NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Brothers in Christ,

The Holy Monastic Republic of the Archregimancy hereby invites the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions of NationStates to engage in more fruitful inter-jurisdictional dialogue. We propose to form a Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops of NationStates [SCOBINS].

While the Holy Synod of the Monastic Republic certainly hopes that this will lead to increased theological and cultural ties between jurisdictions, we also hope that this exercise will lead to a better definition of what constitutes a canonical Orthodox church in what the Monastic Republic refers to as "the sundered worlds of ordinary physical reality".

PART I - Full Membership:

Orthodox jurisdictions which conform to the following two conditions are invited to take up full membership in SCOBINS:

1) Jurisdictions which recognise the seven Ecumenical Councils:*
I. First Council of Nicea, (325)
II. First Council of Constantinople, (381)
III. Council of Ephesus, (431)
IV. Council of Chalcedon, (451)
V. Second Council of Constantinople, (553)
VI. Third Council of Constantinople, (680-681)
VII. Second Council of Nicaea, (787)

*Jurisdictions which recognise a 'Fourth Council of Constantinople' (879-880) and a 'Fifth Council of Constantinople' (1341-1351) may apply for full membership provided they acknowledge that said recognition is not universally shared by the full body of the Orthodox Church

2) Jurisdictions which consider themselves to be in communion with at least one of the following Patriarchates:
Constantinople
Antioch
Alexandria
Jerusalem
Moscow
Or would still consider themselves to be in communion with the above Patriarchates if for some reason they no longer exist. In the latter case, some explanation of the continuity of apostolic succession would be helpful.

The Holy Synod recognises that in the sundered worlds of ordinary physical reality, there may not be full agreement over who currently sits on a Patriarchal throne. Taking Constantinople and Moscow as examples, those nations which do not recognise Bartholomew I and/or Alexy II as the holder of their respective offices are invited to describe their relevant historical background.

It is expected that most NationStates Orthodox jurisdictions will be fully autocephalous, though membership will be considered for non-autocephalous jurisdictions.

Note - All 'Uniate' churches, Orthodox rite churches which recognise the so-called supremacy of the heretical schismatic Pope of Rome, are specifically excluded from membership.

A list of full members may follow.


PART II - Observer Membership

The following two types of jurisdiction are offered observer membership in SCOBINS:

1) Jurisdictions which recognise the seven Ecumenical Councils, consider themselves fully Orthodox, which for anomalous historical reasons may not be in communion with the rest of their historical Orthodox Church, but which are willing to enter into dialogue to have their canonicity restored. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia might be considered an example.

2) 'Oriental Orthodox' Churches which recognise the first three Ecumenical Councils, but which reject the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Councils. This would include the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian churches (among others). Nestorians are specifically excluded from this category.

A full list of members may follow


[OOC - This RP is a bit of a stab in the dark, but I was hoping that it might at least help to see how many RPing NS nations consider themselves Orthodox, or have Orthodox jurisdictions within their boundaries. And maybe have fun in the process. I'm more interested in the potential response than anything else. And if you disagree with my definitions, feel free to RP a reply accordingly. Quibbling over jurisdictional boundaries and/or jurisdictional canonicity has a fine RL Orthodox tradition. If you have no idea what I'm going on about in the IC or OOC parts of this thread, then this RP probably isn't for you.]

The Patriarch of the independent church of the New Montreal States, representing several billion Montrealais Orthodox Christians, will attend this conference.

He also wonders, very quietly under his breath, whotheheckelsewillcome?

The Patriarch of the independent church of the New Montreal States, representing several billion Montrealais Orthodox Christians, will attend this conference.

He also wonders, very quietly under his breath, whotheheckelsewillcome?

Naturally the Holy Synod of the Holy Monastic Republic of the Archregimancy (an autonomous, but not autocephalous, jurisdiction of the highly reclusive Orthodox Church of the Holy Empire) acknowledges and recognises the canonicity of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of the New Montreal States, and with all due humility welcomes His Holiness' participation.

Given that our nations co-hosted NationStates World Cup 28 - the NS sporting world's only all-Orthodox host combination - one would hardly expect otherwise.

As with His Holiness, the Holy Synod is curious to see who else - if anyone - might turn up.

The Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Valeria, with its seat in Isangrad and the following of millions of people from Magnus Valerius, was formed back under the reign of Tigranes II (793 - 822) when he declared Valerian Orthodox Christians seperate from the Patriarchate in Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Isangrad was founded in 808, being the death knell of the religious connection between Constantinople and The Valerian Old Kingdom. However, the Valerian Church is distinct in that it follows the Greek rite (despite having a Slavic following) thanks to the Greek missionaries; services are done in Greek and sometimes Valerian or English (the die-hard traditionalist churches preach in Greek only).

His Holiness Patriarch Feodor III has made his desires clear: he wants to attend this conference with an entourage of archbishops and metropolitans (and maybe some Valerian monastics as well). He plans to visit, even being at the ripe old age of 79; for an elderly man, he still has some oil to burn and is amazingly energetic.

Along with him shall be several important archbishops and metropolitans:

Dionysios IX, archbishop of Trikoupes
Damokleos II, metropolitan of Alexandria and Uhlandria
Ivan VI, archbishop of Valeria
Vladimir XII, metropolitan of Sankt Valerian
Albrecht I, archbishop of Baden
Francois II, metropolitan of Nikeah
Dmitriy VIII, metropolitan of Dinenlanthir and Vedui
Pyotr I, archbishop of Romanovna and metropolitan of Meijis City
Yeufimei III, metropolitan of Kholmogory
Nikolaos IV, metropolitan of Kydonia
Yukichi I, metropolitan of Ryuusame
...And the 72 monks of the Tavarnov Monastery on Mount Leda. They are a prestigous lot, being the official iconoclasts for the Valerian Orthodox Church and all.

His Holiness Jean XVII, Patriarch of New Montreal and all the Midlands, has announced the delegation that will accompany him to the conference:

Mathieu V, archbishop of Laval and Repentigny
Luc I, metropolitan of Valdemont
Petr II, archbishop of St. James and the Valley
Alexandre I, archbishop of Philemon
Ezekiel I, metropolitan of Moncton Sands
Ivan II, archbishop of Sorel
Marc-Antoine I, archbishop of Ville-Marie
Theodore X, archbishop of Chateauguay
Georges VIII, archbishop of Angiers
Claude V, archbishop of Sherbrooke and the nicer bits of the West Coast*
David IV, archbishop of Acadie and the choicer parts of the West Coast*

*These two dioceses have been at odds with each other over various small towns and rural parishes along the West Coast ever since Jean I, when drawing up diocesan maps for the newly autocephalous church, accidentally mailed two different versions to the bishops of Sherbrooke and Acadie. Nobody ever really expects them to shape up.

