Apostasy from true Christianity

Author: Mopac
Orthodox survival course

Posts

Total: 193
Topic's author
#121
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
thankfully, many within the OC have removed the shackles of their dead traditions and embraced Jesus and in doing so have been able to embrace his people where ever they are

All the evidence I need that you talk out of both sides of your mouth when you call us Christians.


As I said before, you protestants claim our martyrs, claim we are brothers, but teach ecclessiology that would destroy the church, prosletyze towards us, and when pressed make it clear that you don't really see us as Christian.

At least I can be up front about my belief that protestant churches are all heretical.






Topic's author
#122
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.

We will never accept papal supremacy, which from the start was the main issue. We saw from the get go that to elevate one man into being supreme head of the church was a forerunner to The anti-christ.

Their errors lead to protestantism. The errors of protestantism created the modern atheistic and anti-christ worldview. You protestants who have not learned your lesson are using the same reasonings that created the modern atheistic worldview to begin with. You are using these arguments against atheists!

You, who are wishing to gloss over all these various major and significant differences in order to achieve a false unity do not understand how this type of thinking is a threat to the church itself. 

I point to all the protestant churches in Austin, with their rainbow flags and "we stand with muslims" signs. That is where your ecclessiology leads.



Topic's author
#123
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Synod of Jerusalem that took place in 1672, having pan-orthodox acceptence, in no ambigious terms identifies the reformist doctrines of Calvin to be heretical.

This might be informative reading for you.




#124
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Calvin was trained in theology by the Roman Catholic Church.  His teachings reflect the Bible as understood by the great doctor of the Church, Augustine. 

When we read Augustine' view on predestination and Calvin's they are identical.  And both I would argue flow from Paul's teaching in Ephesians and Romans, which themselves flowed from the teachings in the Psalms in the OT and Isaiah. 
#125
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Tradesecret
what is your view of the early church, where they identified the church by those who practiced apostolic succession? how do you feel given your church doesn't have apostolic succession? 
Topic's author
#126
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Roman Catholic Church itself does not accept Calvin's doctrines.


#127
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Both the East and the West thought that they were right and that the other was wrong. Both acted in the spirit of Anti-Christ and not out of love for each other. Even almost 1000 years later neither are able to work through reconciliation because both seek the other to repent. And the fact is - because both are arrogant they will never repent because they think it is the other church at fault.

We will never accept papal supremacy, which from the start was the main issue. We saw from the get go that to elevate one man into being supreme head of the church was a forerunner to The anti-christ.

Their errors lead to protestantism. The errors of protestantism created the modern atheistic and anti-christ worldview. You protestants who have not learned your lesson are using the same reasonings that created the modern atheistic worldview to begin with. You are using these arguments against atheists!

You, who are wishing to gloss over all these various major and significant differences in order to achieve a false unity do not understand how this type of thinking is a threat to the church itself. 

I point to all the protestant churches in Austin, with their rainbow flags and "we stand with muslims" signs. That is where your ecclessiology leads.
If your argument is sound then no Orthodox Priest would ever fall into sin - nor would such members - but there are those who have left https://orthodoxandgay.com/

I agree with the Orthodox position in relation to Papal Supremacy. But having said that, I also disagree with dissention and division. 

I think it is inaccurate to say that Catholicism lead to Protestantism. I think this omits to remember that since the Church has begun it has always been reforming. And will always continue to do so until the Lord Jesus Christ returns for his bride. Protestantism did not lead to atheism and the modern world. The Renaissance - and a dead church with a fixation on greed, and power, and a lack of transparency led to the modern worldview.  This movement actually looked back to the Greek philosophies for illumination and was in direct conflict with the Reformation on many fronts. 

The Reformation did not lead to an anti-biblical or anti-church movement.  The Reformation was directed towards reform of the church and the clear errors within its halls, and in particular papal supremacy. 

You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist. 

America has a culture of anti-authoritarian sentiment. It is truly a Baptism generation - and if you knew your history - you would know that Baptists are not and never were Protestants - they are dissidents.  They were our original Nestorians and have lived in the world since the time of Paul. 

