Waldemar asks, What if Saint Seraphim of Sarov Resurrected?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

While the traditionalist Roman catholics, whom I at least respect for believing what is present in their immediate gaze of recent history and memory, are perhaps in some ways stronger and more "faithful" than new calendarists.

New calendarists are so very close to the truth and have the sources available, and by every measure should been aware and wary of neo-papalism, but nothing of the sort. Almost all of them are willing to go off into the same captivity as the Latins, but with a Protestant flavor. The Latin traditionalists on the other hand, who are so far removed from Orthodoxy, are ironically enough actually willing to give up their following of the absolute apidimy of papism, which in this case happens to actually be the pope.

And as the Lord says, for those who have been given more, more will be expected.

Perhaps it could be said that different forms of papsim are the natural replacement of Christ?

[Waldemar]

Some striking thoughts on:

The True Nature of Heresy
by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/truenather.aspx

St. Paul contrasts the heretic with those who are "careful to keep good works" in the Church, noting that the former is inevitably one who is preoccupied with "foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law." He also advises us that "a man that is an heretick" we should "reject, after the first and second admonition" (Titus 3:8-10). In his Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle of the Nations again associates heresy with "wrath, strife," and "seditions," contrasting these things with the man of God, who is characterized by "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness," and "faith" (5:20-22). All that St. Paul writes is contained within the consensus of the Orthodox Fathers concerning heresy. They teach that it has its roots, not in incorrect belief and teaching alone, but in a mean spirit and in persistence in one’s error, even after repeated entreaties that he repent. A devout believer can innocently misunderstand the teachings of the Church; this does not* make him a heretic. Indeed, one can be a schismatic and still not be a heretic. (See St. Nikodemos’ commentary on Canon I of St. Basil, Pedalion [The Rudder] [Thessaloniki, 1982], p. 589.) These individuals become heretics when they succumb to stubborn self-opinion, contentiousness, and absolute tenacity, and only then, separated from the Church, are they "completely alienated from the Faith," in the words of St. Basil the Great (Canon I). Thus, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, in his essay on heresy, tells us that "pride and haughtiness" are the "cause" of all heresies (Ta Apanta [Extant Works] [Thessaloniki, 1882], p. 27).

Those who "hunt down" heretics, who create strife and discord in the Church by unfounded and supercilious accusations of heresy, and who act out of pride and wrath in condemning those who may innocently hold wrong beliefs—these very same individuals are acting within the spirit of heresy itself. A true Christian seeks to correct those in error, to lead them with love, and to avoid strife and discord. A true Christian does not seek out errors in others, but examines first his own shortcomings. And a true Christian, when he confronts a miscreant—one who willingly embraces heresy, defies the correction of the Church, and persists in his misbelief—, separates from that individual only in the spirit of self-preservation, so as to avoid the deadly bacterium of heresy. He shows rage, not towards the hapless heretics, but towards the heresy that has possessed them. He disassociates from the heretic and avoids his table, not because he ceases to pray for him and to grieve for his soul, but, once again, to avoid exposure to spiritual disease and, by his example and out of concern for them, to prompt others to do likewise. Any other spirit, even in the face of real heresy, leads the would-be zealot to something as bad as heresy itself, as St. Maximos the Confessor tells us, that is, the betrayal of the prime Christian commandment of love (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XCI, col. 465C).

We hear much today about who has and who does not have Grace. This is not the question which we must ask. It is simply ours to determine what is Orthodox, follow it, and be obedient to our right-believing Bishops, allowing them errors and human weaknesses. For, in fact, just as heresy has its roots in strife, right belief ultimately has its roots in obedience. This is simple to demonstrate. If those who today fall to the pan-heresy of ecumenism were simply obedient to the consensus of the Fathers—that is, that as Orthodox we must pray for but not with the heterodox—, then we would not be divided between ecumenists and traditionalists, New Calendarists and Old Calendarists, betrayers and the Faithful. Likewise, except when they preach or embrace heresy and refuse to correct themselves, as the so-called "official" Orthodox Hierarchy has for the most part done, we have no right to be disobedient to our Bishops and act as we think we should, fancying ourselves champions and confessors of the Faith. Nor should we take it on ourselves to decide with finality, as individuals, on the delicate question of where Grace exists and where it does not. We cannot personally and unilaterally declare this-or-that person or this-or-that Church heretical. We must follow our Synods and the Holy Spirit, Who acts through them, and let the Church speak for us. Otherwise, we will make of our resistance a mockery, dividing among ourselves and scandalizing the Faithful—a sad phenomenon that the Evil One has already widely used to compromise the contemporary resistance movement against ecumenism and modernism.