His Holiness would also like to express alarm that the delegation from Magnus Valerius will contain 72 official iconoclasts. He wishes to express his doubts that smashing up the host cathedral will do much to improve neither church relations nor decor.

Fr. Seraphim the Occasionally Dangerously Free-Thinking Theologian, Archregimancy media personality and - for his sins - librarian of the Holy Monastery of St. Catherine's in the Desert, had been excluded from the official Archregimancy delegation to the conference. Again. Ever since his attempt to offer a fresh examination of the Palamite distinction between God's energies and essence, he'd been in the Holy Synod's bad books. Not that he'd attempted to redefine St. Gregory Palamas' formulation, mind, merely offer a fresh perspective on an issue he fully agreed had been settled since the 14th century. And Given that the Holy Synod were still arguing over the make-up of their delegation, maybe his exclusion wasn't entirely a bad thing.

But this morning, as he was taking a break from codifying the uncountable codices of St. Cat's, he came across an announcement of the arrival of the Valerian delegation to the conference, and the reaction of His Holiness Jean Le Dix-Septieme of the New Montreal States to a footnote in the Valerian delegation.

And almost spat out his bark tea from shock.

"Official Iconoclasts"? What in God's name did the monks of the Tavarnov Monastery think the 7th Ecumenical Council was for in the first place? Granted said council occured less than twenty years before the Valerian church declared itself autocephalous, but surely its rulings were recognised by His Holiness Feodor III? Surely the Valerians were aware of St. John of Damascus' distinction between the relative honour shown to material symbols, and the worship due to God alone?

Fr. Seraphim was sure the Valerians would be called upon to clarify the involvement of iconoclasts in their church before being granted full membership of SCOBINS.

The Danaan Orthodox Church was a Greek-rite Orthodox jurisdiction recognizing His Most Divine All-Holiness, Stephanus Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Archbishop of Drakopolis as Ecumenical Patriarch. At present, it was fully autocephalous although the Orthodox Synod of the Resurgent Dream was engaged in talks regarding possible union with the Synod of Constantinople. The issues being discussed included the female diaconate, ecumenism, and more trivial issues of an organizational nature. Unlike some of the other churches attending, the Synod saw no logic in sending a large delegation of bishops. With the number of churches to be represented, it seemed likely that a single bishop from each church would be enough for a large and lively conference and the great number sent by several churches would merely make things unwieldy. It was with this thought in mind that Metropolitan Przemysl Waglewski, Archbishop of Eiry, Metropolitan of Wyrnsk, was assigned to represent the Danaan Church. He was, of course, accompanied by a number of assistants, both lay and ordained, but no other high ranking clergyman were going to speak for the Synod in any official capacity.

The Carasian Orthodox Church was an Oriental Orthodox Church recognizing His Holiness Shenouda III as Pope of Alexandria and the Patriarch of the Holy Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist. It was originally under the jurisdiction of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church but was accepted as autocephalous by the See of St. Mark after the, in the eyes of the Church, illegitimate removal of Abune Tewophilos as the Ethiopian Patriarch by the Marxist Derg regime in that nation. The Carasian Orthodox Church applied to send Bishop Farid Abate as an observer.

Letters wishing the conference well were also sent by His Most Esteemed Highness, Paul, Prince of Bilbtoria; Her Highness, the Princess Diana, Marchioness of Aristonople and Ambassador to Pantocratoria; Her Highness, the Princess Theophania, Countess of Timonople; and Her Most Esteemed Highness, Candace, Princess of Carasia.

[OOC - This RP is a bit of a stab in the dark, but I was hoping that it might at least help to see how many RPing NS nations consider themselves Orthodox, or have Orthodox jurisdictions within their boundaries. And maybe have fun in the process. I'm more interested in the potential response than anything else. And if you disagree with my definitions, feel free to RP a reply accordingly. Quibbling over jurisdictional boundaries and/or jurisdictional canonicity has a fine RL Orthodox tradition. If you have no idea what I'm going on about in the IC or OOC parts of this thread, then this RP probably isn't for you.]

OOC: Hi! I'll put together an IC response to this soon, but in the mean time, this NSwiki article might help you in your quest to find Orthodox nations/churches on NS: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Eastern_Orthodoxy

The Official Iconoclasts should bring no alarm at all. Patriarch Feodor III fully recognizes 7th Ecumenical Council. Despite their name as 'iconoclasts', the monks of the Tavarnov Monastery do not destroy images of orthodoxy. No, they destroy the holy images of other, heathen and pagan faiths. Magnus Valerius treats all religions fairly, but that doesn't stop the Orthodox Church from converting people and then dismantling their native religious icons. Hence, the monks of Tavarnov do the duty of removing pagan idols from shrines and replace them with Orthodox icons. The Tavarnov monks particularly have a liking for destroying icons from the schismatic Catholics and replace them with more proper Orthodox icons.

[OOC: Well, the Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Moscow Patriarchates aren't really extant in the NS Verse. They are mentionned historically.

For example, the Orthodox Church of Constantinople (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Orthodox_Church_of_Constantinople) is not the real life Constantinople Patriarchate, but a church in Pantocratoria (which itself is a descendant of the Byzantine Empire in sort-of exile, hence the names and stuff :P ). Orthodoxy was long "forbidden" in Pantocratoria and upon its recent allowance, sprang to full glory again and now its head claims the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. This title and claim is recognised by many of the other Orthodox Churches. Panto will surely prove me wrong, but I think my relentless poking of him into RPing Orthodoxy has contributed in some way to the resurgence of Orthodoxy in his nation. :D

An other example is my own, the Taraskovyan Orthodox Church (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Taraskovyan_Orthodox_Church) was first a jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate (the real life one), then of the Moscovite and then was granted autocephaly and promoted itself Patriarchate. Today it is very big, very huge, very powerful and considered by many as "second in honour" to the Ecumenical Patriarchate (the Pantocratorian one). It neither recognises nor rejects the OCC claim to Ecumenical Patriarchate, though, and is curious how it'll turn out. The two are in full communion, regardless of that.

As you can see, even if the historical five patriarchates are mentioned in, well, history, there isn't really an RP centered around them.

There is also an issue of various players that exist in different "universes" if you will. You see, if some players don't recognise each other as existing in their universe for one reason or the other, then their churches are obviously not in communion, since they don't exist for each other. This can get quite confusing when a third church is in communion with both...

