Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] My Great Concern! Your councel.....

Expand Messages
  • Hristofor
    ... Can someone clarify what is meant by full Communion ? Is there a status of only being in partial Communion ? If so, what is the difference? Isn t ROCA in
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 05:29 AM 10/2/2003, you wrote:
      >This places the MGA in the awkward, strange and ridiculous position of
      >being in full communion with the very Archbishop (Dmitri of Dallas) who
      >suspended them, and with the very church (the OCA) which they left over
      >the very fact of the OCA's modernism, new calendar, innovations and
      >betrayals of Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the 'proper' reception of
      >converts to the Holy Orthodox Faith, i.e. by baptism. YES, by being in
      >the Jerusalem Patriarchate....... the Monastery of the Glorious
      >Ascension is now in full communion with the OCA, the Moscow
      >Patriarchate; and God forbid, even the 'Archheresiarch' the Freemason,
      >New Calendarist, Jesuit, betrayer of Orthodox and 'Pope of the East',
      >Bartholomew of Constantinople.
      >
      >Thus, now the ROCOR bishops forbid
      >communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members (except for those
      >with whom ROCOR 'IS' in full common; such as the Greek (Met. Cyprian),
      >Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists).

      Can someone clarify what is meant by "full Communion"? Is there a status of
      only being in "partial Communion"? If so, what is the difference? Isn't
      ROCA in Communion with the JP? Our pilgrims do receive Holy Communion at
      the Holy Sepulchre. Aren't also the Athonite monasteries under the ompohor
      of the EP? What then is the difference if a ROCA pilgrim receives Holy
      Communion on Mt Athos or goes to a local GOA right here in the US?

      So yes, I do agree with Stephen that it seems absurd to switch from one
      jurisdiction to another... And I, like Stephen, have also wondered about
      the above-mentioned.

      Hristofor
    • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
      ... Well, I ll try. . . . ... This is a fallacious conclusion. It is a restating of the old electric current theory of communion between autocephalous local
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephanos Upton wrote:


        >Dear Reverend Hierarchs and Fathers;
        >
        >Bless ye! Evlogeite! Blagoslovite!
        >
        >Please read my reply below and grant me your learned counsel, to calm my
        >troubled soul:

        Well, I'll try. . . .



        >. . . This is what distresses me so much about the Monastery of the
        >Glorious Ascension, leaving ROCOR and going to the Jerusalem
        >Patriarchate. (Refering/replying to below . . .) While I laud and
        >applaud the JP's traditional stance and following the church (old)
        >calendar; the JP is in full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and
        >the OCA.
        >
        >This places the MGA in the awkward, strange and ridiculous position of
        >being in full communion with the very Archbishop (Dmitri of Dallas) who
        >suspended them, and with the very church (the OCA) which they left over
        >the very fact of the OCA's modernism, new calendar, innovations and
        >betrayals of Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the 'proper' reception of
        >converts to the Holy Orthodox Faith, i.e. by baptism. YES, by being in
        >the Jerusalem Patriarchate....... the Monastery of the Glorious
        >Ascension is now in full communion with the OCA, the Moscow
        >Patriarchate; and God forbid, even the 'Archheresiarch' the Freemason,
        >New Calendarist, Jesuit, betrayer of Orthodox and 'Pope of the East',
        >Bartholomew of Constantinople.


        This is a fallacious conclusion.

        It is a restating of the old "electric current" theory of communion between
        autocephalous local Churches: that if A is in communion with B, and B is in
        communion with C, then A must be in communion with C.

        It doesn't work that way in the Orthodox Church.

        Every autocephalous local Orthodox Church has the authority to decide
        whether to maintain communion or break communion with any other local
        Church. This decision does not have any effect on other Churches the two
        may or may not be in communion with.

        Frankly, it is quite similar to diplomatic recognition between countries.

        If the US has diplomatic relations with Canada, and Canada has diplomatic
        relations with Cuba, it does not follow that the US has full diplomatic
        relations with Cuba.

