Why does applying Canon XV mean that you need to find or make new Bishops?

[@Roman_ROCMP]

You're claiming: >"It [canon 15] just says: You *are supposed to* cease commemoration of people who publicly preach heresy" (2:15) But that is *false* - no where in the 15th canon the *obligation* of Orthodox Christians to cease such commemoration before the appropriate canonical action is stated. The canon only describes the *possibility* to cease such commemoration, not the neccesity of doing so. The canon states that there can't be punishment for separating from the heresy-preaching bishops, but the canon does not state that those Christians who remain in communion with the un-defrocked bishop can or even should be punished. What do you have to say to that?

[@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics]

This is by far the worst of the pro-ecumenist arguments I've heard. It's not only disingenuous, it is wrong. Canon XV is based upon the canonical legislation of previous councils, notably the Council of Ephesus. Not only were the separatists vindicated, but yes, those who continued to work with Nestorius lost their offices. Basically it attempts to turn Canon XV-- which makes clear that Orthodox have a duty to separate from heretics-- into a mere recommendation. From a practical standpoint it's approving the destruction of the Church. From a spiritual standpoint, it's mocking God and our responsibility before Him to the truth. I don't care if people use that argument. I only hope they feel ashamed of themselves afterwards.

[@Roman_ROCMP]

@@NFTUOrthodoxApologetics where does it say in the canon 15 that an Orthodox Christian is "supposed to" cease communion with a non-defrocked bishop who preaches heresy? This was the original claim in the video that such obligation is supposedly prescribed in the canon. I imagine, if such obligation was prescribed, there would also be mentioned the respective canonical punishments for those who remain in such communion. Are there *any* canonical punishments mentioned in this canon (or any other one for that matter) for those who remain in communion with an un-defrocked bishop who teaches heresy?

[@ryrocks9487]

@@Roman_ROCMPThe same reasoning you’re asking about here makes me discount the Old Calendarist claims on this canon.

[@Roman_ROCMP]

​@@ryrocks9487 I go to a ROC MP parish in Russia, we are on the old calendar (and I think it's the right one). But yeah, the "TO" claims are simply false - no where in the Canon 15 the *necessity* of such steps (ceasing communion with an undefrocked heretic) or the *canonical punishment for not taking* those steps is even stated. So the whole basis of the 'TO' position seems absurd, and the fact that the guy basically did not give any response to this objection except for name-calling is very telling. I mean, I personally don't do any of the ecumenism, so I can't see how the sins of bishops and priests (even if for those sins they must canonically be defrocked) can affect my salvation. What Church do you attend?

[@ryrocks9487]

@@Roman_ROCMP I’m a catechumen at a Bulgarian Patriarchate Mission in the US.