Topic's author
#128
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
We do not teach that priests don't fall in to sin.

If you want to know how the currents that lead Rome into falling away naturally lead to protestantism, and then naturally lead to the modern atheistic worldview, I direct you to The Orthodox Survival Course playlist in the OP.

Topic's author
#129
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Unity for unity zake is not Christianity. Our unity is in faith. If we don't share the faith, there can be no unity. Such a unity is false.

According to the ecumenical councils, when Rome altered the creed without church consensus, it was an act of schism.
#130
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
We don't agree with unity for the sake of unity. But nor do we agree with schism because someone did not agree with us. 

I think unity requires truth.  But in Christ, it primarily requires us to be his children. 
Topic's author
#131
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The schism happened because the Latin church fell into heresy.

Their push for papal supremacy kind of made reconciliation impossible. It made resolving anything else infeasible.

We really tried, but their actions towards us during the crusades really fudged all that up.

Topic's author
#132
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
You should clarify what you mean by the protestants using similar arguments against the atheist.
It is the scholastic approach. As exemplified in figures such as Thomas Aquinus.

The playlist in the OP would be worth listening to.


#133
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
I never said my church does not have apostolic succession. 

I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious. 

It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records. 

The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded.  Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone. 

What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT.  Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine. 


#134
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine.  As does the Orthodox Church.  

Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine.  And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching. 
#135
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
I would think that the Roman Catholics practice such style of thought. Yet the Protestant Church has never been into the Scholastic thinking of Acquinan. Yes a brilliant man - but not a biblical man. He was caught in the greek thinking vein - of Aristotle and Plato.  

Sometimes Presbyterians are accused of Scottish common logic of Hume et al.  But the fact is - this misrepresents our thinking patterns as well.  

I think the best way to understand the Reformed view is by understanding the covenants of the Bible.  Reformed thinkers use what is called covenant theology - which incidentally is the way the Christians understood the bible and God's relationship not just with himself - but with humans. God covenanted with his people.  And God used the framework of the covenant to form his relationships. State, Church, Family, individual. 

Back in the early days of the church, the covenant played a larger part in their understanding of the church and the scriptures. Nowadays, and in most denominations - people have little understanding of the framework of covenants - let alone the fact that God relates to us via covenant. 

I have started listening to your podcast - survival course - I have not found it helpful yet. It repeats itself - and is unable to look at its own faults.  It is also very patronizing - the computer voice does not help of course - and it is also very long. 
#136
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church. 
Which ones?

Topic's author
#137
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
I take the view that apostolic succession is superstitious.

It is distinct from the apostolic teaching and records.

The church if it maintains the apostolic teaching will ensure it is safeguarded.  Yet there is no safeguard simply by laying hands on someone.

What is important is the apostolic teaching which is handed down in the NT.  Although there is benefit in the laying on of hands- it is not in the safeguard of the doctrine.

"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."
Topic's author
#138
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Catholic Church accepts the teachings of Augustine.  As does the Orthodox Church.  

Calvin's teachings are Augustine's teaching. If Calvin is a heretic, then so is Augustine.  And if Augustine is not a heretic but is only in error in some parts of his teaching, then this is consistently the same for Calvin. Calvin did not go beyond Augustine's teaching. 

St Augustine didn't start his own church.


But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.

St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.

I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts. 

Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.

But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.



Topic's author
#139
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The problem with this covenant theology is that you have no problem acting apart from The Church(and you know I mean the Orthodox Church), which is New Israel.

You should listen to the playlist in the OP, not the computer voice one.

You should get over your being offended, because this is a polemical work. Being defensive will only serve to get in the way of hearing what is said.

I suggest you start on lecture 2, which confirms some points you have made and bridges the gap between your understanding and ours.
#140
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts? 
#141
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac

St Augustine didn't start his own church.
Calvin did not start his own church either. 

But besides, no church father is accepted without qualifications or considered infallible. St Augustine himself wrote retractions.

