all this should be solved by a canonical procedure, with the Synods of these churches. The question is : "why has this not already happened'"... Meanwhile, as far as I am concerned, I do not seek communion in these hyper-ecumenist jurisdictions because the level of anticanonicity is so high... and so disturbing... They have adopted views that according to the canons justified removals of the bishops, excommunication and so on... I do not say they are already graceless.

As regard the Balamand agreement, what is his "juridical value". Indeed, was it ratified (or something like this) by the Synods of the orthodox churches whose representatives signed it. If it was not synodically ratified, I think it has no value at all. The problem is that it has not be denounced yet by the churches who signed it...

The issue of ecumenism is really difficult

[Nikodemus]

Jean Serge

This is my point too

To recognice mysteries in heretical churches is uncanonical but not heresy

But who is the authorised judge to deal with this question

It is not I, but a competent synod that should give them who said so an opportunity to change their false teaching.

One typical argument is, however true:

If a "orthodox" bishop defend a heresy that has been condemned by a synod you have the duty to withdraw yourself from communion with him.

But ecumenical gatherings are not in themselves a heresy...we need something more.

If a bishop say that the roman catholic docrines on filoque is coherent with orthodoxy...then they fall under anathema, and you should withdraw from them. But can anyone give an example that any orthodox bishop have teached so?

[Joseph]

From "The New Monophysites" by Fr. Seraphim Johnson

"For over one thousand years the definition of an Orthodox Church has been that at a minimum that body must accept the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And now we find that the Patriarchate of Antioch acknowledges as "fathers" those who were anathematized by the last four Ecumenical Councils and that it dares to enter into full communion in the Mysteries with those who reject the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, thereby bringing itself directly under the condemnations pronounced by the Holy Fathers of those Councils. There can be only one conclusion from this: the Patriarchate of Antioch is no longer an Orthodox Church, but rather a Monophysite body. For a long time the Orthodox Church has been torn by disagreement about how much, if any, ecumenical activity is legitimate. Some Orthodox have tried to argue that the canons against prayer with heretics do not apply to modern Protestant and Roman Catholic bodies, so that relations with them do not come under the condemnations of the Holy Fathers and the Councils. But now the time for pretense is over: thanks to Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, we no longer have to debate whether the ecumenical Orthodox Churches have departed from Orthodoxy. He has unflinchingly brought his church under the condemnation of the Fourth through Seventh Ecumenical Councils, thereby removing all doubt about whether his patriarchate is still Orthodox. It no longer is entitled to bear the name Orthodox, and any other Orthodox Church which remains in communion with it by that fact also ceases to be Orthodox and falls under the condemnations of the Ecumenical Councils."

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

AMDG wrote:

OOD

I did not say that it is not heretical...I just said that it is not clear heresy. They dont say that the purgatory, or the Immaculate Conception or Filioque or any other heresy of the roman church is on a par with orthodoxy. They just said that there are mysteries in the catholic church.

AMDG,

Nobody can convince a closed mind and heart.

The one (of many) statement I cited from Balamand is as clear-cut of a heresy as anything.

If you look at the Donatist heresy for example you will find that they too fall in the category you describe: "not a clear heresy"; because they "only" said, basically, that a sinful bishop is not a bishop. In other words, they were defining the ecclesiatical boundaries of the Church in a heretical way. Clearly this statement in the Balamand Confession, that the barnacled with heresy Latin system is the Church of Christ, is a heresy for MORE than the same reasons as the Donatist heresy - they are defining the boundaries of the Church in a heretical way, a way that the Church has never known. But in addition to that, they are also defacto calling all their beliefs the truth.

But you go ahead and accept whatever they are serving, I am certainly not here to prove anything to you. There is an answer and an explanation to justify almost anything, there is no shortage of that.

[Nikodemus]

OOD

At least I try not to be closed in mind and heart. If I am convinced of a thing, then I try to follow this path. But I dont want to defend myself on this point. If you are not sure about a thing, you dont want to be blamed for this...for being honest. I converted from roman catholicism because I was sure that orthodoxy on every point was right. You should therefore not think that I like or approve of Balamand. I dont.

Now, I like your argument from the Donatist heresy. But I question that Balamand states that the Roman Catholic church is a part of THE CHURCH. Or perhaps I missed something when I read the document.

Please try to avoid "ad hominem" arguments, if you choose to answer this post.

In XP

Nikodemus

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Nikodemus,

I am sorry for being rude in my last post.

I think you are missing the point to an extent. The heresy we are talking about is ecumenism (which is really syncretism and not real ecumenism at all). Do you recognize this as a heresy?

[Priest Siluan]

Nikodemus...
Do you recognize this as a heresy?

Good question