Your Eminence, Dear Bishop Ireneos,
Christ is risen! Christòs anéstē! Hristos voskrese!
There is an American principle that I think is appropriate here: the solution to speech that one does not like is not less speech (censorship) but more speech (open discussion). I have only one goal: to follow traditional Orthodox teaching and precedents. I was, however, anathematized by one member here for my moderate discussion on Bishop Augustine of Hippo. I have been threatened with censorship when I quoted the Synodicon of Orthodoxy and the services books on Saint Gregory Palamas on uncreated grace. I have been accused here of believing “heresy” (without any evidence against me) and I have been told here: “I know the diabolical trick you are using.” I do not believe that any of these polemics against me should be threatened with censorship. All I ask is that I may be allowed to state my sincere beliefs, without threats of censorship. Since Your Eminence is the only bishop who posts and moderates here currently, I humbly request that you allow me to defend Orthodox precedents without threats of censorship.
I especially would like to be able to respond to Barbara (in this thread), without threats of censorship. Barbara asks: “How can this sensible grand scheme be implemented?”
I am a nobody, but I do have some thoughts and some hopes. (1) DOGMA FIRST. Dogmatic unity is primary and is the basis for canonical and liturgical unity. (2) THE ONENESS OF THE CHURCH. It is a dogma of the Church that there is only one church (the Orthodox Church) and one baptism (Orthodox baptism). Saint Philaret’s and ROCOR’s anathema against ecumenism should be mandatory, because it defends these two dogmas of the faith and anathematizes those who preach the Branch Theory Heresy and the Heretical-But-Efficacious-Sacraments Heresy. It would be heretical, for example, to recognize the non-Chalcedonian “Oriental Orthodox” as a branch of the Orthodox Church. (3) OIKONOMIA. Because God is always free to exercise some oikonomia without consulting man, bishops may have slightly different opinions about the timetable by which grace is lost among those on the road towards schism and heresy. The dogma of only one Church and only one baptism must be faithfully maintained, but there can be some slight differences of opinion about the timetable by which grace is lost in some situations. Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, the Hieromartyr, is the only ancient Church Father who wrote a book on the doctrine of the unity of the Church. He also exercised oikonomia in some important cases. Saint Cyprian of Carthage’s writings and actions are important in a discussion about what we believe about the unity of the Church and about oikonomia. (4) ONE-SIDED APPROACHES MUST BE REJECTED IN FAVOR OF THE BALANCED TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. An approach that focuses only on exactness is not fully Orthodox, because oikonomia is a part of Orthodox dogma. An approach that overemphasizes oikonomia is not fully Orthodox, because exactness is the norm and oikonomia in the sense of leniency is not without limit. Many traditional Orthodox Christians (probably more than 90 percent) believe that some statements made by Bishop/Archbishop Matthew (Karpathakes) of Vresthena and by Archimandrite/Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumpas) of Oropos and Phyle were one-sided. There should be uncensored discussion about whether some of these two figures’ statements and actions may indeed have been one-sided. Maybe the solution to divisions among traditional Orthodox has been present all along in the mainstream of the traditional Church. Maybe unity can be attained by agreeing to set aside certain statements that are one-sided and were made in the heat of old polemics. (5) THE PRIMACY OF THE DOGMATIC DECREES OF THE ECUMENICALLY ACCEPTED COUNCILS. God Himself speaks to us through the New Testament Scriptures and the dogmatic definitions of the Seven Ecumenical Synods, the “Eighth Ecumenical” Synod of 879–880, and the “Ninth Ecumenical” Synod of 1351; these dogmatic definitions have great authority in the Church. (6) OTHER SYNODAL AND EPISCOPAL STATEMENTS ONLY HAVE AUTHORITY IF THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS OF THESE NINE SYNODS. So, for example, misunderstandings about the dogma of uncreated grace, about “name-glorification” (that is, name-veneration), and about the heresy of created-name-adoration can only be resolved by following the dogmatic definitions of these nine synods and setting aside any modern statements that may have contradicted the nine councils. In a misunderstood issue like name-glorification, we are all obligated to follow Holy Tradition without addition and without subtraction. Because the “Ninth Ecumenical” Synod of 1351 dealt specifically and dogmatically with God’s uncreated grace and with human created words, and the relationship between these two different things, that synod needs to be central in discussions that will clear up all misunderstandings about uncreated energies and created names. The worst thing we could do would be to censor references to the “Ninth Ecumenical” Synod of 1351. That very synod is the solution! (7) LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI. The liturgical prayer books of the Orthodox Church are also a source of dogmatic teaching, especially when hymns witness to dogmas that were believed