the closed thread on "True" Orthodoxy

[Qoheleth]

legitimate jurisdictions

I dont think it wise to discuss the schismatics or other heterodox and then bring up this heresy amongst the "canonical" Orthodox Churches at the same time. Seems rather odd.

Lets not forget ROCOR just a few months ago was considered non-canonical, yes even heterodox. Who is canonical who is not, who is in communion, who is not...and over what ??


Q

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Lets not forget ROCOR just a few months ago was considered non-canonical, yes even heterodox.

Maybe by some. My second spiritual father is ROCOR, and my priests have never had a problem with that. I've communed in ROCOR churches. I was always told it was an irregularity, but the ban was concelebration, not intercommunion. *shrug*

 

[RobNJ]

I dont think it wise to discuss the schismatics or other heterodox and then bring up this heresy amongst the "canonical" Orthodox Churches at the same time. Seems rather odd.

Lets not forget ROCOR just a few months ago was considered non-canonical, yes even heterodox. Who is canonical who is not, who is in communion, who is not...and over what ??


Q

NO, ROCOR was a jurisdiction that might have "Exceeded their original parameters" But they weren't vagante & schismatic , like some of the "Old Calendarist" types,,, who deserve to be considered at much a part of Orthodoxy as "Bishop Draperod" and his ilk!!

 

[Orthosdoxa]

"Bishop Draperod"

Oh, you must mean "Mr. Tammy Faye Baker"!

 

[Oblio]

Rob, I think a pic is in order, not everyone knows the type of folks we are speaking of

 

[RobNJ]

Rob, I think a pic is in order, not everyone knows the type of folks we are speaking of

True!!
Although, I don't think the ACTUAL Draperod pic is on the site, anymore!!

http://www.education-1.net/justicelines.htm

 

[jckstraw72]

in response to Qoheleth's post -- i just read "Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros, and he makes the argument that this whole issue of canonical and non-canonical according to who you're in communion with is a Catholic idea, not truly an Orthodox one -- like if youre not with Rome youre not Catholic. he said basically if you're Orthodox you're Orthodox (although the Orthodox Fathers condemn shism -- that was the only thing i could see as wrong with his argument -- but they would argue that WE are a schism, and not them). what do ya'll think of that? does canonicity come down to who you're in communion with? i borrowed the book from my priest and i want to ask him about it when he gets back from vacation, but i just thought id get ya'lls opinions for now.

 

[Macarius]

in response to Qoheleth's post -- i just read "Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros, and he makes the argument that this whole issue of canonical and non-canonical according to who you're in communion with is a Catholic idea, not truly an Orthodox one -- like if youre not with Rome youre not Catholic. he said basically if you're Orthodox you're Orthodox (although the Orthodox Fathers condemn shism -- that was the only thing i could see as wrong with his argument -- but they would argue that WE are a schism, and not them). what do ya'll think of that? does canonicity come down to who you're in communion with? i borrowed the book from my priest and i want to ask him about it when he gets back from vacation, but i just thought id get ya'lls opinions for now.

Communion with the Orthodox Bishop of your see is the criteria for laypeople and priests.

Communion with the college of bishops is the criteria for bishops.

That's the criteria given by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon, and most specifically St. Cyprian of Carthage (who states it directly).

The Roman innovation was to make that test of communion with the college of bishops into the test of communion with the one bishop: Rome. But so long as you are in communion with the college of bishops that preaches the apostolic revelation of faith, you're in communion with the Orthodox Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

in response to Qoheleth's post -- i just read "Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros, and he makes the argument that this whole issue of canonical and non-canonical according to who you're in communion with is a Catholic idea, not truly an Orthodox one -- like if youre not with Rome youre not Catholic. he said basically if you're Orthodox you're Orthodox (although the Orthodox Fathers condemn shism -- that was the only thing i could see as wrong with his argument -- but they would argue that WE are a schism, and not them). what do ya'll think of that? does canonicity come down to who you're in communion with? i borrowed the book from my priest and i want to ask him about it when he gets back from vacation, but i just thought id get ya'lls opinions for now.

You make a great point. And i agree that being buddy buddy with the right set of bishops is not what makes one Orthodox.

The totality (catholic) faith is found on the local level. As St. Ignatius taught. Orthodoxy comes down to being united with a right-believing bishop with apostolic succession and orthopraxis. What unites us on a universal level is not a set of bishops who are friendly to each other, but the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Vasileios]

Nestoj, guessing you are asking me about the Old Calendar, Of COURSE I have absolutely no problem with it. Mount Athos uses it, your church uses it, the Russians use it. I wish the Greeks and the whole church used it if you want my opinion.

But the old calendarists are a different story altogether.

 

[rusmeister]

True!!
Although, I don't think the ACTUAL Draperod pic is on the site, anymore!!

http://www.education-1.net/justicelines.htm

Uh, Rob, who is that guy?