Statement of Comm Dir of ROCOR Synod

[George Australia]

On the contrary, despite the fact that the historic Church strenuously implores them to flee their “bishops” on any one of a number of issues, they remain in communion with Christ's enemies.

Dear in Christ, OOD,
What is of concern here to me is that you, as a moderator of this forum are now in a position to make this personal opinion of yours the official position of the forum. I can see that very soon, anyone who does not "flee their bishop" and fly to yours or ROAC or any of the juristictions in the ever diminishing list in the forum description will not be welcome here.
By the way, I note that my juristiction isn't listed either :shock:
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

I appreciate and understand your concern.

My goal as moderator is simple and can be sumed up in just a few points.

1) Make sure there are no personal attacks.
2) Make sure this board is generally used to discuss Orthodoxy, and related subjects.
3) Make sure there is no vulger content.

I come here primarily to uphold these prinicipals and every once in awhile I through in a few words. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and you are free to say anything you would like inside this context. You can tell me how I or my bishop is not Orthodox if you like, I will even let you violate rule number 1 if it is against me.

Personally, I think the real trouble with any board of this type is that people often cannot discuss the real issues dispassionatley. Very often, they take the matter personal and as soon as emotions are alllowed to slip in, it quickly becomes personal.

[George Australia]

Personally, I think the real trouble with any board of this type is that people often cannot discuss the real issues dispassionatley. Very often, they take the matter personal and as soon as emotions are alllowed to slip in, it quickly becomes personal.

Dear in Christ, OOD,
You see how you started this paragraph with the words "personally, I think"? Compare these two statements:

Statement 1:
"Despite the fact that the historic Church strenuously implores them to flee their “bishops” on any one of a number of issues, they remain in communion with Christ's enemies."

Statement 2:
"Personally, I think that despite the fact that the historic Church strenuously implores them to flee their “bishops” on any one of a number of issues, they remain in communion with Christ's enemies."

Statement 1 sounds harsher than statement 2, and statement 2 is truer than statement 1 unless we believe that we are the sole voice of Orthodoxy.

Stating: "in my opinion"... "I believe"..."I think"...makes a huge difference, and also assists people on forums such as this to be as dispassionate as is possible for us fallen, passionate people.
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Dear George,

Yes George, it does make a difference. But I am not one of those people who think the faith is unknowable, that we cannot really know it. That is, it is reduced down to personal opinion like the Protestants.

I don't believe that I am anything as far as being a "voice". But I can read and repeat what I read. And when I read the anathemas of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and then I read that the ecumenist communion is in communion with them, well, I can do math too.

[George Australia]

But I am not one of those people who think the faith is unknowable, that we cannot really know it. That is, it is reduced down to personal opinion like the Protestants.

Nor am I one of those people OOD, rather, I hold to the Orthodox doctrine that the Church is Conciliar and 'Katholiki'.

I don't believe that I am anything as far as being a "voice". But I can read and repeat what I read. And when I read the anathemas of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and then I read that the ecumenist communion is in communion with them, well, I can do math too.

There are five things that you are stating are objective facts here:

1) The Anathemas of the Fourth Ecumenical Council against Monophysites.

2) The Coptic Orthodox Church is still non-chalcedon (Monophysite) in it's doctrine.

3) There is definitely Communion between some of "World Orthodoxy"
and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

4) Communion of some of "World Orthodoxy" with monophysites (if indeed this is the case) consitutes Communion of all of "World Orthodoxy" with monophysites.

5) That "ecumenist communion is communion with them"

While the first one is certainly an objective fact which I agree is already decided by the Church, the second, third, fourth ones are not so clearly decided by the Church 'Katholiki' and the fifth one could either be an objective fact or an interpretation, since "ecumenist" is still not clearly defined by the Church 'Katholiki'. The only juristiction which has so far clearly defined the heresy of ecumenism is ROCOR, and this has yet to be adopted by the Church catholic- we need a General Council to do that.
You may be right in your statements and you may be wrong- it is not their validity I am questioning. Rather it is the process which you use to arrive at these conclusions that I find questionable and dangerous, and against Holy Tradition by deciding for yourself what is the the Patristic, Traditional teaching of the Church. What you are saying may be correct OOD, but what you cannot say is that what you are saying is definitively the opinion of the Church, all you can say is that you believe this to be the Opinion of the Church, That is to say, none of us can claim to act as the sole voice of Orthodoxy, since Orthodoxy is Conciliar. To use your own analogy, it is the Protestants who "read texts" and decide for themselves.
George

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

1) These are available to read in several places which I can provide, along with the Orthodox anathemas against the Monothelytes.

2) The Coptic Church is still Monophysite, which is proven in several ways, one of which is that it leads to their public and shameless statement of Monothelytism. If you would like me to direct you to a website where they state their monothelytism openly it would be no trouble to do so, as I have done it in the past.

3) I also have links to official documents where the ecumenists state this, along with documents showing they exchange their clergy, share churches, ect. Let me know if you would like these links.

4 & 5) I remember Matuska Ann Lardas once called this a "aids awareness theory". Let me just say that my reply was much more patristic than hers. Shall I share the clear and concise thoughts of the Catholic Church on this matter with you or could you save me some time and I could link a few Orthodox articles which explain the meaning of communion?

But even with the amazing resource of the internet bringing all of these official documents stated by the mouths of each person you would burden me with having to explain, and these official statements directly answering your questions, what will be your response? That this is my opinion? It is certainly not my opinion or interpretation. Nothing needs to be interpreted as if these questions have been directly and clearly answered by the people in question.

This is not a question of my "interpreatation". This is a question of whether or not people can twist and corrupt these clear and concise documents in a sand in your eyes tactic? Of course they can. Even Adam had an excuse for the Lord and twisted the explanation of his own sinfulness in order to appear just - even when the facts were simple. Man never wants to accept his own guilt, it is always preferred to twist and excuse ones self. Did you know everyone in the American prison system today is innocent?

[George Australia]

Dear in Christ OOD,
OK, then instead of starting your statements with "In my opinion" or "Personally I think", perhaps you should be starting your statements with: "I infallibally declare the opinion of the entire Church to be as follows....."?
I know of someone in Rome who also claims to be the infallible oracle of the Church- which one of you is the true oracle?
George