Schism

[Nikodemus]

OOD

Can you prove that any bishop in any of the official "world orthodox" churches today, publicly and officially have teached a heresy. And can you please give me one example of this document?

[Priest Siluan]

OOD

Can you prove that any bishop in any of the official "world orthodox" churches today, publicly and officially have teached a heresy. And can you please give me one example of this document?

Excuse me for my interference

Look at only these two example:

The Patriarch Bartholomew referring to the representatives of the Pope on November 30, 1998 said : “In view of the fact that one Church recognizes the other Church as a locus of Grace, proselytization of members from one Church to the other is precluded.” (See Εκκλησιαστική Αλήθεια, December 12, 1998)

The agreement of Balamand, signed by representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, stating that “the Orthodox Church along with the Papal community have the same Apostolic Succession and the same validity in their mysteries”, represents a deviation from the Orthodox Faith.

Also Alexy II. in his visit to USA (I don't remember which year) callwd to the Jewish community "our brother in the faith"

And examples like these I have listened with my own hearings of some bishops ecumenists

[Jean-Serge]

In fact, the subject of ecuminism is very subtle... It is a heresy whan it says or suppose that the Orthodox church is not the only true Church...

But it is very difficult to define when the practice of ecumenism states this. For instance, having a meeting with Catholics no discuss a subject is not per se heretical... It depends on the whole context or conclusions of this meeting.

I agree the Balamand agreement are really heretical... Or also in Autralia, the Greek, Antiochian and Romanian churches recognizing heterodox baptisms.

However, there is a real question... At which point should we sever communion? If we do this, to join which True orthodox group? There are so many? By the way, I have one time protested to a bishop blaming him for his words (in the interview he said that Orthodox and Catholics had the same faith). In fact, he never said this but his words were not correctly reproduced... So sometimes let us be cautious...

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

ust passing by this thread. . . The "Balamand Agreement" is not binding upon anybody, anywhere. It is nothing more than a lamentable document from a study group. The content is deplorable, but it bears no authority over anyone.

You are straining to find loopholes and technicalities. Was Christ interested in loopholes and technicalities with the Pharisees?

If a bishop preaches heresy during his sermon, is that binding on anyone? Yes! It is binding on him!

There is no doubt Balamand is a blatantly heretical public document. The fact is is that Balamand was signed by numerous "bishops" from numerous different "churches". Any bishop who signs his name to heretical confessions of faith is not a Bishop at all unless he repents.

Like I said, a list of proof that the "world Orthodox" are stapled and racked with heretics is well beyond need. And this is not at all just about the "big" heretics like Athenagoras, this is also about the ones down the block at your local church - it is just incredible really. And who cares? Who cares about Christ and the Truth? We shall find a dozen and one technicalities in order to justify ourselves everytime.

[Nikodemus]

After reading Balamand I was a bit confused because it was not orthodox teaching, but it was not clear heretical teaching either. So, I conclude that it is doubtful, but nothing I could use to say that it is openly heretical.

The same goes with some statements of Bartholomew. The quotes Fr Siluan refered to could be interpetred as he was saying that there is no differences between heretical mysteries and orthodox...and this would mean that he expressed a heretical ecclesiology. But did he clearly express a heretical belief? I am not sure, and perhaps he was even misquoted. This has happened many times before. One said that Batholomew said that he prayes for the Pope in the diptyches. But this is not true, Bartholomew only said: I pray for him in the diptyches of my heart.

Of course I critise Bartholomew for not speak clearly and openly about what is orthodoxy and heresy. He is really, in my view a bad teacher of the orthodox faith. But I can not concluede that he is beyond doubt a heretic.

[Joseph]

What unbelievable and incredible rationalizations to ignore blatant heresy and communion with blatant heresy! Talk about denial!!!

The kind of reasonings set forth in these posts could excuse any preaching of any heresy.

If we applied the same reasonings and justifications to the Arians, Monophosites, Iconoclasts, etc., as many did/do, we wouldn't have any heresy there either. This is why participation in the pan-heresy of ecumenism is defended or ignored.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

AMDG,

That you would say there are no heresies in that document is just astounding. It is the tour-de-force of ecumenism.

One of the many heretical statements in the Balamand confession is this:

“On each side, it is acknowledged that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, and above all, the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches”

This is not just a heresy, this is a heresy of heresies, or an archheresy, because it accepts many heresies as "Orthodox". In other words, since the Latin system is also called the Church of Christ we must therefore conclude all of its teachings are the truth. Yes, this is what the Orthodox conscience dictates, that if you are the Church then you also teach the truth.

If you cannot see this, or perhaps you don't want to see it, then I don't suppose there is anything more I can do for you.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand.pdf