Fr. Steven Webb @FrStevenWebb

@noetic_healing May God grant you His favor for your boldness. Praying!🙏🏻☦️🙏🏻

@alexei_karamazo Available on Kindle: Our Orthodox Christian Faith by Athanasios Frangopoulos amazon.com/dp/B0D42NWLWW?…

Like I said in my first response to you - you’re conflating administrative, disciplinary and pastoral canons which can change according to circumstance. These the bishop has the authority to decide whether to apply oikonomia or akrivia. Dogmatic canons, however, are set in stone for eternity as they pertain to the Faith. These are spelled out in detail so that there’s no confusion.

Since you consistently dodge my questions to you and I’ve already answered your questions - clearly you are not engaging me in good faith. As such, I’ll reframe this for you as a final courtesy: Bobby and Billy represent bishops on the playground today. Years ago, the kids who came before them got together, debated, prayed, and wrote down a clear rule: “The playground closes at 3:00 PM. No exceptions.” Bobby says: “The rule says 3:00PM, so we leave at 3:00PM.” Billy says: “I interpret the rule to mean we can stay longer because the sun is still out and I feel like playing more.” Who is being faithful to the rule the earlier kids established? Bobby. Billy isn’t really “interpreting” the rule, he is inventing his own new rule and calling it interpretation. This is exactly what happens with the Ecumenical Councils. Centuries ago, the bishops at those Councils debated, prayed, supplied the authoritative dogmatic definitions, and committed them to writing. Later bishops today are supposed to be like Bobby, to uphold the fixed rule exactly as written. Not like Billy.

Bishops approved the rudder because it was accurate, not because only bishops can understand definitions of Dogmas. Who was right on the 1965 lifting of the anathemas against Rome: Metropolitan Philaret (who called it “illegal and void”) or Patriarch Athenagoras? The Holy Mountain and many others rejected the Patriarch. As for your assertion, I’ll ask yet again: Says who? Name the Ecumenical Council that gives later bishops exclusive right to reinterpret what the Councils already definitively settled.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy by framing the situation as “either only bishops can interpret/understand the dogmas, or documents interpret themselves in a vacuum.” You’re ignoring the reality that Councils provided the fixed interpretation, and the whole Church (bishops, priests, monks, and laity) are able to receive, understand, and uphold it faithfully. Yes, the Dogmas were defined and interpreted by Bishops - the ones at the Ecumenical Council. Others faithfully read and understood them which brings me to my next point: St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (a monk not a bishop) faithfully compiled, understood, and commented on the entire collection of canons in The Rudder (including the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils) with such precision that it received patriarchal approval and remains a standard reference to this day. If only bishops can “interpret” or understand the dogmas, how was a non-bishop monk able to do so faithfully, without adding or subtracting? I’ll state the obvious answer: the authoritative interpretation was already supplied by the bishops at the Councils and committed to writing.

You should recalibrate your original point to accommodate the fact that the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils **already** supplied the authoritative interpretation of the Dogmas after debate, prayer and committed then it to writing for the very fact of explaining it. That fixed definition **is** the official interpretation. A Bishop should be able faithly repeat this - adding no novelties. Books and translations should faithfully reproduce the same. Those who engage the documents of the canons obviously should be able to read. What do you disagree with here?

No worries. When I say “reinterpret,” I mean treating the fixed dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils as open to personal or new meaning other than what is plainly stated in the definition of said Dogmatic canon. Put bluntly, the opposite of what Nicaea 2 stated when it said “we diminish nought, we add nought”.

Let me ask you directly: Which Ecumenical Council or official synodal document grants individual bishops or later hierarchies the right to reinterpret what Dogmas the Councils have already definitively settled? Decree 10 of Dositheus, which you cited, in context to this discussion, only says bishops uphold and anathematize heresies already defined by the Councils. It does not give them interpretive supremacy over the dogmas themselves.

Again, I think you are conflating administrative, pastoral, and disciplinary canons with fixed dogmatic definitions. The bishops who attended the Ecumenical Councils and made the ruling on Dogma supplied the authoritative interpretation and committed it to writing in the form of dogmatic canons. These are fixed. Any subsequent bishop downstream from the council should uphold what the Councils have dogmatically set forth. Look at it this way: your birth certificate states a fact: you are male. Unless you’re a woke liberal (which I highly doubt) this needs no reinterpretation. Dogma is like that. The Ecumenical Councils, after debate, supplied the authoritative definition and committed it to writing. Subsequent bishops uphold that fixed truth; they do not reinterpret it.

Also, Decree 10 gives a good example of upholding: “… he [the Bishop] puts heretics under excommunication and anathema, and lays down his own life for the sheep.” Heresies are established by the Ecumenical Councils. In this case the Bishop is upholding that which the Councils have already set forth.

@GermanCarranza3 @AngloVarangian @chunguskitten Says who?

After misrepresenting me with an obvious straw-man you insulted me. I suggested to advance the topic on St. Tikhon. You said you’d rather talk about “domestic violence” instead. I immediately agreed to accommodate you. We can stop talking but don’t try to posture yourself here like you’re doing me some kind of favor. Please.

@NewsNFTU My last reply didn’t show up on this thread. I said: OK. Let’s talk about domestic violence. What do you want to know?

There’s your false assumption again. I didn’t put the picture up to “justify decades of joint ecumenical prayer”. I simply added a photo with no comment listing the names of the Orthodox saints in the picture. That’s it. You started making excuses and insulted me as you reverted back to your handy “plot” theory to explain the picture away. You said the Synod was horrified at what St. Tikhon did there. The same Synod that later elected him Patriarch? Let’s talk more about St. Tikhon since you’re the expert.

@NewsNFTU OK. Let’s discuss domestic violence. What do you want to know?

Hey “genius”, you’re not as clairvoyant as you might believe because I actually don’t think it’s Orthodox policy. You use this “plot” excuse often when historical facts are brought up that contradict your narrative. Since you’re bringing up ‘intelligence’ I guess St. Tikhon didn’t have the mystical brilliance you possess in the 21st century and got tricked? A lot of people remember you as well. I have no desire to say anything about you as an individual because that would mean I’m trying to deflect. Like what you’re doing now.

@NewsNFTU Stop being such a crybaby. You posted some pictures with Orthodox hierarchs and hierarchs of other Christian faith communities. I did the same. You come back with - as usual - more excuses.