[Forest Keeper]

But economia can only be applied with regard to discipline, never on matters of dogma. A bishop could not exercise economia to allow someone to deny the Real Presence, or the Trinity or to say that Mary is not the Theotokos. The same would go for certain disciplines. For example, a bishop could not tell someone its OK to never go to confession or communion or that its OK to sleep with your girlfriend before you are married. I'll bet that's clear as mud, right?

If I'm following you correctly, and if you are using "doctrine" and "discipline" interchangeably, then that's very helpful, thanks. Let's see. :) Your mention of a bishop was key to me. If a bishop can grant a doctrinal pass, then I infer that without such a pass one is out of luck. That would mean that barring a pass one would "have" to follow all doctrine to be a "good" Orthodox.

Now, I would assume that there are plenty of issues for which there is not even doctrine, or any sort of official Church position. I would think that any Orthodox could hold any view he wanted as long as it didn't contradict anything that WAS on the books, including doctrine. Therefore, I would see the dividing line as being between doctrine and Orthopraxis. In the ballpark?

[Kolokotronis]

I just knew I was a clear as mud! :)

"If I'm following you correctly, and if you are using "doctrine" and "discipline" interchangeably, then that's very helpful, thanks."

I'm not! Discipline usually aries out of doctrine or dogma and is meant to guide us in living out dogma or doctrine. For example, fasting is a discipline which is designed to help us in theosis which is doctrine.

"If a bishop can grant a doctrinal pass, then I infer that without such a pass one is out of luck. That would mean that barring a pass one would "have" to follow all doctrine to be a "good" Orthodox."

In order to be a good Orthodox one has to believe all the doctrines; no pass on belief, just the for the rules (discipline).

"I would think that any Orthodox could hold any view he wanted as long as it didn't contradict anything that WAS on the books, including doctrine."

I suppose so, though there is very little "on the books" as you put it. We don't have a corpus of "canon law" as you would recognize it.

"Therefore, I would see the dividing line as being between doctrine and Orthopraxis. In the ballpark?"

Nope. Orthopraxis is an expression of doctrine and dogma. Lex orandi, lex credendi!

Comments, Kosta mou, Alex?