        It is a historical fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, beginning
        in the 19th Century, broke communion with the Church of Bulgaria. The
        Church of Russia, throughout the entire period that the Patriarchates of
        Bulgaria and Constantinople were not in communion with each other,
        maintained ecclesiastical communion with both.

        Does that mean that the Church of Constantinople was actually in communion
        with the Church of Bulgaria because both were in communion with the Church
        of Russia?

        No.

        A church can break communion with another in the case of a serious dispute.
        Such an action does not affect any other churches either might be in
        communion with. (Similar to when a particular country breaks diplomatic
        relations with another particular country, it does not affect the
        diplomatic relations of either with other countries).

        There were recent breaks in communion between the MP and the EP; between
        the EP and the JP; and one currently continues in the Middle East between
        the Jerusalem and Antiochian Patriarchates. None of these breaks affected
        any other Churches these churches were in communion with.

        the ROCOR, initially and
        >involuntarily was 'de facto' excommunicated and "walled-in" by the
        >ecumenists SCOBA, when it prohibited its clergy and faithful from having
        >communion and concelebrations with ROCOR!!!

        Actually, the ROCOR was very clearly invited to join SCOBA at its
        inception, and it was the ROCOR that refused to join--not because of
        ecumenism or modernism, but simply because the same invitation to join
        SCOBA had been offered to the MP bishop in charge of the MP parishes in
        North America, and the ROCOR did not want to sit at the same table as an MP
        bishop. (Note: the MP representative eventually decided not to join SCOBA).
        ROCOR bishops and priests have frequently been invited to concelebrate with
        clergy from SCOBA jurisdications--so there is no "prohibition" by SCOBA
        regarding such concelebrations.




        > After a while, it seems
        >that the Hierarchs of ROCOR realized that this was God's will, to
        >protect the purity of Orthodoxy and the Faithful from innovation,
        >modernism, ecumenism, etc. Thus, now the ROCOR bishops forbid
        >communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members (except for those
        >with whom ROCOR 'IS' in full common; such as the Greek (Met. Cyprian),
        >Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists).

        This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the
        Sobor or Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR forbidding communion and
        concelebration with non-ROCOR members. Such concelebrations occur quite
        frequently. (Clergy from the Serbian Patriarchate consistently concelebrate
        with ROCOR bishops (see the pictures of the St. Job of Pochaev celebration
        in Jordanville for a Serbian priest serving with Metropolitan Laurus). A
        clergyman of the Jerusalem Patriarchate concelebrated with Bishop KirilI at
        the St. Seraphim celebrations in Monterey. Cordial relations exist between
        bishops and clergy of the ROCOR and SCOBA jurisdictions in many places
        (Bishop Job of Chicago--OCA--was present at the consecration of Bishop
        Peter in Chicago, and was warmly greeted by Metropolitan Laurus and all of
        the ROCOR bishops and clergy present) So where are these prohibitions?


        >
        >
        >This is also why 'reunion' of ROCOR and the MP should be VERY SLOW.
        >While the MP may be 'free' of the 'Atheist' government, etc. It is not
        >free of sergianism, innovation, and especially and worst of all the
        >'Panheresy' of Ecumenism. (On the contrary, it is becoming more and
        >more involved in it!!!)

        That is also absolutely not true.

        Compared to the huge MP delegations that had previously been sent to the
        WCC General Assemblies--delegations consisting of many Metropolitans,
        Archbishops, and dozens of high-ranking clergy--at the last WCC Assembly in
        Harare, the MP was represented by a single lowly hieromonk, who had
        instructions, as did all of the Orthodox delegates, no to participate in
        any joint prayer services and not to vote.

        Just a few days ago, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the head of the
        Department of External Relations of the MP, stated flatly "Ecumenism has
        met a dead end." (See zenit.org, September 9, 2003).

        This is "becoming more involved" in Ecumenism????