And that is correct because all humans, are infallible and make mistakes.  And no council is infallible either. Nor is any church.  

St Augustine had very little influence in the East. In fact, no one church father dominates in the east quite like how st. Augustine dominates in the west. St. John Cassian would be a healthy balance to St Augustine in the west.
is that the case? And did he retract his work in respect of predestination? Augustine does not dominate in the West.  He is one of the early church fathers. A recognized leader in the church.  As is Athanasius. And as are many others.   John Cassius seems to be semi-Pelagian. And his students even more so. 

I'd also like to note that when I first took it on myself to read Augustine's great volume of work, I was not orthodox. One of the first things that came as a revelation to me while reading st Augustine is that he believed in free will, and certainly didn't teach double predestination as I was taught(I hung out with a lot of Calvinists who certainly believed in double predestination and rejected free will). Rather, st Augustine's viewpoint was closer to "there is a way that is predestined to salvation and a way predestined to damnnation" rather than "people are predestined to salvation or predestined to damnnation". This is closer to what orthodoxy accepts. 

Calvinists do not believe in double predestination. Yes, there are some people called "hyper-Calvinists" but these are not Calvinists as understood in the nature of Augustine of Calvin.  And Calvinists DO NOT reject free will.   I am a Calvinist and I believe in Free will.  It seems you were misinformed or rather simply did not understand what you were being taught.  

Not really interested in getting into a debate on Augustine, I had not read him in years. But what is important to note is that I do know what the church teaches, and St Augustine is not the ultimate authority.
Yes. Probably not wise to do so since you are uniformed.  I agree Augustine is not the final authority - God is through his Word, the Bible. 

But the Roman Catholics who did elevate st Augustine to a very high authority during the middle ages even then never accepted these doctrinal innovations of Calvin. What does that say? It is not unlikely that Calvin misinterpreted st Augustine.
The Roman Catholics rejected Calvin because Calvin rightly called them to account and denied Papal Authority.  He legitimately, through the teachings of Scripture was able to demonstrate that the pope was not infallible. And that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen into error.  The Roman Church attempted to elevate Augustine's position in respect of church government - and it never denied Augustine's teaching.  Calvin was not an innovator.  His teachings flow from Paul through Augustine. It is incorrect to say he was an innovator. 
#142
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church believes "in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life" (Nicene Creed). The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, Who proceeds from the Father only (cf. John 15:26). The Church firmly opposed the opinion that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, and it pronounced the correct belief in the Nicene Creed at the Second Ecumenical Synod. The Orthodox Church does not use the phrase filioque, "and of the Son." According to the Scriptures, the Son Jesus Christ only sends the Holy Spirit in time, saying: "I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26). https://www.goarch.org/-/the-fundamental-teachings-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church
Do you agree with this statement?

If so, do you take the view that the Western Church believes that the Son "created" the Holy Spirit? And if so do you also believe the West Church believes that the Father "created" the Son? And also is that the view of the Orthodox, given that they don't seem to have an issue with the Son proceeding from the Father? And moreover, does the Orthodox church believe that the Father created the Holy Spirit, given that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? 


#143
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
Is this true or not? 
#144
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
Here is an interesting depiction from one who had left Orthodoxy. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/why-i-am-not-orthodox/10097536
#145
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
http://old.melkite.com/mle.html - well worth a read. 

This document by the Catholics and Orthodox - clearly puts the situation as one whereby neither is excommunicated from the church anymore.  This may not be enough to reconcile the church. Yet, it MUST mean that the Orthodox no longer means that the Roman Catholic Church to be a heretical church.  The two churches may not be be able to worship together - yet both ADMIT that the other is a true church of Christ.  Otherwise, the words and document is a lie. And when the heads of either church make such a document recognizing the other - but then just says it is a lie - and not true - well then they are obviously not trustworthy in anything. 

what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you? 
#146
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
https://www.apostolicpilgrimage.org/historicmeeting and another great article by an Orthodox profession as well, declaring at least in his opinion that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches are sister churches.  