[尼古拉前执事]

Of course The Cyprian Synod of Resistors believes that World Orthodoxy is made up of Heretics, but has come up with their own theology of saying that even though heretics they have grace! :shock:

[Waldemar]

Of course The Cyprian Synod of Resistors believes that World Orthodoxy is made up of Heretics, but has come up with their own theology of saying that even though heretics they have grace!

Doh! But of course! How heretical of me to even bring up the Cyprian Synod of Resistors!

[尼古拉前执事]

Not my point at all, :ohvey: but since you quoted a bishop from the Cyprianites, I thought their beliefs on Grace should be brought up, especially since the Patristic record teaches that heretics are graceless.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Waldemar,

The Holy Fathers, who in one very small example, said in Canon 46 of the Apostolic Constitutions: "We order that a bishop or presbyter that recognized the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be defrocked. For "what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Cor. 6:15).

By your measure the Fathers of the Church who wrote this canon lacked love, and were judgmental.

Then we read: "But the heretic cannot sanctify oil, seeing that he has neither altar nor Church. It is not possible for there to exist any chrism whatsoever among the heretics. For it is obvious to us that oil can by no means be sanctified among them for such worthy use. And we ought to know and not ignore that it has been written: "Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head," which the Holy Spirit even long ago declared in the Psalms (140:6); lest anyone be tracked down and led astray from the right way and be chrismated by the heretics, the enemies of Christ. ...Furthermore, how shall he who is not a priest, but sacrilegious and a sinner, pray for the one who was baptized, when the Bible says, "...God does not hear sinners; but if one is a worshipper of God and does His will, him He hears" (Jn. 9:31)? We understand remission of sins as being given through the Church. But how can one give what he does not himself have? Or how can one do spiritual works when he himself has not received the Holy Spirit? For this reason he who comes over to the Church ought to be renewed, so that within [the Church] he be made holy by the holy, as it is written: "You shall be holy, even as I am Holy, says the Lord" (cf. Lev. 19:2; 20:7). And thus he who was deluded in error—being a man who, coming to God and seeking a priest, yet under the sway of error joined a sacrilegious [imposter]—might in the Church's true baptism put off this very error. For to accept with approval those whom the heretics [and schismatics] have baptized is to endorse the baptism they administer. For one cannot be only partially capable. If he had the power to baptize, then he could also impart the Holy Spirit. But if he was incapable of giving the Holy Spirit, in that being outside [the Church] he does not have it to begin with, then he does not have the power to baptize anyone who might come to him." - Canon I of the Synod of Carthage (258) Affirmed and Upheld by the Sixth Ecumenical Council

Clearly Waldemar, by your faith these fathers were sickly incorrigible men filled with pride. Or am I mis-reading your position?

Next we see: "Baptism being one, and the Holy Spirit being one, there is also but one Church... And for this reason, whatever is performed by them [i.e. the heretics] is reprobate, being as it is counterfeit and void. For nothing can be acceptable or desirable to God which is performed by them, whom the Lord in the Gospels calls His foes and enemies: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Mt.12:30). ... They came out from among us, but they were not from among us. Therefore, we too ought to understand and consider that the enemies of the Lord, and the so-called antichrists, would not be able to gratify the Lord. And therefore, we who have the Lord with us, and who hold fast to the unity of the Lord, abundantly supplied as we are in proportion to His excellence, and exercising His priesthood in the Church: we ought to disapprove, and refuse, and reject, and consider profane everything done by those opposed to Him, i.e. His foes the antichrists. And we ought to impart in full the mystery of divine power, unity, faith and truth unto those who from error and perversity come to us for knowledge of the Church's true faith." - Canon I of the Synod of Carthage (258) Affirmed and Upheld by the Sixth Ecumenical Council

In light of the arguments you are forwarding here, these fathers bordered on criminal, pretending to be judges. At least this is the message I have perceived from you.

