Mr Nick Zakharov wrote (May 27, 2003):
> The 1983 Anathema is very carefully worded: it explicitly targets
> only those who profess Christ's Church to consist of "branches."
This is not true. See the text of the anathema.
> many of the people who cannot discern ... or even merely correctly
> interpret and understand a text such as the 1983 Anathema,
> are often those who are not formally educated in Orthodox Theology
One does not need to be «formally educated in Orthodox
theology» in order to read this 12 raws text.
These 12 raws provide about 5 general instances,
or categories of beliefs,
of which the «branch theory» is only the first.
Fr John (Shaw) wrote:
> And even if someone *in* ROCOR "fell under the anathema",
> the anathema still does not automatically "take effect",
> or automatically "place them outside the Church".
> It still must be applied, specifically in each case,
> by the hierarchy.
Do you mean that the nestorians, the monotelites, the pelagians, the
apollinarists, the arians, the gnostics, etc, have been anthemized,
specifically in each case ? Individually?
> Many Russian people will tell you that "God is the same for
> everyone", meaning basically that one religion is as good as
> another. They will smile approvingly as their grandchildren
> are raised outside the Orthodox Church:
> "At least they go to some church", they will say.
> Such views are essentially ecumenistic, but no one has invoked
> the "anathema of 1983" against such people, or pronounced them
> outside of the Church.
OK. So, if they are not outside the church (because, supposedly,
they have not been anathematized «specifically in each case»),
then they are inside the Church.
Therefore, the Church has members who profess ecumenism.
Ecumenism is an heresy.
Therefore the church has heretical members.
On the other hand, the Church also has members who do not profess
Therefore, the Church has members who profess heresy and members who
do not profess heresy.
Therefore the Church has different branches.
The theory of branches is anathema.
Therefore the Church is anathema.
> I do not mean to offend; the matters presented on this list
> are serious, and thus they require a serious and brutally honest
> presentation of reality.
The above is a brutally honest presentation of the reality:
we witness a deliberate campaign to undermine ROCOR's prophetic
anathema against ecumenism, and to justify by any means the
union with the MP.
The very stones cry out.
PS. Sorry, by the time I write this, we learn that "in fact, we *are*
[already] in communion with the MP, and always have been" (Shaw, post
8481, May 27, 2003)!