Isn't this contrary to your notion that the Catholic church is not a true church? 
#147
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
And another meeting - 50 years after the first one. https://catholicphilly.com/2014/05/news/world-news/fifty-years-later-pope-and-patriarch-meet-again-in-jerusalem/ and this time the two pray together - shocking really if they are not from the same true church. And note further in the article, it appears that not only the Catholics and the Orthodox met, but this prayer service included protestants. Lutherans and Anglicans. 

Whatever is going on when the leader of the Orthodox church can meet and have a prayer service with other Christians from other Churches? 

But then again the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church. 
Topic's author
#148
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
Is this true or not? 
This has not received church wide acceptence. In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople hasn't really had much respect from the church at large ever since. In the playlist I posted in the OP, the author outright says the Patriarch of Constantinople is not Orthodox! 

what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you?

We are not papists. That isn't what first among equals means to us. All that means is that when the bishops meet, he gets the chair at the end of the table.

Besides that, I am not in the church of Constantinople. It is a completely different jurisdiction.

Roman Catholics are obviously still excommunicated, because we won't give them communion. 

Believe me, all of these things the Bishop of Constantinople has been doing is incredibly controversial in the church. There are even rumors that in a few years he is planning on ending the schism beteeen Constantinople and Rome permanently. I heard from a Russian Archimandrite that he knows a lot of Greek priests who intend on moving to the Russian Church if he does.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is really not respected much these days. The entire Orthodox world is against his meddling in Ukraine, because it is not his jurisdiction, and his actions have created a great deal of confusion. I know Abbots under his own jurisdiction that oppose him.


The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the leader of The Orthodox Church. He is the bishop of maybe 3.5 million Christians. To compare, the patriarch of Georgia is bishop over around that same number, 3.5 million. The patriarch of Bulgaria is the bishop of maybe 6.5 million Christians. The patriarch of Serbia is the bishop of maybe 15 million Christians. The patriarch of Romania is the bishop of maybe 19 million Christians. The Russian Patriarch, our big elephant in the room is bishop over 90 million Christians.

The Roman Catholics would like to believe the patriarch of Constantinople is the head of our church, because if they can compromise him, they can theoretically get the rest of us to submit to the pope of Rome! 


No, the Roman Catholic Church is a heretical church. They are not simply excommunicated, they are anathema. The bishop of Rome is a forerunner to the anti-Christ.


the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church. 
Some jurisdictions do take part in the World Council of Churches, but that innitself is very controversial. There are many who call modern ecumenism the "pan-heresy", and for good reason. The more optimistic see it as a way to give witness to the true church. There is no possibilityof union with these other churches, not unless they became orthodox. From our understanding, proper ecumenism is only done in the Orthodox Church. It is certainly improper to pray and hold services with these churches, but not to talk to them.

My priest has been tasked with having dialog in a modern ecumenical context. He says it is mostly a waste of time, but the good that comes out of it is that we get reports of people suffering in other countries that we otherwise might not get. It is not a wrong thing of us to do what we can to help alleviate the sufferings of those people if we can.

Topic's author
#149
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts? 
"Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession."


The laying on of hands is not what gives apostolic succession, otherwise any layman could claim to be a successor to the apostles! 

The gift and seal of The Holy Spirit has historically been done through the laying on of hands and the annointing with chrism. In fact, this is how Christians first got their name. In Antioch, the pagans would mock those in the church for the sacrament of chrismation, calling them "Christians". The church in response said, "Yeah, ok then, we are Christians."



#150
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Mopac
in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.
Is this true or not? 
This has not received church wide acceptence. In fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople hasn't really had much respect from the church at large ever since. In the playlist I posted in the OP, the author outright says the Patriarch of Constantinople is not Orthodox! 
So are you saying you do not respect the Patriarch of Constantinople? Or are you saying that there are divisions within the Orthodox Church? If this Patriarch is not Orthodox what is he? Is he a heretic? Is his congregation heretical? Do you agree with the author in the playlist 100%?  

what do you say Mopac? Do you accept what the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals declared and affirmed or do you reject his authority over you?