But we continue: "Submit not yourselves to monastics, nor to presbyters, who teach lawless things and evilly propound them. And why do I say only monastics or presbyters? Follow not even after bishops who guilefully exhort you to do and say and believe things that are not profitable. What pious man will keep silence, or who will remain altogether at peace? For silence means consent. Oftentimes war is known to be praiseworthy, and a battle proves to be better than a peace that harms the soul. For it is better to separate ourselves from them who do not believe aright than to follow them in evil concord, and by our union with them separate ourselves from God." - Saint Meletius the Confessor

St. Meletius, saint or sinner in your view?

Which brings us to another father: “Even if one should give away all his possessions in the world, and yet be in communion with heresy, he cannot be a friend of God, but is rather an enemy.” - Saint Theodore the Studite

Waldemar, what is your take on Saint Theodore, a righteous man or no?

Then we must also remember Saint Mark of Ephesus who says heretics are not united to God, a bit judgmenta was he? “I am convinced that the further I depart from him [the Patriarch] and from those like him [the Latin-minded], the closer do I draw near God and all the faithful and the holy Fathers; and the more I am separated from them, by so much more am I united to the truth and the holy Fathers.”

I will continue tomorrow, or no?

[尼古拉前执事]

The 17 pictures (at http://tinyurl.com/2sz3g) of Patriarch Pavle of Serbia and
Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic of Montenegro participating in the Roman
Catholic service in Belgrade, should not surprise anyone. This has been going on
for years. And, contra ostriches on this list, the Patriarch has admitted in
public letters that he and the cardinals "pray together" at these meetings.

When faced with these interactions with the non-Orthodox, we need to focus on
overall context and intent as shown by other public statements and public
actions by the bishops involved.

There is a clear difference between simply being present among the non-Orthodox
and violating the Orthodox Faith by compromising it with heterodoxy. And there
is a clear difference between what the Orthodox Fathers have done (witness to
Orthodoxy among the non-Orthodox) and what the current advocates of
rapprochement are doing (hammering out compromise formulae for treason).

Let us review some history: The Apostles, post-Resurrection, worshipped in the
Jewish Temple. Saint Paul preached in Synagogues. Arian heretics and Novatianist
schismatics were invited to the First Ecumenical Council. Saint Athanasius
defended some Homoiousians (saying they were Homoousian in meaning). Saint
Photius reconciled with Rome. Saint Sava of Serbia sent a representative to the
Pope. Saint Mark of Ephesus participated at Florence. The Archbishop of
Canterbury was present in the Sanctuary (Altar) when Vitaly Oustinow was
consecrated bishop in ROCOR. A New Calendarist participated in the ordination to
the episcopacy of Saint Philaret of New York. Serbian Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic
participated in Anglican services. (These occurred when the Anglicans claimed to
the Orthodox that they, the Anglicans, wanted to join Orthodoxy.) Father Justin
Popovic did doctoral work in Britain and gave blessings for others to study at
the New-Calendar-affiliated universities in Athens and Thessalonica. In other
words, these forefathers in the Faith all reached out to the non-Christian and
non-Orthodox. But this outreach was only half the story.