So, sorry for placing a huge OOC post in your thread, but hope my input helps. Following the link Pantocratoria provided would allow you to find much more helpful information. :) ]

[OOC: Well, the Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Moscow Patriarchates aren't really extant in the NS Verse. They are mentionned historically.

<snip>

So, sorry for placing a huge OOC post in your thread, but hope my input helps. Following the link Pantocratoria provided would allow you to find much more helpful information. :) ]


OOC - No need to apologise, but I obviously need to clarify a couple of things over what I'm attempting to do here...

The central problem here, of course, is that there isn't a single 'NSverse', but rather several overlapping NS realities. Note that the Archregimancy is, IC, specifically conceptualised as existing outside 'ordinary physical reality' (there is an NS wiki page for the nation, but it hasn't been updated in a while) which is why the IC post at the top of the thread explicitly recognises the potential for conflicting opinions over who the current Patriarchs are.

So some NS nations do recognise the existence of the current RL historical patriarchates, while others - like Pantocratoria - have their own involved complex history (which I am aware of, though we've never RP'd together). Catholic NS nations often disagree over who the Pope is, after all.

I'm also aware of the NSwiki articles on various NS Orthodox churches... I wrote the bit about the Orthodox Church of the Holy Empire in the wiki list of national NS Orthodox churches.

What I'm trying to do here isn't to create a single official NS Orthodox reality - something which would be impossible given established RP continuity for our respective nations - but rather establish a forum through which the various Orthodox nations (and Orthodox jurisdictions within non-majority Orthodox nations) can communicate with each other, recognise each other's canonicity, and hopefully have a bit of fun in the process. I also thought it might be interesting for all of us to see which nations are Orthodox outside of our usual NS RP circles.

As the Archregimancy (imagine a nation modelled on Mount Athos, but on an NS scale) exists outside reality, my younger nation strikes me as an obvious choice for hosting the forum/conference without people worrying too much about how these contacts might b*gger up their own internal continuity.

And if we get too caught up in OOC definitions, I might have to start a separate OOC thread.... But let's see how we go now that I've tried to clarify things.

To:
The Synod of the Holy Monastic Republic of the Archregimancy

Brothers in Christ,

The blessing of Holy God and the Holy Theotokos be upon you! It is with joy in the Lord that we have received word of your efforts to organise a standing conference of the canonical Orthodox bishops of the world.

We offer the imprimateur of the Ecumenical Throne to this standing conference by volunteering to open it personally. The Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate has decided, upon our recommendation, to send one of its members to the standing conference, rotating its representative on a monthly basis so that representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople at the standing conference does not preclude that representative from effectively exercising his responsibilities to his own flock in Pantocratoria. The first representative, elected by the Synod, who would travel with us to the opening of the standing conference, would be His Eminence Archbishop Ioannes of Verditania.

While hoping some day to meet you all in the spirit of brotherly love and of Orthodox unity everywhere, we wish you good health and peace, wholeheartedly embracing You in Christ, Our Lord and Saviour.

STEPHANUS
Archbishop of Constantinople (New Rome) and Drakopolis
Ecumenical Patriarch

Dear Brothers in Christ,

It is in a spirit of great joy and thankfullness in the manifold blessings of the Lord that we so unworthily receive that we welcome so many delegations to this new standing conference of canonical Orthodox bishops. Grateful indeed are we that our Lord and Saviour has seen fit to bring so many nations within the fullness of Orthodoxy. Truly we might join together to say "The Father is my hope; the Son is my refuge; the Holy Spirit is my protector. O All-holy Trinity, glory to thee."

By our count, we are at present expecting representatives from the following Orthodox jurisdictions (in order of invitation acceptance; no attempt to suggest primacy is intended), though presumably some of the individual delegation members shall only be attending the conference's opening.

FULL MEMBERS:

The Autonomous Holy Synod of the Archregimancy (also representing the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of the Holy Empire)
Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky
Father Anastasius, keeper of the Patriarchal Inkwell for
the Patriarch of the Holy Empire

The Patriarchate of the New Montreal States
His Holiness Jean XVII, Patriarch of New Montreal and all the Midlands
Mathieu V, archbishop of Laval and Repentigny
Luc I, metropolitan of Valdemont
Petr II, archbishop of St. James and the Valley
Alexandre I, archbishop of Philemon
Ezekiel I, metropolitan of Moncton Sands
Ivan II, archbishop of Sorel
Marc-Antoine I, archbishop of Ville-Marie
Theodore X, archbishop of Chateauguay
Georges VIII, archbishop of Angiers
Claude V, archbishop of Sherbrooke and the nicer bits of the West Coast
David IV, archbishop of Acadie and the choicer parts of the West Coast

The Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Valeria
His Holiness Feodor III, Patriarch of Isangrad
Dionysios IX, archbishop of Trikoupes
Damokleos II, metropolitan of Alexandria and Uhlandria
Ivan VI, archbishop of Valeria
Vladimir XII, metropolitan of Sankt Valerian
Albrecht I, archbishop of Baden
Francois II, metropolitan of Nikeah
Dmitriy VIII, metropolitan of Dinenlanthir and Vedui
Pyotr I, archbishop of Romanovna and metropolitan of Meijis City
Yeufimei III, metropolitan of Kholmogory
Nikolaos IV, metropolitan of Kydonia
Yukichi I, metropolitan of Ryuusame
The 72 monks of the Tavarnov Monastery on Mount Leda

The Danaan Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Przemysl Waglewski, Archbishop of Eiry &
Metropolitan of Wyrnsk

Orthodox Church of Constantinople [OOC - Pantocratoria]
His Holiness Stephanus, Ecumenical Patriach and
Archbishop of Constantinople
Archbishop Ioannes of Verditania

OBSERVER MEMBERS:

The Carasian Orthodox Church [OOC - Oriental Orthodox]
Bishop Farid Abate


We hope that the Lord, in his unknowable wisdom, shall inspire other Orthodox nations to send representatives.

With all humility, and full knowledge of our unworthiness, we invite the assembled delegations to stay at the capital of the Archregimancy, the Holy Monastery of the Greatest Lavra, and to attend the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Lavra's primary katholikon.

In order to avoid unfortunate disagreements over matters of precedence, the three Patriarchs attending the opening of the conference - Jean XVII of the New Montreal States, Feodor III of Isangrad, and Stephanus of Constantinople - are invited to jointly lead the liturgy.

Following the liturgy, the assembled delegations are invited to join the monks of the Archregimancy in prayerfully observing the Forefeast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, which is celebrated today in the Archregimancy calendar.

We shall open the conference in full tomorrow, on the Fast of the Nativity of the Theotokos, in whose Holy name the Holy Monastic Republic of the Archregimancy has been dedicated.