We are not papists. That isn't what first among equals means to us. All that means is that when the bishops meet, he gets the chair at the end of the table.

Besides that, I am not in the church of Constantinople. It is a completely different jurisdiction.

Roman Catholics are obviously still excommunicated, because we won't give them communion. 
You do realize how confused that sounds?  I do not think you are papists.  The Patriarch does sit at the table of Orthodox churches, does he not? Why would your congregation which is in a different jurisdiction still permit him this honor of chairing the meetings or the table if he is a heretic or at best - not orthodox? That surely is inconsistent and hypocritical?  And your comment about the Roman Catholics still being  excommunicated makes no sense.  The Patriarch of Constantinople has torn up the excommunication documents and apologized for this. Admittedly, there is not yet reconciliation between the two churches - yet clearly the church at Constantinople is now in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.  And again recognized it 50 years later.  Not giving them communion and them being excommunicated obviously means two different things. Or are you suggesting that the Orthodox Church was being deceptive in appearance and lying to the Roman Catholics? 

It seems to me that is inconsistent for you to call the Roman Catholics excommunicated when at least one patriarch in the Orthodox church has declared it not to be so. The question seems to be - that if the Church of Constantinople is now not excommunicated with Rome, then any churches associated with Constantinople are bound to the same course of action. If indeed Constantinople is in heresy or as you put it unorthodox, then surely your congregation ought to condemn the patriarch of Constantinople? Would you please provide evidence for your congregation's condemnation and excommunication of Constantinople? Or is your author all talk and bluff but not action? 


Believe me, all of these things the Bishop of Constantinople has been doing is incredibly controversial in the church. There are even rumors that in a few years he is planning on ending the schism beteeen Constantinople and Rome permanently. I heard from a Russian Archimandrite that he knows a lot of Greek priests who intend on moving to the Russian Church if he does.
Controversial is  not erroneous. It might be, but not necessarily so. Is it so bad a thing to end an schism? Is unforgiveness consistent with the Word of God and the Holy Church? IT seems to me, that Jesus indicated that those who are unforgiving - will have no place in his kingdom. If people leave the church, and going to the Russian one, are they not rejecting the ONE and TRUE HOLY CHURCH?  


The Patriarch of Constantinople is really not respected much these days. The entire Orthodox world is against his meddling in Ukraine, because it is not his jurisdiction, and his actions have created a great deal of confusion. I know Abbots under his own jurisdiction that oppose him.
This is a big call.  I thought you indicated that the Orthodox Church was united.  Surely the Patriarch of Constantinople was put into that place by God? Do the abbots under his jurisdiction really oppose him? Surely that is more Presbyterian than Orthodox in thinking? 

The Patriarch of Constantinople is not the leader of The Orthodox Church. He is the bishop of maybe 3.5 million Christians. To compare, the patriarch of Georgia is bishop over around that same number, 3.5 million. The patriarch of Bulgaria is the bishop of maybe 6.5 million Christians. The patriarch of Serbia is the bishop of maybe 15 million Christians. The patriarch of Romania is the bishop of maybe 19 million Christians. The Russian Patriarch, our big elephant in the room is bishop over 90 million Christians.
He is the leader of the Church at Constantinople. You have indicated that this is a true church of God.  You have said that each church within the Orthodox Church is independent but still a true church.  3.5 millions supporters is not anything to be sniffed at.   Are you going to be part of a rebellion - or as I would call it - a reforming of the Orthodox Church? One which will insist that patriarchs or popes can be in error.  And if they can be in error in this day, then surely they could have been in error in the time of the schism or prior to that? 

The Roman Catholics would like to believe the patriarch of Constantinople is the head of our church, because if they can compromise him, they can theoretically get the rest of us to submit to the pope of Rome! 
Why would they think such a thing is possible if it were not so the case?  Personally I would think that the Orthodox Communion is headed by the table. And as anyone who knows anything about committees, or tables, there is always one who is the first among equals.   While it is theoretically the situation that all who sit at the table are equals, history, tradition, power, and money always play a part. Even in the Orthodox Church.  Unless of course you are suggesting that democracy is the determiner of theology and right and wrong as you sort of imply in the above statement about the Russian church having over 90 Million people.  Oftentimes, consensus becomes the best part of valor. 

