" altura, I'm not sure what I said that provoked this, but please believe me that I do not label those still in ECUSA as heretics! By some others' standards perhaps, maybe due to the lack of instant dissassociation (and how "instant" must it be? 1 year, 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 1 minute, 1 second, 1 millisecond, 1 microsecond, 1 nanosecond, 1 femtosecond? -- I know, this is the Western "legalistic" approach and not the Eastern "we are already disassociated" -- yet even the Orthodox can remain and fight against heresy, I understand)"
Perhaps it was my comment about universal salvation and open communion on another thread which prompted altura's remark. If so I am very sorry. Being a member of a parish or a diocese which is in communion with others which teach heresy does not make any given individual or diocese for that matter, ipso facto a heretic or heretical. It is the acceptance, promulgation and teaching of the heresy which does that. Staying and fighting is always an option (indeed it may be an obligation), at least for the Orthodox, but that can be a very dangerous path, spiritually, if one has options. On the otherhand, options frankly aren't commonly available in the real world until things get very, very bad.
Remaining in communion with heretics, however, is an equally dangerous course because, at the level of the hierarchy, it can cause scandal and confusion among the faithful. I suspect that consideration played a major role in the decision of the Southern Cone hierarchs to refuse to attend a liturgy with Griswold. In any event, if the definition of The Church of +Ignatius of Antioch still holds, then issues of communion are matters between bishops, properly, and not the lower clergy or laity except in a most extended way.
Kolokotronis, thank you for this. I've been pondering the "communion" definition question, and I suspect that among some "communion" is being confused, or blended, with "ecumenism."