We ask the assembled delegations to consider which matters they wish to raise, whether doctrinal, jurisdictional or administrative, in this important event in pan-Orthodox dialogue.

Let us each offer forth a prayer as we prepare for this solemn task:

Lord Jesus Christ, my God, You have said, "Apart from me You can do nothing." In faith I embrace Your words, Lord, and I entreat Your goodness. Help me to carry out the work I am about to begin, and to bring it to completion. To You I give glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Also observing the conference will be a very well-dressed man with sunglasses and a very expensive haircut, who will say nothing but wince on occasion as if it hurt to be in a cathedral and it was taking all his willpower to avoid getting up and bolting from the room yelping in pain. His press credentials are completely genuine ones, taken from a reporter from the Moncton Sands Tribune who is currently being held in suspended animation via dark magic.

''From: His Holiness, the Head of the Armekh Orthodox Church, Gregory Arcanades
To: The Esteemed Leaders of the SCOBINS Conference

It is a pleasure to write to you, my Orthodox brethren. My church would be interested in attending this esteemed conference. We wish to discuss things such as the relations between our churches. For Paul of Tarsus warns us of divisions in the Church:

''I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.'' (1 Corinthians 1:10 (New International Version)

If I am able to attend, with members of the Church of the Armekh, I would be thankful of the opportunity. I also would like to know if a nun can attend, for we have a nun from the St. Helena of the True Cross Monastery, Helen Artera who is interested in attending.

I have no more time to write, so I close with:

''May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.'' (From the Book of Second Thessalonians)

Signed,
Gregory Arcanades
Head of the Armekh Orthodox Church''

To: His Holiness Gregory, Head of the Armekh Orthodox Church

We rejoice the Lord our God has sent the Orthodox Church of Armekh to this conference, and send solemn greetings, in full knowledge of our unworthiness, to His Holiness, and invite him to join us forthwith.

It is with a heavy heart, however, that we must refuse our sister Helen, may our Lord and Saviour protect and inspire her, entry to the Archregimancy. The Holy Monastic Republic is dedicated to the Ever-Virgin Theotokos, and so as to properly revere the Mother of God, no females are typically permitted entry into the Monastic Republic (though, just between the two of us, the Holy Synod does turn a blind eye to the presence of egg-laying hens in monasteries).

We mean no disrespect to our sister in Christ Helen, and hope that she will understand our decision.

We hope to open discussion in the near future with a description of a new heresy that seems to be unique to the sundered worlds of ordinary physical reality - but His Holiness should feel free to raise matters of particular concern to the Church of Armekh in the interim.

Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky,
For The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy

A Brief Description of the Sonyanite Heresy

A discussion document offered to the assembled SCOBINS delegates:

It has come to the attention of the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy that the nation of Dorian and Sonya (also known as the 'Sylvanaes Kingdom') espouses a form of Christianity which is superficially Orthodox in its outward appearance, but which slips into into doctrinal heresy. This is a heresy unique to our myriad worlds, and which seems to have no roots in history. Certainly we've been unable to find reference to it in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's 'Against Heresy'.

On the positive side, the church of the Sylvanaes Kingdom rejects Rome's monarchical claims and espouses an Orthodox Chalcedonian view of Christ's human and divine natures. So far, so good.

However, the Sonyanites (as they've been dubbed) refuse to concede that there is a difference between the Catholic Augustinian conception of original sin (where man bears the full guilt of Adam's fall) and the Orthodox conception thereof (where man bears the consequence of the fall through his state of sin, but not necessarily the actual burden of guilt).

As a direct result of this failure to make a distinction, more correctly as a result of man carrying both guilt and the consequence thereof, the Sonyanites deny the possibility of man achieving union with God - or 'Theosis (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis)'. But theosis is of course a crucial aspect of Orthodox theology. The life of St. Seraphim of Sarov would be inconceivable without it. One need only note St. Athanasius of Alexandria's statement that "The Son of God became man, that we might become God".

By denying the potential of theosis through their understanding of the outcome of original sin, the Sonyanites thus deny a key goal of the ideal Orthodox life.

The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy (and the Autocephalous Church of the Holy Empire) therefore invites the delegates to pronounce anathema on the heretical Christians of Dorian and Sonya.

[OOC - I've provided a link to the Orthodox wiki's theosis page for those who need a helping hand with the theology side of things, though there's some feeling that said page needs to be 'Orthodoxised']

Warning: Important details in this post may no longer be canon.

The Xirniumite Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church was something of an historical oddity within the Eternal Republic of Xirnium, a curious ancient relic of a now long past age. With an insignificant number of followers even by the extremely modest standards of religions within the progressive, secular Xirniumite State (a nation whose overwhelmingly vast majority of the population was atheist, with no belief whatsoever in the supernatural), the Orthodox Church of Xirnium was often overlooked by modern theological scholars and academics. Partially this was also due to the fact that the number of Orthodox faithful within the Eternal Republic was currently vastly dwarfed by those who considered themselves adherents of the Núháquënwaëv faith (the ancient, native, animist pagan religion of Xirnium, which had arisen as an early alternative to the worship of the historic pantheon of Xirnian deities in the late second century BCE), who were themselves only a trivial minority amongst the greater population. Even so, the Xirniumite Orthodox Church could easily boast more followers than any other mainstream world religion within the Xirniumite Republic.

Orthodox Christianity had arrived in the Roman Diocese of Xirniae (one of the most far-flung provinces of the western Praetorian prefecture of Galliae) during the final years of the rein of Emperor Constantine I the Great, in 332 CE, with the establishment of a Xirniumite Eparchy of the Archbishopric of Constantinople. The Church was, in this way, curious in being perhaps the only ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the entire western empire not nominally part of the Roman Patriarchate, under the Pope. The rise of the Orthodox Church in Xirnium faced formidable opposition from the Xirniumite pagans, though it was during this short period that its influence was undoubtedly at its greatest. The Western Roman Empire was in widespread political, economic and military decline by this stage in its history, a fact which encouraged the Archbishop of Constantinople to declare the Xirniumite Orthodox Church independent and Autocephalous in 428 CE - upon the recommendation of the Roman Vicarius of the Diocese of Xirniae, Flavius Ailintelus, and the advice of his Consular and Equestrian governors. The bishop of the Xirniumite capital of Naèräth was constituted metropolitan by Emperor Theodosius II, with the title of archbishop, in 433 CE. The final end of Roman rule in Xirnium in 437 CE irrevocably broke the power of the Xirniumite Orthodox Church, and it remained to this day as little more than a peculiar footnote to history.

