When I read the post from the priest I felt like I had come home. It was that powerful for me and that true.
We are clearly from two very different churches with very different ways. BTW, just so you know and for future reference..... Your beloved patriarch is just that, a patriarch, while Khomiakov is a theologian and one who is considered to have contributed a great deal to the church.
In particulular Khomiakov characterized for us the definition of the church, which is the community, a union of souls.
This idea is so essential that we teach it every year in Sunday school to the kids, even the youngest ones.
Again MM, he's not MY beloved Patriarch. He's your Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem in the late 17th century, stating something that your Orthodox Church says is a fundemental dogmatic document. Let me excerpt what the GOARCH site says:
Importance of Knowledge of Sources... The Orthodox Church is the only Church which has maintained from the beginning a coherent interpretation of its teaching. The Church approves of each member reading alone and in general talking about his religion. But it discourages conclusions based on the individual's personal interpretation.
"So Philip ran to him (the Ethiopian), and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I unless some one guides me?"', Acts 8:28f.
This "guide" is the Church itself, and not the individual on his own, with limited ability and lack of the full knowledge of the sources of the teachings of the Church. ...
The Orthodox Christian should know and understand these facts in order to participate fully in the activities of the Church and to defend his position with authoritative explanations in times of discussion among friends of other churches. It is imperative for the Orthodox Christian to know the sources of the teachings especially when he must counteract the propaganda of those who would proselytize members of the Orthodox Church. This happened in the early Church and in the 17th century, and happens today. In the early Church, when the dogmas and teachings of the Church were not formally developed, there were many members of the church who turned to heretics, gnostics and other groups. Also, from the fourth century on, there appeared laymen, clergymen, even bishops and patriarchs who taught falsely the Christian faith. In the ninth century when the Great Schism began to develop between the Eastern and Western parts of the Church, and especially from the 16th century on, with the rise of Protestantism, these mistaken interpretations became more explicit. Against all these factors, the Orthodox Church has fought to keep itself intact to defend the truths which had been taught it by its Founder, Jesus Christ and His Apostles, in whom the roots of the Church are to be found.
These circumstances demanded that the Church defend its teachings and set forth the sources with accurate interpretations over the centuries. It is worth stressing that the development of these sources was to counteract the false opinions of Christians themselves; opinions not based on the correct interpretation of the Church itself. These sources of the accurate teachings of the Church are herein enumerated in order to counteract false opinions based on individual misinterpretations.
Accurate Sources of the Orthodox Church
What are the sources of the One Undivided Church, the Orthodox Church, from which emerge its teachings? Why is it imperative for the members of the Church to know these sources? The mainsources of Orthodox teaching are the Bible and Sacred Tradition. The third source is the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists. The fourth source is decisions of the canonical synods, local and ecumenical, and their utterances of faith, especially the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) and some of their canons pertaining to faith. The fifth source is the discourses written at the time of disputes and schisms, especially the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western parts of the Undivided Church (1054). The sixth source is the discourses written on the rise of Protestantism, its differences from and relationship to the Orthodox Church. The seventh source is the discourses written through the World Council of Churches today, mostly on its relationship to the Orthodox Church. ...
Sources Written After the Protestant Reformation ...
DECISIONS OF THE SYNOD IN JERUSALEM IN 1672
The Church in Jerusalem again felt it necessary to summon a synod to denounce the Roman and Calvinistic influences in the Orthodox Church. These decisions are also considered as sources of the teachings of the Church, restating the orthodox belief.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.
I don't see anything there saying its a subject of free debate, can be taken or left as one wishes, or is false.
In particulular Khomiakov characterized for us the definition of the church, which is the community, a union of souls. This idea is so essential that we teach it every year in Sunday school to the kids, even the youngest ones.
Perhaps one day you'll realize the easy distortion of this idea (not incorrect in and of itself, mind you) to the invisible Church of Protestantism vs. the visible One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.