[Antoni0]

În prealabil postat de BogdanF2

Spune-mi tu, cand in istoria Bisericii s-au mai petrecut asemena "ingradiri" si separari?

S-a rupt Biserica in 2 pe vremea arienilor, in BO Adevarata si BO Ariana?

S-a rupt Biserica in 2 pe vremea iconoclastilor, in BO Adevarata si BO Fara Icoane?

S-a rupt Biserica in 2 pe vremea sinodului de la Florenta?

S-a rupt Biserica in 2 pe vremea cand la Constantinopol era un patriarh eretic (Nestorie parca)?

S-a rupt biserica in 2 de fiecare data cand a aparut cate o erezie?

Oare sfintii marturisitori nu au dus lupa impotriva ratacirilor din sanul Bisericii, asa cum au facut si fac unii si de la noi? Asa a fost sau gresesc eu?

In 415, a Council in Antioch convened by St. Flavian finally brought an end to the Antiochian schism which had existed since 359. The reason for the schism was that St. Eustathius of Antioch was removed from his throne by the Arians. St. Eustathius' close followers, called Eustathians remained Orthodox, refusing to recognize a series of Arian Bishops of Antioch. However, St. Meletius, who had been ordained by Arian Bishops in Sebastia, became bishop of Antioch and proclaimed Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox therefore recognized him, but the strict Eustathians rejected him, and St. Paulinus was consecrated Bishop of Antioch by St. Lucifer of Calaris, to lead the Eustathians. Ss. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and the Asian and Cappadocian Fathers recognized Meletius, while Ss. Athanasius the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus and the entire Churches of the West recognized Paulinus. St. Meletius presided over the Second Ecumenical Council, and was recognized by both East and West. However, after his repose, the bishops elected a new Bishop of Antioch, even though the Eustathian bishop of Antioch was still alive. Both sides of the schism were Orthodox, and both sides were equally at fault for the continuation of the schism, perhaps the Meletians more so than the Eustathians. However, when the two sides finally reconciled in 359, it was on equal terms.

ii. In 920, a Patriarch Theophylact of Constantinople healed a schism which had been caused in 907 due to the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI. Two rival Patriarchs were set up, namely, Euthymius and Nicholas Mysticus. However, in 920, both sides of the division were accepted on equal terms, and both of the rival Patriarchs, Nicholas Mysticus and Euthymius, were glorified as saints of the Orthodox Church.

iii. Another similar case occurred in 1266, when the Orthodox of Constantinople were divided into Arsenites and Josephites, over the issue of whether or not the Emperor John Lascaris was to be absolved of his sins and permitted communion. This division lasted 46 years, and was healed in 1312, when both sides were reconciled on equal terms. Although the Arsenites had previously been referred to as schismatics by the Jospehites, the reposed leader of the "schism," Patriarch Arsenius was glorified as a saint by this Council.

iv. The Russian Orthodox Church restored its communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches in 1589, following the disruption between the Churches which had existed since 1448. The reason for the disruption was that Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev had signed the union with the Papists at the False Council of Florence. Upon his return to Russia, he was immediately rejected, and the Russian hierarchs elected their own Metropolitan to replace him, declaring the Russian Orthodox Church to be autocephalous. The union of Florence was also rejected by the majority of the Greek population, although the Emperor and Patriarch, and many of the bishops had not repudiated the union, and were still in communion with the Papists. In 1472, the uniate Greeks repented and revoked the false union, anathematizing the Papists. Following this they were received back into communion by the Orthodox. However, despite the Orthodoxy of both sides, the Russians and Greeks remained out of communion. The reason for this was not because of any schism or heresy. For the Russian Church did not declare its autocephaly for nationalistic purposes, but rather in order to preserve the True Faith, and although many of the Greeks were completely Orthodox throughout this time, the Patriarch of Constantinople was not, and therefore submission to him would be harmful. Yet when the truly Orthodox Greeks managed to acquire the Patriarchate and restore the Faith, such a need for division was no longer necessary. Despite this, however, the two Churches did not enter into communion until 1589, when Patriarch Jeremias II the Illustrius traveled to Moscow, entered into communion with the Russian Orthodox Church on equal terms, and elevated the Metropolitan of Moscow to the rank of Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia.

http://genuineorthodoxchurch.net/eng...uccession.html

Oare sfintii marturisitori nu au dus lupa impotriva ratacirilor din sanul Bisericii, asa cum au facut si fac unii si de la noi? Asa a fost sau gresesc eu?

Ce intelegi tu "din sanul Bisericii"? Din "sanul Bisericii" adica continuand pomenirea ierarhilor eretici?

Pe timpul arienilor, pe timpul lui Nestorie, si chiar la Florenta, dupa ce au aparut aceste erezii si rataciri, S'A FACUT SOBOR unde ereticii au fost osanditi! Nestorie a fost osandit chiar cand era in viata, Arie la fel! Dupa Florenta, ierarhii s'au intors inapoi la credinta Ortodoxa!

Acum ce vedem? Toata asa zisa biserica face ecumenism! Mitropolitul de Pireu a dat anatemei pe ecumenisti, pe aceeasi ecumenisti pe care'i pomeneste la Liturghie! Ce consecventa uimitoare...

Cine sa faca Sobor Ecumenic pentru a osandi ecumenismul? Bartolomeu? Kiril? ...

Poate vei zice si tu ca Epifanie, ca dupa Bartolomeu va veni un alt Patriarh... am vazut cu Athenagoras! Aceeasi linie dusa de acesta a fost preluata de Dimitrie si Bartolomeu; nici o schimbare, din partea lor! Toti ecumenisti pana'n maduva oaselor!