Views on True Orthodox "politics"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Views on True Orthodox "politics"

someguy
Hello all,

There are multiple True/Genuine/Authentic/Real Orthodox followings though plainly speaking some are more strict than others in terms of the canons and economy etc

My discussion point is does anyone think it is spiritually healthy for Orthodoxy as a whole if certain groups continually be more and more isolated as result of attempting to maintain perfection in terms of the ancient canon law?

As I have seen situations where some canons are refuted to say uphold another whilst trying to be more correct...

Does any of the canon law have order of importance/enforcement? IE; Apostolic then Seven Ecumenical then Fathers?

OR are they all simply equally sacred?

Thanks for your consideration
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Views on True Orthodox "politics"

Diakrisis Dogmaton
I do no think there is such a thing as "attempting to maintain perfection in terms of the ancient canon law." The canons themselves (Trullo) recognize the legitimacy of sometimes departing from exactness and using oikonomia (mercy). Dogma, however, is different. A synod can use oikonomia on a canonical norm, but a synod cannot contradict a dogma of the Church as expressed by the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical, Photian, and Palamite synods. So if a "synod" preached, for example, that there is no distinction between God's essence and God's energy, that synod would be heretical and other (true) synods would be obligated to sever communion with the newly-heretical synod. When it comes to the question of who is Orthodox and who is not, the key criteria are Orthodoxy in dogma and apostolic succession of bishops' ordinations. Also, accusations of moral infractions (real or alleged) play no role in this. Using moral accusations to initiate schism is the heresy of Donatism. One can initiate a breakage of communion if the "bishop" is in fact a "pseudo-bishop" due to either heresy (including stubborn communion with heresy) or schism (a lack of apostolic succession for that particular see). If you find continuity in Orthodox dogma and continuity of Orthodox apostolic succession of bishops, then you have found Christ's Orthodox Church. If a group calls itself "True Orthodox" but maintains communion with heretical ecumenist bishops, then you should look elsewhere.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Views on True Orthodox "politics"

someguy
Thanks for your prompt response.

Good point about the core dogma being the most important.

One thing I have also seen over the years is different "true" churches speaking ill of others for reasons that have nothing to do with core dogma.

For example recommending all faithful to attend no other churches and use the word heretical across all others be it for major reasons like ecumenism or even small differences in fasting strictness.
I can understand why this is the case in terms of the texts though you agree that minor details do not make judgment if core dogma remains genuinely orthodox?

Lastly you spoke of many references to true bishops.
My question is how can one know a church's bishop is in fact genuine? As all true orthodox churches are not in communion with each other and do not completely approve each others bishops.

Is there some kind of "list" of true bishops that exists online?

Thanks again