by almost every Orthodox Christian, in almost every place, and in almost every time period (to paraphrase Saint Vincent of Lérins). If there is controversy, as there is, about what Christ accomplished in Hades, then we must focus on what the liturgical prayer books actually say about what Christ accomplished in Hades. (8) AVOIDING THE HERESY OF DONATISM. An uncensored look at recent church history is important, but the key issues are (A) maintaining or returning to purity of dogma and (B) maintaining or returning to apostolic succession. Accusations of personal faults are much less important that dogma and apostolic succession. (9) WE NEED TO RETURN TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE APOSTOLIC CANONS OF LOCAL PRIMATES (CHIEF-HIERARCHS). Each region of the world with sufficient Orthodox Christians is supposed to have its own local hierarch(s) and own primate (first among equals), who speak the local language. Greeks, Russians, and all other Orthodox Christians in North America should eventually all be under a North American synod with a North American primate. Ideally, there should be a unified synod in Russia and, probably, an autonomous or autocephalous synod in Ukraine, which is now an independent nation-state, with two widespread languages, Ukrainian and Russian. (10) WE MUST REJECT ETHNOPHYLETISM. If a Greek bishop has prejudices against Slavs, he should not allow those prejudices to cause him to support uncanonical division. It would be a good thing, for example, if Archbishop Kallinkos (Sarantopoulos) would renounce the statement that is attributed to him about Slavs never being Orthodox. It would be a good thing, for another example, if Archbishop Vladimir (ROCiR/ROCOR/ROCA-Vladimir) of San Francisco would focus on future unity in North America and respect the autocephaly of the Church of Russia. The idea of the Church of Russia being ruled from California is not canonical. Some statements of Russians against the true Orthodox in Greece should be withdrawn. (11) WE MUST REJECT DIVISIVE SECULAR POLITICS IN THE CHURCH. Ideas about the essential importance of Orthodox monarchy and critiques about democracy (sometimes called “demonocracy” by some traditional Orthodox) must not be falsely turned into dogmas of the Church. Varying and contradictory views on politics have always been present among the faithful; they must never be allowed to cause schism. The rejection of the heresy of Sergianism is not only about politics; it is also about maintaining Orthodox dogma and canonical norms. The heresy of Sergianism must be rejected by all true Orthodox. (12) CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN OPEN ATTACKS ON CHRISTIAN VALUES. We should focus on inoculating our young people against the openly non-Christian (even anti-Christian) agendas in educational systems and mainstream media outlets in much of the world. We should set aside unlikely and unprovable conspiracy theories about a secret society, Zionism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, man-made earthquakes, bones on Mars, and Hollywood prophecies. I am by no means advocating censorship of these views, on this website or anywhere else. Rather, I am saying that it would be most beneficial for our youth if we voluntarily set aside such unlikely and unprovable conspiracies and, rather, focus on teaching our children the differences between Orthodox beliefs and lifestyles and the open non-Christian agendas in the wider cultures in which we live. (13) THE CENTRAL IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTING OUR YOUTH. Are we instructing our youth in what it means to speak in a reverent way (especially about God) and what it means to dress and behave in a Christian, modest (non-carnal) way? Are we instructing our youth that God will always consider fornication (heterosexual and homosexual) a sin? Do our youth know that God expects Christians to speak and behave differently from the culture around us? Do our youths know essential dogmas of the Faith?, such as: God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God the Son is complete, whole, and perfect in His Godhood and complete, whole, and perfect in His Humanity, with a deified (but not transmuted) human body and rational human soul, like us in every way except sin. God Himself is both essence/substance/nature (which is above human definition) and also energy/operation/activity/movement (with these energies coming down to us and communing with believers). Do our youth know the importance of the Holy Mysteries in the life of a Christian and in Christian society, not just “the Seven Sacraments,” but also monasticism, holy water, and all the blessings of the full liturgical life of the Church? Do our youth understand what the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) and the Lord’s Prayer (the “Our Father”) teach about being reverent towards God’s name? Do we know and understand the clear difference between the heresy of giving divine-worship to a created name (which would be heresy and idolatry) and, on the other hand, the Orthodox practice of venerating the words of Scripture, just as we venerate the holy icons, relics, church-temples, and liturgical items? By focusing on the dogmas of the faith, we will pass on the Faith to another generation, and, maybe, even reduce the divisions among those who want to be traditional Orthodox Christians. Uncensored discussion is a key.