The Xirniumite Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church continued to recognise only the first three ecumenical councils of the undivided church - the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE), the First Council of Constantinople (381 CE) and the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). Following the end of Byzantine rule in Xirnium, and towards the beginning of the mid fifth century, the Xirniumite Orthodox Church began to lose touch with its Eastern origins. The Orthodox Church of Xirnium elected not to accept the canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), or, indeed, any other ecumenical council. For considerably longer than one and a half millennia, therefore, the Xirniumite Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church had not practiced Communion with any other Orthodox jurisdiction, though it had not explicitly withdrawn recognition of their legitimacy.

Today, Xirniumite Orthodoxy remained Miaphysite, with a rejection of Eutychian Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Unlike other, Old Oriental, Orthodox Churches, the Xirniumite Orthodox Church had not sought out reconciliation with the Vatican, and did not accept the papal authority recognised by the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Many long centuries of existence within liberal and dissolute Xirnium had mutated the Xirniumite Orthodox Church unrecognisably, and it was thus both highly progressive, modern and secularist. For example, the practice of ordaining women to the diaconate, which fell out of use over time in most mainstream Orthodox Churches throughout the world, was strengthened (and also extended to the priesthood and episcopate) within the Xirniumite Orthodox Church. In addition, the Xirniumite Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church had been one of the first churches to voice its explicit acceptance of evolution by natural selection, in the period of time soon after the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Such were but two small examples of the way in which the Xirniumite Orthodox Church had been profoundly influenced and shaped by the highly liberal, tolerant and hedonistic society of Xirnium. None of this was to say, however, that the Xirniumite Orthodox Church considered itself to have abandoned Tradition, of which both its intricately beautiful Orthodox Iconography and elaborately rich Byzantine liturgical rite were the most obvious manifestations. Indeed, the Xirniumite Orthodox Church continued to hold its Eucharistic services in Greek, as it had since its inception.

Despite having recognised and acted on the obvious fact that only by staunchly embracing modernity and liberalism could the Xirniumite Orthodox Church prolong (for perhaps a brief moment) its own existence within the Eternal Republic, it currently remained in rapid, steady and terminal decline - like all religious groups inside Xirnium.

_____________________________

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e221/Xirnium/ortho.jpg

Official Ecclesiastical Memorandum

The Xirniumite Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church

To:

Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky
The Autonomous Holy Synod of the Archregimancy

From:

The Makariotatos Metropolitan Archbishop Théodore Lavänsêron
The Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Xirnium


“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3)


Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Lord

It is with distinct interest and great joy and light in our hearts that we have learnt of recent attempts, by your most esteemed Holy Synod, to forge an enduring conference of the world’s Orthodox bishops.

After great and serious debate, and following long and supplicant Prayer for the Divine guidance of the Panagia Theotokos, the Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Xirnium has voted to humbly request admittance within the standing conference of canonical Orthodox bishops, though as an observer member. Verily we aware that grave misgivings may exist amongst some of you at the prospect of allowing entry to a Church that has, for so long, been unjustly sundered from its Orthodox brethren. However, it is with earnest hope in the undeniable love and beneficence of the Homoousios Holy Trinity, and with fervent belief in the compassion and mercy of our Church’s wise ecclesiastical principal of Oikonomia, that we beseech the various noble members of the conference to look beyond the gulf of our Schism and towards the bright possibility of spiritual reconciliation.

We pray to Christ Pantocrator, the Lord, the Supreme and Eternal Head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, to bless and sustain our Churches so that they may constantly hear His call.

With love in the Risen Lord

[Signed]

His Beatitude the Archbishop Théodore Lavänsêron
Metropolitan of Naèräth and All Xirnium
Primate of the Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Xirnium

A Brief Description of the Sonyanite Heresy

A discussion document offered to the assembled SCOBINS delegates:

It has come to the attention of the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy that the nation of Dorian and Sonya (also known as the 'Sylvanaes Kingdom') espouses a form of Christianity which is superficially Orthodox in its outward appearance, but which slips into into doctrinal heresy. This is a heresy unique to our myriad worlds, and which seems to have no roots in history. Certainly we've been unable to find reference to it in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's 'Against Heresy'.

On the positive side, the church of the Sylvanaes Kingdom rejects Rome's monarchical claims and espouses an Orthodox Chalcedonian view of Christ's human and divine natures. So far, so good.

However, the Sonyanites (as they've been dubbed) refuse to concede that there is a difference between the Catholic Augustinian conception of original sin (where man bears the full guilt of Adam's fall) and the Orthodox conception thereof (where man bears the consequence of the fall through his state of sin, but not necessarily the actual burden of guilt).

As a direct result of this failure to make a distinction, more correctly as a result of man carrying both guilt and the consequence thereof, the Sonyanites deny the possibility of man achieving union with God - or 'Theosis (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis)'. But theosis is of course a crucial aspect of Orthodox theology. The life of St. Seraphim of Sarov would be inconceivable without it. One need only note St. Athanasius of Alexandria's statement that "The Son of God became man, that we might become God".

By denying the potential of theosis through their understanding of the outcome of original sin, the Sonyanites thus deny a key goal of the ideal Orthodox life.

The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy (and the Autocephalous Church of the Holy Empire) therefore invites the delegates to pronounce anathema on the heretical Christians of Dorian and Sonya.

[OOC - I've provided a link to the Orthodox wiki's theosis page for those who need a helping hand with the theology side of things, though there's some feeling that said page needs to be 'Orthodoxised']

Saint Augustine and Orthodoxy: A Defence of the Sonyanites

A discussion paper offered to SCOBINS delegates by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Saint Augustine of Hippos is a saint belonging to the Church of Christ, East and West alike, living and teaching as he did in the days before the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Latins. He is a father and doctor of the Church, a holy man, whom the Church receives as a saint. He was, however, a man, and men err. This neither detracts from his holiness nor from the fact that through the Church by the revelation of God we have received Blessed Augustine as a saint.

Saint Photios I, Patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, wrote of Saint Augustine on numerous occasions, defending the holiness of Blessed Augustine and his position as a saint despite his errors of doctrine, regarding especially the filioque clause inserted by some Latins into the Creed:

"If the great Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome and some others who are of the same opinion and on the same level and happen to have the great reputation of virtue and illustrious life, teach among others, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, this does not lessen their importance for the Church."[1]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council ranked Augustine as a theological authority, equal to Saint Basil, Saint Gregory and Saint John Chrysostom, with no qualification. It is certainly true that Blessed Augustine's work suffers from the mechanistic interpretations and thought from which so much Latin work suffers, however the saint's piety and devotion are readily apparent, "adorned with many examples of virtue and piety and thus professed your teaching either through ignorance or oversight which was never imposed as a dogma."[2] Recognising the fallible nature of humans, the fathers of the past have kept the best, Orthodox views of Blessed Augustine and other fathers and left in silence such private views as were erroneous which they did not try to proclaim as the only Orthodox view.