        >

        With love in Christ,

        Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      • sputnikpsalomschchika
        So cross posting from another informal list to this Yahoo list is now condoned? I don t appreciate seeing my comments cut and pasted from one place to another
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          So cross posting from another informal list to this Yahoo list is now
          condoned? I don't appreciate seeing my comments cut and pasted from
          one place to another out of context in this manner.

          Reader Michael Malloy
          Columbus Ohio


          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, StephenATL <sbu@b...> wrote:
          > Dear Reverend Hierarchs and Fathers;
          >
          > Bless ye! Evlogeite! Blagoslovite!
          >
          > Please read my reply below and grant me your learned counsel, to
          calm my
          > troubled soul:
          >
          > . . . This is what distresses me so much about the Monastery of the
          > Glorious Ascension, leaving ROCOR and going to the Jerusalem
          > Patriarchate. (Refering/replying to below . . .) While I laud and
          > applaud the JP's traditional stance and following the church (old)
          > calendar; the JP is in full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and
          > the OCA.
          >
          > This places the MGA in the awkward, strange and ridiculous position of
          > being in full communion with the very Archbishop (Dmitri of Dallas) who
          > suspended them, and with the very church (the OCA) which they left over
          > the very fact of the OCA's modernism, new calendar, innovations and
          > betrayals of Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the 'proper' reception of
          > converts to the Holy Orthodox Faith, i.e. by baptism. YES, by
          being in
          > the Jerusalem Patriarchate....... the Monastery of the Glorious
          > Ascension is now in full communion with the OCA, the Moscow
          > Patriarchate; and God forbid, even the 'Archheresiarch' the Freemason,
          > New Calendarist, Jesuit, betrayer of Orthodox and 'Pope of the East',
          > Bartholomew of Constantinople.
          >
          > Can this situation be more sad or ridiculous?? This is why I was SO
          > SHOCKED by their departure from ROCOR (despite ROCOR's
          imperfections....
          > i.e. ROCOR is made up of humans and is not perfect...) to the JP.
          >
          > The ROCOR, unlike the Greek and Romanian Old Calendarist resisters,
          who
          > rightfully and voluntarily, "walled themselves off" from the
          > new-calendarist ecumenists/modernists; the ROCOR, initially and
          > involuntarily was 'de facto' excommunicated and "walled-in" by the
          > ecumenists SCOBA, when it prohibited its clergy and faithful from
          having
          > communion and concelebrations with ROCOR!!! After a while, it
          seems
          > that the Hierarchs of ROCOR realized that this was God's will, to
          > protect the purity of Orthodoxy and the Faithful from innovation,
          > modernism, ecumenism, etc. Thus, now the ROCOR bishops forbid
          > communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members (except for those
          > with whom ROCOR 'IS' in full common; such as the Greek (Met. Cyprian),
          > Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists).
          >
          > This is also why 'reunion' of ROCOR and the MP should be VERY SLOW.
          > While the MP may be 'free' of the 'Atheist' government, etc. It is
          not
          > free of sergianism, innovation, and especially and worst of all the
          > 'Panheresy' of Ecumenism. (On the contrary, it is becoming more and
          > more involved in it!!!)
          >
          > Stephanos Upton
          > St. Mary of Egypt Parish, ROCOR
          > Atlanta, Georgia
          > a great sinner, who needs a 'pure' spiritual-hospital (which the
          Church
          > is) like ROCOR, to heal me of my numerous sinful and spiritual
          maladies.
          >
          >
          > Reader Michael Malloy wrote:
          >
          > > It is very good to see the support Rostislav is receiving for his
          > > correct comments about the issue at hand. I add my own support and
          > > encouragement!
          > >
          > > In my opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia is still at
          risk.
          > > It has made progress after the fall of the Soviet state, but there is
          > > still much work to be done. This business of getting close to the
          > > Uniates is absolute folly. Who can say more about the absolute
          > > stupidity of ecumenism? Both are non negotiables.
          > >
          > > I am a convert, going on seven years now. My convert zeal is more
          > > subdued than it was originally, but I hope it is still strong and
          > > correct. My spiritual father taught me to hold to the true faith and
          > > never to compromise to "novelties" which are creeping into some
          > > jurisdictions these days. My personal attraction has always been to
          > > the Russian practice as maintained by the ROCOR even though I am
          now a
          > > Reader in an OCA parish - new calendar and all. ;-(
          > >
          > > The truth is only found in unaltered Orthodox Christianity. It's not
          > > broken, so there is no need to "fix it."
          > >
          > > Reader Michael Malloy
          > > Columbus Ohio
          > >
          > >
          > > At 03:40 PM 10/1/03 -0400, you wrote: Dear Rostislav,
          > >
          > >> I am not from Russia ,but you are absolutely
          right.Ecumenism is
          > >> invading and it is dangerous.Worldwide Orthodoxy has to unite in
          > >> Truth and according to Holy Tradition .It is a blessing if all
          > >> Orthodox agree and fight this heresy. Compromise is not an option.It
          > >> is betrayal of the Truth.And yes,you are right :physical death is
          > >> preferable than spiritual death.
          > >> In Christ,
          > >> Melpomeni Mari.
          > >>
          > > ***************************************************************
          > > Yahoo!, anything for a buck, is a proud sponsor of SPAM
          > > ***************************************************************
          > >
          > > Reader Michael Malloy
          > > Choir director
          > > Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker Orthodox Church (OCA)
          > > Columbus Ohio
          > > ReaderMichael@m...
          > > (Work e mail remains: malloy.2@o...)
          > >
          > > "A Psalm is the tranquility of souls, the arbitrator of peace,
          > > restraining the disorder and turbulence of thoughts, for it softens
          > > the passion of the soul and moderates its unruliness. A Psalm forms
          > > friendships, unites the divided, mediates between enemies. For who
          can
          > > still consider him an enemy with whom he has set forth one voice to
          > > God? So that the singing of Psalms brings love, the greatest of good
          > > things, contriving harmony like some bond of union and uniting the
          > > people in the symphony of a single choir."
          > >
          > > St. Basil the Great; in: Strunk, W. Oliver (William Oliver), 1901-
          comp.:
          > > Source readings in music history from classical antiquity through the
          > > romantic era. New York, Norton [1950]
          > >
          >
          >------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > >_______________________________________________
          > >Newsletter mailing list
          > >Newsletter@m...
          > >http://monastery.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter_monastery.org
          > >
          > >
        • michael nikitin
          Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote: This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the Sobor or Synod of Bishops
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...> wrote:

            "This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the Sobor or Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR forbidding communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members. Such concelebrations occur quite frequently. (Clergy from the Serbian Patriarchate consistently concelebrate
            with ROCOR bishops (see the pictures of the St. Job of Pochaev celebration in Jordanville for a Serbian priest serving with Metropolitan Laurus). A clergyman of the Jerusalem Patriarchate concelebrated with Bishop KirilI at the St. Seraphim celebrations in Monterey. Cordial relations exist between
            bishops and clergy of the ROCOR and SCOBA jurisdictions in many places (Bishop Job of Chicago--OCA--was present at the consecration of Bishop Peter in Chicago, and was warmly greeted by Metropolitan Laurus and all of the ROCOR bishops and clergy present) So where are these prohibitions?"


            Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and reaffirmed in 1998 by
            the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.

            Michael N.




            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • orthodoxchurch_sg
            ... wrote: So where are these prohibitions? ... 1998 by ... Evlogeite! How many times do we have to go over this? The Anathema against the
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
              <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
              So where are these prohibitions?"
              >
              >
              > Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and reaffirmed in
              1998 by
              > the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.
              >
              > Michael N.
              >
              >
              Evlogeite!
              How many times do we have to go over this? The Anathema against the
              Branch Theory of 1983 does not refer to, cover or anathematise the
              Serbian Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate or any of the other
              historical Churches.
              God bless/ Fr Daniel
            • zina kochnaya
              What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize? ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?

