[Hermann the Cherusker]

There was also a Patriarch who was *very* Calvinistic, as OP will tell you if he wishes. OP really likes him, I think, just as you like this one who says what you want to hear. But neither is really the mind of the church.

Not to put to fine a point on it, the man you refer to is Cyril Lukar. He is CONDEMNED by name as impious and heretical by Patriarch Dositheos and the Council of Jerusalem, which was subscribed to by all the Orthodox Churches, which is why GOARCH (among others) endorses his Confession as an authoritative dogmatic statement. On the other hand Dositheos is upheld by the Orthodox Churches as ORTHODOX.

"CONFESSION OF DOSITHEOS, PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM 1672 The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching." (GOARCH website)

"The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril’s Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the controverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church." (Orthodox Information Center - http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/)

Look, I don't like to tell others what to believe about their own faith, but I think this is pretty clear cut concerning the authority involved.

One thing about using those sites where they come up with a writing here or there to show "unity" between our churches is that they tend to focus on one man or writing. We operate not on authority but on consensus.

The doctrine of Khomiakov again! The Fathers would not have recognized his Protestantizing regarding dogma and authority in the Church, as Fr. Romanides and others have gently pointed out. Just look at how the Councils or a St. Cyril speak! They didn't wait for the rest of the people to get onboard to recognize the truth. Else Ephesus and Chalcedon would never have happened.

Anyhoo ... the point being that this Confession and its ancilliary council is stated by your own Churches to be one of the high points of its dogmatic teaching, rather like we Catholics might say about Trent or Lateran IV or Vatican I.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Not to put to fine a point on it, the man you refer to is Cyril Lukar. He is CONDEMNED by name as impious and heretical by Patriarch Dositheos and the Council of Jerusalem, which was subscribed to by all the Orthodox Churches, which is why GOARCH (among others) endorses his Confession as an authoritative dogmatic statement.

Not to put too fine a point on your fine point, but there is an alternate reading of the Synod of Jerusalem which holds that it was the "Confession" of Cyril which was condemned in those points which were denounced by that Synod as heretical, not the man himself:

It was very unfortunate that the Non-Jurors’ proposals were addressed to the Orthodox patriarchs at a time when the East was gravely suspicious of anything that sounded like Protestant ideas. This was the reaction to the teaching of Cyril Lukaris, who had attempted to force the Greek Church into Western controversy as a witness in favour of Calvinism, or at least something very near it. The Jesuits had recovered their ascendancy in the East through the diplomatic skill of the French Embassies, and the Council of Bethlehem, 1672, under Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, was convened in the Jesuit interest, much of its language being adopted under their inspiration. Cyril Lukaris' 'Eastern Confession of the Orthodox Faith' provoked the extreme ‘Latin’ formulations of the Councils of Constantinople (1638), Jassy (1642) and Bethlehem (1672), in all of which his teaching was condemned, though at Bethlehem his memory was vindicated.
The Non-Jurors and the Eastern Orthodox
by the Revd H. W. Langford, Vice-Principal, St Chad's College, Durham

Obviously, as a Protestant, I am not personally pleased that the Synod of Jerusalem (aka Synod of Bethlehem) denounced the more "Lutheran-esque" of Cyril's confessions; but I believe it is over-stating things a bit to say that Patriarch Cyril himself was Anathematized to Hell.

At the very least, I certainly do not believe that it is correct to characterize the "general understanding" of Eastern Orthodoxy as being that Patriarch Cyril, the man himself, was decreed to be Anathema by the Synod of Jerusalem.

[MarMema]

Look, I don't like to tell others what to believe about their own faith, but I think this is pretty clear cut concerning the authority involved.

Nope.