That the Sonyanite position, as described in the discussion paper circulated by our brothers the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy, is in error, is not in question. To call for the Sonyanites to be anathemised is far too extreme, and not consistent at all with the view the fathers of the past would have taken. Just as the hagios of Blessed Augustine is not in doubt despite his errors, the Sonyanite position is not heresy despite its error. Crucially, the Sonyanites, whilst failing to see an all too readily apparent difference in views between St Augustine's private views and the Orthodox view of the Church, do not teach that the erroneous view of that father on the matter of original sin is the only Orthodox view.

Just as Blessed Augustine is not an heretic, neither can the Sonyanites be. Their error, born through the ignorance inherent in the human condition, should be repudiated and corrected, but errors are corrected through education, not through anathema.

The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate invites the delegates to repudiate error where they find it, but to behave always in a manner consisted with the fathers of the past from whom we have inherited the sacred gift of Orthodoxy.

[1]Letter of Photios to Metropolitan Archbishop of Aquieleia
[2]Photios, Mystagogia

From: His Holiness, Gregory, Head of the Orthodox Church of the Armekh
To: Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky

We understand your customs and that is ok with us, she understands fully and welcomes you for your well wishes. I would be glad to attend, and I will come with several other clergy, including the Head of the Chrysostomites, a well known monastic order of the Armekh Empire, named for St. John Chrysostom. I myself was named for Gregory Palamas, who fought Barlaam of Calabria over Heyschasm.

The Armekh Church does not seem to have any issues to discuss as of now, though we will see if any exist. I have worked hard to help the faithful of the Church of the Armekh, as my grandfather, Arman did when he was the Head.

The Armekh Church has existed since missionaries came and converted the people and we have enjoyed our faith since. We worship in the Armekh language, in the Rite of the Greek Orthodox Church. A Greek Armekh band, Petros Gaitanos would like to send Konstantin Angelopoulos to sing a hymn or two for the conference. They've composed their new album and can sing for the conference ''H Zoi En Tafo'' or ''Axion Esti''.

(Look on Youtube for Gaitanaros and the guy in the video is Konstantin Angelopoulos)

The Armekh Church will also help in any liturgies that may take place. My brother, a monk named Yami would be glad to read the Scriptures. We also have well known chanters of the Byzantine Chant who can chant in Armekh and Greek.

It is my hope that Orthodox fellowship can be established and we look forward to discussions with other churches, such as your own.

I must depart now, but I will come when I can. I pray that the Holy Trinitarian God will bless this conference.

Signed,
Gregory of the Armekh

To: The leaders of this Conference
From: Alexei Kanellopoulos, Conducter of the Chanters of St. Lawrence

Greetings to you, leaders of the SCOBINS conference. I am Alexei Kanellopoulos, conducter of the Chanters of St. Lawrence. We would be glad to help with singing and chanting in any liturgies you may officate with the many clergy in Christ that attend this conference. I myself conduct the Chanters, and we have done many liturgies, including the one for the funeral of the predecessor of Gregory XI (the Gregory who wrote to the conference), Vega IV.

I hope you will consider my offer and if not, I hope that God blesses the conference, and gives you His Wisdom. May the Father of Our Lord keep you in the palm of His Hand, until we meet!

Signed,
A. Kanellopoulos
Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen! Glorify Him!

(Note-I was inspired to do this from listening to the real life Chanters, from Liturgica. com, which has liturgical chants, etc of all kinds, like Byzantine and Russian)

A letter came out from an othordox church that no one had previously recognised. The Iconodulestic Autocephalous Bazalonian Orthodox Church had finally tried to reach out to it's fellow Orthodox Brethern.


Dear fellow Othordox brothers of the Standing Conference of the Canonincal Othordox Bishops;

The Iconodulestic Autocephalous Bazalonian Orthodox Church(IABOC), wishes to participate as a full member of this conference. Many of the churches present at the SCOBINS council will be unaware of our history. Let us start before the first iconoclastic pronouncement by Leo III. Historical books show the IABOC in frequent communion with other Orthodox churches of that time. However believing in the strong benefits of Iconographs and recognising that "graven images" are spefically those images that are worshiped instead of God. Iconographs praise God telling others of his wonderous works. As such we found that we could no longer be in communion with those that wish to destroy such Iconographs. So we withdrew and kept to ourselves and it has taken until now and the Second Council of Nicaea for communion to be re-established by the IABOC with our Orthodox Bretheren

Representing the IABOC should full membership to SCOBINS be granted will be

Bishop of North Victorland Coast, Andreas Constance
Bishop of Southern South Bazalonia, Michael Hent

Thank you

ArchBishop of Bazalonia, Anthony Jones

To: The Synod of the Holy Monastic Republic of the Archregimancy

It is with great honor that we here in the Sylvanaes Kingdom have entered into theological discussion with members of your order in recent past. It has been insightful into ideas that were foreign to us and somewhat relieving to find that so many of our own views are shared with the Orthodox.

It is saddening for us to have been labeled as heretics when we share so many views in common. With the exception of the Ecumenical Councils have not been included in the teachings of our own religion, the major issue of separation in our views seems to be the issue of original sin and the ideas that surround it.

But, just as with the councils, we are open to delving more into the ideas and theology behind your beliefs in order to deem what is right in the picture of God’s will and views. Unlike many others, we remain open-minded to that which is beyond our own area of experience.

For that reason, we wish to send a small delegation to your Conference in order to further our learning of the Orthodox view. And thanks to an unnamed source, we also understand that our views will be an issue of debate at this conference and wish to see first-hand just what is being debated.

And respecting the exclusion, somewhat with reserve, of women’s allowance to enter The Archregimancy, we wish to send Eärendur Tinehtelë, Edgarro Prununcis, of The Church of the Sylvanaes. We do hope that Prunucis is welcomed to this conference.

Queen Sonya Sabre of the Sylvanaes Kingdom

Saint Augustine and Orthodoxy: A Defence of the Sonyanites

A discussion paper offered to SCOBINS delegates by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

<snip>

Just as Blessed Augustine is not an heretic, neither can the Sonyanites be. Their error, born through the ignorance inherent in the human condition, should be repudiated and corrected, but errors are corrected through education, not through anathema.

The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate invites the delegates to repudiate error where they find it, but to behave always in a manner consisted with the fathers of the past from whom we have inherited the sacred gift of Orthodoxy.