No, the Roman Catholic Church is a heretical church. They are not simply excommunicated, they are anathema. The bishop of Rome is a forerunner to the anti-Christ.
Yes, you said that. But at least one Patriarch in the Orthodox Church has torn those anathemas up. If you knew your church history - you would also know that when the original excommunication took place or anathemas were drawn up they were very specific and aimed towards select people, not at the entire church.   On both sides this was the same situation.  You seem to consider that you know better than a Patriarch of the Orthodox Church. Is that common knowledge? Do you not accept the authority and hierarchy of the True Church? Or do you decide for yourself what is correct? Rumors are not facts.  Rumors are hearsay. Rumors are what Satan uses to manipulate others. The Patriarch of the Constantinople called the pope his brother.  Has your congregation excommunicated him for saying this - as surely it is an excommunicable reason to call the anti-Christ your brother?  

the Orthodox Church is ecumenical despite some opinions. It has been a member of the World Council of Churches - in bed with every other Christian church in the world. Now unless it is being deceptive, it is accepting and acknowledging that it is not the only true church. 
Some jurisdictions do take part in the World Council of Churches, but that innitself is very controversial. There are many who call modern ecumenism the "pan-heresy", and for good reason. The more optimistic see it as a way to give witness to the true church. There is no possibilityof union with these other churches, not unless they became orthodox. From our understanding, proper ecumenism is only done in the Orthodox Church. It is certainly improper to pray and hold services with these churches, but not to talk to them.
How many jurisdictions take part in the World Council of Churches? What percentage?  Who says it is controversial? Why would any Orthodox Church join with the World Council of Churches if it is a heretical organisation? Surely if even one Orthodox jurisdiction joins then that jurisdiction should be excommunicated from the rest? If not, then the Orthodox Church has lost its credibility.  By joining in with the worldwide council of churches, it recognizes the other churches as churches. This is implicit. If they did not consider them churches - then they would not join with them - even as I would never join with the LDS or the JWs. They are not churches and I would never join in with them as any council of churches - since they are not churches.  And if a different church did join with the LDS or the JWs as one general group of Baptists did recently, then we would as a Church distance ourselves from them, alerting them as well, that we would not be able to have communion with them until they repented. 

Yet, it seems that the Orthodox Churches are ok with their fellow Orthodox congregations  having union with the anti-christ or with other churches - who they consider heretical - and then come let them back to have communion with them.  If you cannot see the hypocrisy of this - then there is little else to say. 

My priest has been tasked with having dialog in a modern ecumenical context. He says it is mostly a waste of time, but the good that comes out of it is that we get reports of people suffering in other countries that we otherwise might not get. It is not a wrong thing of us to do what we can to help alleviate the sufferings of those people if we can.

Your priest has been charged by whom? It surely is not just a waste of time, but it is anti-thetical everything you have been saying.  Sorry, Mopac, the only way that your church can come out of all of this unfaithfulness is if they either excommunicate all those who join with others - or they get down on their knees and confess that they have been unjustifiably divisive and unforgiving.  It is one or the other. Otherwise - your church is simply being unfaithful towards God in fornication or unfaithful towards God in unforgiveness.  Either way - it does not come across as faithful and a servant of God.  

It is time for the Orthodox Church to take a real stand.  A Stand for God. Either a Stand for reconciliation or a Stand for truth. These are not mutually exclusive by the way.  But reconciliation is always the aim for believers - even when they separate. And if reconciliation is not possible, because one has sinned unto death, then it should be a strict cutting off. Not giving the perception of reconciliation or peace, by destroying anathemas, or joining in with the World Council of Churches. This is not controversial - it is simply wrong. And to call it controversial is to minimize the seriousness of it.