Rumpelstiltskin wrote: ↑Mon 8 April 2024 5:08 pmWell said Sava. The whole "Royal Path" that Orthodox Ethos promotes is another example. It teaches to remain in communion with heretics etc while claiming to be the teaching of the fathers, while at the same time ignoring the teaching of the fathers who say to flee from communion with heretics.
Do not underestimate conservative ecumenism as a gateway drug to Orthodoxy.
If you're like some people (okay, me) you might simply go towards what must be correct because of the history. On learning the history I had to conclude that we in the West were wrong in the schism, and therefore had to investigate the East. Naturally this by first intent meant some kind of WO or monophysite position because of not knowing any better. The conservative ecumenists challenged radical ecumenist positions by quoting fathers, whereas radical ecumenists back their writings with nothing at all, silly academic theories, non-normative historical once-off deviations, or episcopal fiat. So on sincere investigation one naturally would gravitate to conservatives. I wish I could say that I had experience of sane TO by that point but if I found any at all (rare), it was someone mouthing off on the internet. (Protip: Posting things like "Death to the sect of world orthodoxy!" only makes you sound crazy.)
If you are not presented with the fullness of the Orthodox teaching it is easy to be in conservative ecumenism. It is forbidden to pray with heretics. It is forbidden to break from the bishop. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object if you do not know the relationship between these two teachings, nor what the saints had to say about heretical hierarchies. So you stay and listen to those who say to wait for a conciliar decision.
Pieces of the truth are scattered and shared in the conservative ecumenist community. For this they are persecuted by their hierarchy, as Fr. Peter is experiencing. In that milieu one can warm up to the truth and encounter some peripheral TO people on occasion.
First you learn about this thing called Eastern Orthodoxy, then you learn some basics of the fathers and how they are understood, then you learn about ecumenism, then you learn (God willing) that those who separated from ecumenists were in fact allowed to do so, and lastly if you can and want to find the truth you learn that you not just can but should. At least that was my experience. I watched some of Fr. Peter's content; it was good at the time, but it did not last me that long before further investigation (it's as simple as reading Canon 15) brought me to agree with Fr. Cosmas*. The former says TO are schismatic, the latter that they are within their rights. Then I start to lose interest as Fr. Peter keeps hammering on a clearly false point. To go the final step requires hearing information which is simply never quoted in WO circles.
Add to this that conservative ecumenists have a line-up of recent fathers to quote on the ecclesiastical situation--all canonised by ecumenists, after careful consideration. These speak directly to the issue since they lived in it while the ancient fathers lived long before and did not speak of ecumenism in as many words. So if you are a conservative ecumenist and are told to focus on the recent saints who know our times and speak on our terms, it seems at the surface level to check out.
Except that on careful examination they are false fathers, of course, and that some of the true recent saints have had their writings falsified.
Sorry for yet another wall of text but I guess that about covers my opinion on Fr. Peter Heers.
*The hieromonk with the Serbian patriarchate in Australia.