The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy welcomes the contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Archregimancy does not wish to impugn the sanctity of our father among the saints, Augustine of Hippo, whose wisdom in denouncing the heresies of Donatism, Pelagianism and Manicheanism was so vital in strengthening our brothers in the pre-schism territories of the Roman Patriarch.

The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy also does not wish to suggest that the Blessed Augustine of Hippo was a heretic, but we share the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate that he was capable of error.

In this specific case, the error lies in the Augustinian conception of original sin. We agree with our brothers in the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the difference between Augustinian guilt and Orthodox consequence is not itself heretical. The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy is willing to consider the Augustinian definition as a theologoumon, a theological opinion rather than a matter of doctrine; in this case we consider the opinion to be in error, but not necessarily to be a heresy.

However, this matter of guilt versus consequence is not the fundamental error made by the Sonyanites. The heresy of Sonyanism lies in denying the possibility of theosis, of man achieving union with God. This is not an error of our father among the saints Augustine of Hippo, but a brand new heresy.

Why a heresy rather than an error? Because the Sonyanites deny a crucial foundation of the Incarnation. All of humanity is fully restored to the full potential of humanity because the Son of God took to Himself a human nature to be born of a woman, and takes to Himself also the sufferings due to sin (yet is not Himself a sinful man, and is God unchanged in His being). In Christ, the two natures of God and human are not two persons but one; thus, a union is effected in Christ, between all of humanity and God. So, the holy God and sinful humanity are reconciled in principle, in the one sinless man, Jesus Christ. While the Sonyanites appear to hold a Chalcedonian view of Christ's two natures, their theology implies a denial of Christ's restoration of the full potential of humanity through the Incarnation, specifically in humanity itself achieving union with God.

This moves beyond error, and into heresy.

We remind the delegates that St. Gregory Palamas affirmed the possibility of humanity's union with God in His energies, while also affirming that because of God's transcendence and utter otherness, it is impossible for any person or other creature to know or to be united with God's essence.


However, the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy is not so vain a body so as to believe that it speaks for the entirety of the Orthodox Church, and welcomes further discussion of this matter through SCOBINS. The Holy Synod firmly believes in the collegiality of the church and that a final decision on this matter can only be reached through that collegiality, assisted by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Synod further notes that the Sylvanaes Kingdom wishes to send a representative to SCOBINS in order to learn more about Orthodoxy. This is encouraging, as the correct response to heresy is not persecution (with the exception of the canonically-established death penalty for Manicheans), but rather education, and thereby returning heretics to the fullness of Orthodoxy. And even Arius was allowed to defend himself at the First Council of Nicea. We therefore invite the representative of the Sylvanaes Kingdom to express himself on this matter so as to avoid the possibility that this issue arises out of a simple misunderstanding.

Other matters before the Council...


Dear Brothers in Christ,

Some jurisdictional matters have come before the Conference as regards the applications of two unusual churches to either observer or full status in SCOBINS.

First of all, we have a letter from His Beatitude the Archbishop Théodore Lavänsêron, Metropolitan of Naèräth and All Xirnium, Primate of the Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Xirnium.

The Autocephalous Metropolitan Orthodox Church of Xirnium seeks observer membership as a non-Chalcedonian church recognising the first three Ecumenical Councils. However, the Church of Xirnium ordains women, not just to the diaconate (the female diaconate itself being a topic we hope to fruitfully discuss in this conference), but to the priesthood and episcopate. Given the Archregimancy's longstanding defence of Holy Tradition, it seems to us that this extraordinary departure from the Holy Traditions of Orthodoxy, through which the Church of Xirnium seems to have taken unto its shoulders the sole right to decide matters of both tradition and doctrine, runs counter to the spirit of this Conference.

However, the Holy Synod does not wish to make a unilateral decision on the application of the Church of Xirnium to observer status, and therefore encourages the other members of SCOBINS to express an opinion on this matter.


The second letter comes from the Archbishop of Bazalonia, Anthony Jones, of the Iconodulestic Autocephalous Bazalonian Orthodox Church.

There seems to be little doubt that the IABOC is fully Orthodox in doctrine. Here the initial point of schism seems to be in the Bazalonian Church's praiseworthy rejection of iconoclasm. Yet because of this schism, the Bazalonians failed to hear of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the final victory of the Holy Icons on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. It gladdens our hearts that the IABOC wishes to restore its historical links with the One True Church.

However, strictly speaking, the Bazalonian Church is not in communion with the canonical Orthodox Church. It is thus the inclination of the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy to only grant the Bazalonian delegation observer status until a final decision on its canonicity is made by SCOBINS.

Once again the Holy Synod invites the assembled delegations of SCOBINS to express themselves on the matter.

Yours in Christ,

Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky
Official delegate of the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy to SCOBINS




[ooc - apologies for taking so long to answer recent posts. For RL reasons, my contributions will be intermittent over the next few weeks - but please don't let that stop the rest of you from contributing to the thread!]

Dear Metropolitan Kyrill of Solovetsky, The SCOBINS Delegate of the Holy Empire and The Archregimancy.

We are looking forward to having our international canonicity and communion to be restored and until such time that the verification process has been completed, our two delegates will be leaving Bazalonia and will be heading to the conference to take part as observers till Full membership granted.

In this specific case, the error lies in the Augustinian conception of original sin. We agree with our brothers in the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the difference between Augustinian guilt and Orthodox consequence is not itself heretical. The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy is willing to consider the Augustinian definition as a theologoumon, a theological opinion rather than a matter of doctrine; in this case we consider the opinion to be in error, but not necessarily to be a heresy.

However, this matter of guilt versus consequence is not the fundamental error made by the Sonyanites. The heresy of Sonyanism lies in denying the possibility of theosis, of man achieving union with God. This is not an error of our father among the saints Augustine of Hippo, but a brand new heresy.

The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in response to the response circulated by the Holy Synod of the Archregimancy:

If Blessed Augustine of Hippos is guilty of no heresy as a result his private position on the matter of original sin, then neither can the Sonyanites, sharing Blessed Augustine's private error, be guilty of a heresy which derives from that error alone. Put simply, the Holy Synod cannot see how it can be the case if, working from the same starting point, an erroneous private doctrine contrary to the dogma of the Orthodox faith on the position of original sin, Blessed Augustine can remain hagios while the Sonyanites are airetikos if the Sonyanite position, which our brothers have declared to be an heretical denial of Theosis, is inevitably reached from the same starting point.

As we receive Blessed Augustine as a saint, he can be no heretic. It follows that his private errors cannot lead inevitably to heresy so long as they remain private errors. From that, it follows that from the same erroneous but non-heretical starting point, the Sonyanites, whilst in error, are not guilty of heresy so long as they do not contradict the established dogma of our cherished Orthodox faith.