                --- orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...>
                wrote:
                > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael
                > nikitin
                > <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
                > So where are these prohibitions?"
                > >
                > >
                > > Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and
                > reaffirmed in
                > 1998 by
                > > the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.
                > >
                > > Michael N.
                > >
                > >
                > Evlogeite!
                > How many times do we have to go over this? The
                > Anathema against the
                > Branch Theory of 1983 does not refer to, cover or
                > anathematise the
                > Serbian Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate or any of
                > the other
                > historical Churches.
                > God bless/ Fr Daniel
                >
                >


                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                http://shopping.yahoo.com
              • orthodoxchurch_sg
                ... There are two possible answers ~ a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the Branch Theory , a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                  >
                  There are two possible answers ~

                  a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                  Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                  held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                  b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                  official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                  clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                  the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                  But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                  Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                  (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                  have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                  HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                  eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                  document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                  God bless / Fr Daniel
                • frvboldewskul@aol.com
                  I understand that most lists discourage me to posts. However, it seems that Fr. Daniel nailed this one on the head. The way the Anathema is used (or rather
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I understand that most lists discourage "me to" posts. However, it seems that
                    Fr. Daniel nailed this one on the head. The way the Anathema is used (or
                    rather abused) by some is similar to the due process clause of the 14th amendment
                    (in the U.S. Constitution) where the Supreme Court created a "right of
                    privacy" leading to the right for abortion. From outlawing slavery in the 19th
                    century, Brennan created the right to abortion. The same with this. Thank you Fr.
                    Daniel.

                    In Christ,
                    Priest Victor Boldewskul

                    In a message dated 10/9/03 7:59:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                    orthodoxchurch_sg@... writes:

                    > There are two possible answers ~
                    >
                    > a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                    > Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                    > held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.
                    >
                    > b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                    > official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                    > clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                    > the Historical Orthodox Churches.
                    >
                    > But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                    > Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                    > (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                    > have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                    > HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                    > eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                    > document issued by a Church they do not recognise!
                    >
                    > God bless / Fr Daniel
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • zina kochnaya
                    I don t think you know what you are talking about, Father. I don t understand you. Anathema is cutting off. So, it does not matter what church it is
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 11, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't think you know what you are talking about, Father.
                      I don't understand you. Anathema is cutting off. So,
                      it does not matter what church it is Episcopalian or Serbian.
                      Since they are in WCC, where they all pray together, then,
                      they are under ROCOR's anathema of 1983 and 1998.
                      But, since MP and OCA consider ROCOR schismatics,
                      then this Anathema does not mean anything to them.

                      That's what I learned from this list.
                      Zina
                      orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                      >
                      There are two possible answers ~

                      a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                      Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                      held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                      b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                      official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                      clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                      the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                      But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                      Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                      (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                      have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                      HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                      eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                      document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                      God bless / Fr Daniel


                      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • michael nikitin
                      The WCC is an organization built upon the branch theory . ROCOR pronounced it in 1983 and reaffirmed it in 1998. If it doesn t fall on those in WCC who didn t
                      Message 10 of 11 , Oct 12, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The WCC is an organization built upon the "branch theory".
                        ROCOR pronounced it in 1983 and
                        reaffirmed it in 1998. If it doesn't fall on those in WCC who didn't
                        proclaim it then it most
                        certainly falls on those who proclaimed it, but transgress it.


                        Anathema Against Ecumenism:
                        "Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church
                        is
                        divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of
                        life,
                        or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the
                        future
                        when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will
                        be
                        united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and
                        mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the
                        baptism
                        and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to
                        those
                        who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who
                        advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under
                        the
                        pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated
                        Christians, Anathema!"

                        Michael N.

                        orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                        >
                        There are two possible answers ~

                        a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                        Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                        held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                        b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                        official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                        clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                        the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                        But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                        Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                        (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                        have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                        HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                        eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                        document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                        God bless / Fr Daniel


                        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                        Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        ---------------------------------
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.