The question of Grace: Matthewites vs. Kallinikites

[Lydia]

Would you be willing to clarify this thought a little more? I seem to remember you writing something similar when the GOC/SiR union first took place, but I don't remember it very well. But I am interested in what you mean. For me it is difficult to separate the "grace question" from any discussion on ecclesiology. Perhaps this deserves its own thread.

I got this from a conversation with Anastasios, and also some things Fr Maximos Marretta told me have given me some context with which to think of these issues. Anastasios told me that the question of whether or not ecumenists have grace was not the issue which divided the Cyprianites and ourselves, but that the Cyprianites taught that heretics remained in the Church until condemned by a "unifying" Pan-Orthodox synod, and that local synods, like that of the GOC, did not have authority to anathematize heresy. Our church, on the contrary, teaches that heretics are outside the Church and that local synods may anathematize heresy.

Fr Maximos told me that our church has never adopted a formal position on when heretics lose grace, this being a separate question from whether a local synod may anathematize heresy. While we believe heretics eventually are completely deprived of grace, there is disagreement on when this precisely occurs. Vladimir Moss, for example, believes that heretics do not have grace at the time they are condemned by a valid local council, but the opinion that only the decision of a Pan-Orthodox (or "Major") council can definitely mark the cut-off also has had many adherents in our church.

Forgive me, what is "the GOC-S?"

So, would it be fair to say that the Cyprianites(who not longer exist, yes?) have renounced their belief that heretics remained within the Church until condemned and that local synods have the authority to anathematize heresy? This is very good.

[jgress]

Yes, they did renounce those beliefs. Some like to point to a statement by retired Met Chrysostomos of Etna saying that he "renounced nothing" but in fact what he said was that "none of our principles have been set aside", which is not the same thing as saying that he has not renounced specifically those beliefs that were in error. I don't think that was a wise statement to make, since it could easily scandalize, but if you're going to accuse him of holding heretical views I think you need something more concrete to pin on him, e.g. a statement saying the ecumenists definitely have grace.

I think the only significant thing upsetting people is that our current ecclesiological statement does not definitively say the World Orthodox do not have grace, but rather that we cannot guarantee that they do have grace (which is precisely what the Cyprianites were guaranteeing when they asserted that the ecumenists were definitely still in the Church and hence definitely still had grace). So it depends on whether you want to make it a matter of faith that the ecumenist churches are graceless on the basis of local condemnations, or whether it is a permissible theologoumenon to say that there might still be grace present there, but that this cannot be guaranteed since those churches are in heresy. To argue the former, you need to show that the Church has a definite teaching on when grace is finally lost among heretics, but from my knowledge of the issue, the Church does not have a definitive teaching.

[Lydia]

Yes, they did renounce those beliefs. Some like to point to a statement by retired Met Chrysostomos of Etna saying that he "renounced nothing" but in fact what he said was that "none of our principles have been set aside", which is not the same thing as saying that he has not renounced specifically those beliefs that were in error. I don't think that was a wise statement to make, since it could easily scandalize, but if you're going to accuse him of holding heretical views I think you need something more concrete to pin on him, e.g. a statement saying the ecumenists definitely have grace.

I think the only significant thing upsetting people is that our current ecclesiological statement does not definitively say the World Orthodox do not have grace, but rather that we cannot guarantee that they do have grace (which is precisely what the Cyprianites were guaranteeing when they asserted that the ecumenists were definitely still in the Church and hence definitely still had grace). So it depends on whether you want to make it a matter of faith that the ecumenist churches are graceless on the basis of local condemnations, or whether it is a permissible theologoumenon to say that there might still be grace present there, but that this cannot be guaranteed since those churches are in heresy. To argue the former, you need to show that the Church has a definite teaching on when grace is finally lost among heretics, but from my knowledge of the issue, the Church does not have a definitive teaching.

Yes, I would agree with you. In fact, it can be argued that the Church has deliberately refrained from such a teaching so as to not alienate and condemn people. God desires that all men be saved.

[Dcn.Ephrem]

I got this from a conversation with Anastasios, and also some things Fr Maximos Marretta told me have given me some context with which to think of these issues. Anastasios told me that the question of whether or not ecumenists have grace was not the issue which divided the Cyprianites and ourselves, but that the Cyprianites taught that heretics remained in the Church until condemned by a "unifying" Pan-Orthodox synod, and that local synods, like that of the GOC, did not have authority to anathematize heresy. Our church, on the contrary, teaches that heretics are outside the Church and that local synods may anathematize heresy.

Fr Maximos told me that our church has never adopted a formal position on when heretics lose grace, this being a separate question from whether a local synod may anathematize heresy. While we believe heretics eventually are completely deprived of grace, there is disagreement on when this precisely occurs. Vladimir Moss, for example, believes that heretics do not have grace at the time they are condemned by a valid local council, but the opinion that only the decision of a Pan-Orthodox (or "Major") council can definitely mark the cut-off also has had many adherents in our church.