The other half is what these men witnessed to. When all these people were among
the non-Christian, the non-Orthodox, and those of Orthodox background who were
altering the Faith, they boldly and clearly witnessed to the unique truth of the
Orthodox Christian Faith. Saint Paul did not compromise with those who denied
Christ. The First Ecumenical Council did not compromise with Arianism or schism.
Saints Photius and Mark of Ephesus were pillars of Orthodox witness against
errors that arose in the Latin church. Saint Sava vehemently rejected his
brother-and-king's compromise with the papacy. Saint Philaret of New York, with
the help of Bishop Gregory Grabbe, sent letters to the entire Orthodox world
warning them about their impermissible compromises. Metropolitan Vitaly, after
years of instability and vacillation, has witnessed to Orthodox recently,
against ROCOR(L) surrender to KGB bishops. Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic ended his
life supporting (and offering to consecrate bishops for) the True Orthodox (Old
Calendarists) in Greece, not the State (New Calendar) Church. Father Justin
Popovic ended his life not commemorating the communist-selected and ecumenist
Patriarch German. And before his death, Father Justin wrote to all the Serbian
bishops stating that if they wished to remain Orthodox, they must reject the
common services with the non-Orthodox, that they had been participating in.
(That was over 25 years ago, and as the recent pictures make clear, the
"official" bishops of Serbia and Montenegro have rejected Father Justin's
witness to them. These false shepherds have done exactly what Father Justin said
would render them no longer Orthodox.)

In other words, the Saints and more recent predecessors in the Faith (like the
old ROCOR and Serbian Fathers) were active among the non-Orthodox, but they
witnessed to the truth of Orthodoxy, whereas the new bishops are outright
traitors to this legacy.

What we have today among the new calendarists, the ecumenists, the Sergianists
and Communist-collaborators, the modernists, and the Westernizers, is something
very different from the outreach by the Saints and Fathers. These modern
advocates of rapprochement want to pervert the canonical calendar (to facilitate
common celebration with the non-Orthodox), to compromise on doctrine and worship
to unite with the non-Orthodox, to minimize the Soviet-Renovationist-Sergianist
genocide against the Orthodox, and in general to "modernize" and Westernize the
Church. The heterodox are not becoming more Orthodox. The "official Orthodox"
are becoming more heretical.

Metropolitan Laurus is not witnessing to Orthodoxy the way Metropolitans Anthony
Khrapovitsky and Anastasy Gribanovsky and Saint Philaret and Bishop Gregory
Grabbe did. In fact, Metropolitan Laurus and the renovated ROCOR are doing just
the opposite: they are gradually but truly surrendering to Sergianism (both
President Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Aleksii Ridiger [=KGB agent DROZDOV] are
openly unrepentant about their work for the KGB, which committed genocide
against tens of millions of Orthodox Christians and other innocent people).
Patriarch Pavle of Serbia and Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro are not
preaching and writing what Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic and Father Justin Popovic
preached and wrote about not surrendering to the non-Orthodox. In fact,
Patriarch Pavle and Metropolitan Amfilohije are doing exactly what Bishop
Nikolaj and Father Justin told the Serbian-Montenegrin people not to do:
compromise the Orthodox Christian Faith with the errors of the West.

These present-day Serbian-Montenegrin and Russian bishops are not bringing
Orthodox Christianity to the non-Orthodox. These bishop are attempting to insert
heresy and KGB agents (Putin and agent DROZDOV) into their churches. This is not
the missionary outreach of the Saints. It is treason of the worst kind.

P.S.: Someone on the list wrote: "For all I know, the act of inviting Patriarch
Pavle into a Catholic church, and offering him the Bishop's Throne, was an
attempt to drive home the notion that Balkan Catholics and Balkan Orthodox ought
to stop killing each other." My response: If the Papacy and the Roman Catholic
hierarchies of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia-Montenegro want to "drive
home" this idea, maybe they should publicly repent of their actions of (1)
swearing Nazis into the breakaway Croatian government in April 1941 and
collaborating in genocide against Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Gypsies during
World War II; (2) supporting the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1989-1991, which
breakup made war inevitable; and (3) collaborating in the ethnic cleansing of
the Orthodox from Croatia and from 51% of Bosnia-Herzegovina in summer 1995. As
far as I know, there has never been a statement of public repentance for any of
this, even for their actions in World War II. If they are against killing, maybe
they should start by repenting of the killing they participated in. The evidence
tells me that they are not really against killing.

Ex-KGB Putin and agent DROZDOV as well as the papacy and the former-Yugoslav RC
hierarchies are unrepentant of their organizations' genocides against the
Orthodox. The evidence tells me that they are not really against killing. It
should go without saying that we should not unite with them. The bishops who
want this are not practicing forgiveness, they are leading their flocks into
absolute evil.