Moderator: Mark Templet
CGW wrote:Nicholas wrote:Show me your bishops' faith and I show you your faith.
I think you presume if you say that; at any rate, I see no precedent for the statement.
When you commemorate a bishop your are a confirming that said bishop is Orthodox and you share the same faith. Like wise, taking Holy Communion from said bishop (or from those who commemorate him) you affirm that you share the same faith.
In other words:
Nicholas wrote:Show me your bishops' faith and I show you your faith.
Daniel wrote:When you commemorate a bishop your are a confirming that said bishop is Orthodox and you share the same faith. Like wise, taking Holy Communion from said bishop (or from those who commemorate him) you affirm that you share the same faith.
Much like the Holy Fathers at Espigmenou. The no longer commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople, because of his ecumenist activies. Which is why Black Bart is violently trying to evict the Fathers.
Nicholas wrote:Okay time for one more rebuttal before work ...
anastasios wrote:The sins of the hierarch do not invalidate the sacraments, as the Donatists argued.
Actually they argued priests, but we are talking of the heresy of a synod, which does make them heretics and thus graceless. Show me your bishops' faith and I show you your faith.
It was not heretical what the MP bishops did. It was a sin. There is a big difference.
anastasios
Disclaimer: Many older posts were made before my baptism and thus may not reflect an Orthodox point of view.
Please do not message me with questions about the forum or moderation requests. Jonathan Gress (jgress) will be able to assist you.
Please note that I do not subscribe to "Old Calendar Ecumenism" and believe that only the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos is the canonical GOC of Greece. I do believe, however, that we can break down barriers and misunderstandings through prayer and discussion on forums such as this one.
bogoliubtsy wrote:Nicholas,
Unfortunately for the ROAC position, your links provide absolutely no evidence to support your claim that ROCOR has historically considered the Moscow Patriarchate to be heretical and without grace in their sacraments.
Peter,
I would say your postings are distorted, misleading, and show no real evidence. First, an individual bishop who is liberal, or conservative (tems used for ease) is not the attitude of the Synod. Secondly, and most impotantly, you have fallen into the dishonest mistake of clamming that the MP was created before 1943. Remeber, that it was Stalin that allowed for the creatin of his CHurch in 1943, but before that, there was no MP. So, when you write and add in "MP" you are not being honest. The Church in the times of of the revolution until the MP was somewhat different. There may have been God fearing clerics or bishops at first who had no idea of what was going on. Rember, it was not a time of intant messages or online boards. But, in 1943, it was very clear. It was clear who created the MP and who they bowed down to.
But, we do have many catacomb and new-martyr testimonies of how they saw things. St. Basil of Kineshma refused to even call Sergius Orthodox!.
in Christ;
Priest Dionysi
Daniel wrote:CGW wrote:Nicholas wrote:Show me your bishops' faith and I show you your faith.
I think you presume if you say that; at any rate, I see no precedent for the statement.
When you commemorate a bishop your are a confirming that said bishop is Orthodox and you share the same faith. Like wise, taking Holy Communion from said bishop (or from those who commemorate him) you affirm that you share the same faith.
It is foolhardy to wave such absolute, unqualified statements in front of a mathematician. It would be better, perhaps, to say "ought" or "should" in each of these statements.
As it is, we get what I see: the self-identified learned disputing this point or that point in lofty but ultimately empty terms. A sobor of college students and young men passes judgement on priest and bishop, across the ages, and few stop to think that there is anything untoward about this. If there were such submission to one's bishop, then this forum would cease; the bishops would converse, not us. (And in private.)
CGW wrote:It is foolhardy to wave such absolute, unqualified statements in front of a mathematician. It would be better, perhaps, to say "ought" or "should" in each of these statements.
If you don't want to accept it that's fine. But that is what the Church as always taught. Otherwise, why would St. John Chrystosom say "If your bishop be heretical, flee, flee, flee as from fire and serpent", or St. Igantius tell us "If thy bishop should teach any thing outside of the appointed order, even if he lives in chastity, or if we work signs, of if he prophecy, let him be unto thee as a wolf in sheep's clothing, for he works the destruction of souls"
CGW wrote:As it is, we get what I see: the self-identified learned disputing this point or that point in lofty but ultimately empty terms. A sobor of college students and young men passes judgement on priest and bishop, across the ages, and few stop to think that there is anything untoward about this. If there were such submission to one's bishop, then this forum would cease; the bishops would converse, not us. (And in private.)
Depsite having no voting "rights", the laity has, as I have been taught, always present arguements for or against one thing or another at sobors.