The position of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate remains that a call for anathema of the Sonyanites is extreme and at this stage, unwarranted. Let instead the Sonyanites send their representative, and answer the questions:

1) Do the Sonyanites repudiate the doctrine Theosis?

The repudiation must be direct, and not inferred through the implications of an imperfect theology, if anathema is to be declared upon the Sonyanites.

2) Do the Sonyanites reject that Christ was truly God and truly Man?

The rejection of the Incarnation must be direct, and not inferred through the implications of private doctrinal error, if it be heresy.

3) Do the Sonyanites repudiate in any other way the sacred Orthodox faith we have inherited from the Great Fathers?

Can one not still be Orthodox and come to an erroneous theological position through misreading or misinterpreting scripture? Can one not still be Orthodox and misunderstand the teachings of the fathers despite a genuine desire to understand born through pious love and devotion of the Holy God? How many of the laity who call themselves Orthodox would be anathemised if any error conceived despite sincere and pious intent could be described as heresy? How many, even, of the clergy? And how many of the Orthodox faithful will be scared away from their own devotions and studies and prayers for fear of anathema being pronounced against them should they, despite their piety, conceive an error?

Let those questions be answered before anathema be declared.

A note, jointly signed by His Holiness Jean XVII and all the bishops except for Claude V, archbishop of Sherbrooke and the nicer bits of the West Coast (who was in a snit over something that his rival David IV said to him earlier), that has been sent to each delegation granted member status, along with the Bazalonians:

To Our Brothers in Christ,

The rejection of iconoclasm by the Bazalonian Church was commendable and within the full spirit of Orthodoxy, and perhaps news of the Seventh Council was not able to get through to them for one reason or another, possibly owing to the outright rejection of any messages sent from what must have been perceived as a hotbed of heresy and ungodliness. Accordingly, we propose that a copy of the final pronunciations of the Council be sent to the Bazalonian Church for ratification, and if they ratify it then their delegates may be granted full member status.

With the utmost faith that we may all be restored to brotherhood and unity in Christ,

(All those signatures)

[OOC - I'll update the list of full and observer members, and make some other necessary clarifications, in the first post of this thread after I get back from a professional conference on Monday the 18th. In the meantime...]


The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy responds to the Ecumenical Patriachate's reponse to our response to their response:


Dear Brothers in Christ,

Fortunate indeed are we here at SCOBINS to have such learned scholars as yourselves in our midst. Unworthy wretches that we poor monks are, we must confess that we have been guilty of not sharing with the assembled delegates the text of an exchange of views previously undertaken between the Archregimancy and the Sonyanites over some of the specific issues under discussion here. We pray for forgiveness for our prideful assumption that some of these matters were clear to all assembled.

We would therefore like to share the relevant parts of this discussion with SCOBINS

Question #4 -How do you feel about monophysitism? Christ had both Divine and Human Nature. Divine nature from his being the Son of the Father. Human Nature that allowed him to serve as the sacrifice that would save us. The Divine did not absorb the Human. Each stood on its own to accomplish the gift of eternal life.

As far as we can tell, this is an essentially Orthodox Chalcedonian view of Christ's two natures, and requires little further comment on our part.

Question #5, Do you consider us to bear the guilt of Original Sin, or merely the consequence? This is yet another easily answered question for me. Original sin has removed the choice for us in whether or not we can find salvation on our own. Guilt? Consequence? They are very nearly one and the same. As the opportunity to achieve Godliness has been removed, we do bear the consequences. To bear the consequences one must also bear the guilt or the consequences would be unjustifiable.


Here we have the undeniable Sonyanite rejection of Theosis through the statement that "the opportunity to achieve Godliness has been removed" through original sin.

The Holy Synod of the Archregimancy wishes to stress again that the issue at hand is not whether or not our father among the saints Augustine of Hippo committed a theological error (though not a heresy) in stating that fallen man bears the guilt of original sin (rather than merely the consequence), but that the Sonyanites commit the error, in our mind the heresy, of stating that because of original sin - irrespective of whether we talk of guilt or consequence - man can no longer achieve Godliness, or theosis.

The Sonyanites do not reject the Incarnation - they believe that Christ was both truly God and truly man - but they reject a consequence of the Incarnation in that Christ restorated the full potential of humanity through the Incarnation, specifically in the possibility of humanity itself achieving union with God.

We stress again that in our eyes this moves beyond mere theological error and veers dangerously close to heresy.

Let us not forget that Orthodoxy holds that there are three different kinds of union.

1 - A union according to essence between the three persons of the Trinity alone. Man becomes God through grace, but not God in essence; although 'ingodded' or 'deified' the saints do not become additional members of the Trinity. God remains God, and man remains man.

2 - The hypostatic or personal union between the divine and human natures of the incarnate Christ. Two natures united in a single person. But in the mystical union of God and the saints, there are two persons, not one (or, more correctly, four persons: one human person and the three undivided persons of the Trinity). The saints are not swallowed up - "Peter is Peter, Paul is Paul, Philip is Philip. Each one retains his own nature and personal identity, but they are all filled with the Spirit" (The Homilies of St. Macarius).

3 - A union between God and man in God's energies. The saints do not become God by essence, nor one person with God, but they participate in the energies of God. The energies, however, as stated by St. Gregory Palamas, are not an objectified intermediary between God and man, but rather truly God himself. Not God as He exists within himself, but God as He communicates in outgoing love. He who participates in God's energies is therefore meeting God himself face to face, through a direct and personal union of love.

It is this third union that the Sonyanites reject by stating that "the opportunity to achieve Godliness has been removed" through original sin. Surely this is so central an element of the Orthodox life that to reject it is not mere error, but heresy?

But we agree with our learned brethren from the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the Sonyanites should be given an opportunity to defend themselves, and we have sent them a message through the medium known as a 'telegram' so that their representative is made better aware of this discussion.


[OOC - RL citation: large parts of today's post were edited from Bishop Kallistos Ware's 'The Orthodox Way', pages 125-126.]

To fellow Orthodox brothers in Christ of SCOBINS;

We have read over and discussed the results of the seventh ecumenical council before we had approached the SCOBINS council. We, as a church subscribe to all the statements of theology in the document. This is why we wanted to re-establish communion because a copy of this document had finally found it's ways into our hands.

As such we are sending copies signed By myself the Archbishop of Bazalonia, Anthony Jones. To all current full members of SCOBINS.

((OOC: Now that a bunch of letters have been exchanged, is the Conference going to actually start?))