Thank you for clarifying, Jonathan. Perhaps it is not possible to determine a precise time that heretics lose grace. My own Synod has written about this before, and about how arguing over exact dates is potentially harmful and in any case largely unproductive. Here is a quote you might be interested in, from our 2008 Sobor:

"Our Sobor of Bishops considers it futile to attempt to fix a concrete date for the final fall of one or another community from the Church. Instead, our Sobor makes the case that at the present time, neither the Moscow Patriarchate nor ‘world Orthodoxy’ as a whole has any relationship to the Church of Christ. This means that there can be no genuine sacraments of the Church being performed there."

So you see that our bishops consider it unnecessary to "fix a concrete date," yet for them the "grace question" is solved: to be outside the Church of Christ means "that there can be no genuine sacraments."

So it depends on whether you want to make it a matter of faith that the ecumenist churches are graceless on the basis of local condemnations, or whether it is a permissible theologoumenon to say that there might still be grace present there, but that this cannot be guaranteed since those churches are in heresy. To argue the former, you need to show that the Church has a definite teaching on when grace is finally lost among heretics, but from my knowledge of the issue, the Church does not have a definitive teaching.

I do not know what you would qualify as "a definitive teaching." However, there is this interesting episode from the life of St. Maximus, which seems to touch this question directly:

"When the saint was asked in the Emperor’s palace why he was not in communion with the Throne of Constantinople, he replied: '…They have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local council which took place recently in Rome. What Mysteries, then, can they perform? Or what spirit will descend upon those who are ordained by them?'"

It seems to me that the logic of St. Maximus's statement is very straightforward. If the Church is the place where grace, the Uncreated Energy of God, is communicated to and deifies the faithful, then how can we deny that to leave the Church is to abandon grace? If heretics leave the Church, then what business does grace have with them, if I may speak that way about it?

Of course, I am not making any kind of accusations against you or your people. But I am genuinely concerned about this issue, and I cannot see the logic behind the alternative, namely that the grace of God is somehow in the sacraments of communities outside the boundaries of the Church. Is this really the opinion that people are trying to put forward?

[jgress]

I guess one way to put it is that to make a definite statement about whether or not the ecumenists have grace, one must also make a definitive statement about when grace is lost among heretics, i.e. at the time the council issues its statements. It seems to be the case that, despite statements by my own church in council that the ecumenists and new calendarists are outside the Church, many believe that we need a Pan-Orthodox decision to be really, really sure. Rightly or wrongly, I think the careful wording in our ecclesiological statement is designed not to offend those members, and, I wouldn't be surprised, former SiR members who were willing to accept the GOCs statements about heresy but uncomfortable with affirming that the ecumenists categorically do not have grace.

So I guess we'd need to discuss also what attitude Orthodox should have towards local councils. A problem may be that, while the decisions of Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox councils have been accepted throughout the Church, the decisions of local councils have not always been universally accepted, e.g. the Stoglav Council in Russia. So it doesn't seem right to tell people that local decisions are infallible.

Yet, of course, if local councils cannot authoritatively speak on behalf of the whole Church, and divide between truth and falsehood for the sake of their own flocks, what is the point of them making decisions at all?

I think you raise good points on this question and I'm sorry if I can't answer more satisfactorily. It seems our current policy is get people to agree that the new calendar, ecumenism and sergianism are anathema and that on no condition must communion be allowed with them, but allow people, for the moment, to disagree on whether those groups still possess sacramental grace. I guess the tree will be know by its fruits.

[Dcn.Ephrem]

Yes, the tree will be known by its fruits. For our part, we are wishing the best for the GOC-K and her sister churches, and we would be very glad to see that they both proclaim a good confession and keep to it in practice. Please do not see in my questions any desire to thwart or downplay the importance of such actions. Elsewhere you gave many legitimate reasons why a Major Council on the part of the GOC-K and its sister churches would be entirely positive, and I agree with those reasons.

Your question about local councils is probably a legitimate one. It is interesting to me that there seems to be very little precedent for such confusion over the authority of councils in the history of the Church. Perhaps I am wrong, and someone could provide examples. But it seems to me that there was never such a comprehensive controversy over the basic meaning and authority of councils. It leads me to believe that our ideas about such councils will have much to do, perhaps entirely to do, with our ecclesiology. And of course this is the age of ecclesiological heresy, so perhaps you can understand why some of us are wary. So it is not so much that we oppose the idea of such a council, as that we hope to maintain a patristic and sober attitude toward local councils and the idea of the Church generally.

It is puzzling to me that there is any question at all about the authority of any council that proclaims something we all believe in as True Orthodox, something which we in fact all refer to as a basic difference between "genuine" and "false" Orthodoxy. If there is such anticipation for a Major Council to finally proclaim what we have all proclaimed among ourselves, a council which we all agree can only have one legitimate outcome, then how can we doubt the authority of those locals councils which have already proclaimed the same thing?

[jgress]

I agree with you about there not being such disagreement over conciliar authority before. When a local council wanted to anathematize something, it just did so authoritatively, never cautioning the audience that its decisions are only provisional, even if later the decisions were overturned. But isn't that the way of things? Something is not an issue until it becomes one, and then there are disputes until the Church can come together to resolve it.

The entire history of True Orthodoxy and its internal divisions seems to involve this question of local councils and their authority.