The good, the bad, and the ugly, or for whom the bell tolls

[Kybihetz21]

All these divisions do nothing but lessen the traditionalist/old calendar stance. Looking further than the points of view expressed by this MP site, we should be alert and aware of the existence of such groups that discredit the true and rightful jurisdictions. We all must work together and unite, either in communion (spiritually) and/or de facto (jurisdictionally) in order to be able to withstand the powerful and dangerous menaces of the enemies of the Church.

http://www.anti-raskol.ru/xx-xxi/
http://www.anti-raskol.ru/

[Catherine5]

I agree with this overarching analysis of the urgent necessity of overcoming all sorts of prejudice and dislike and seeing the BIG PICTURE, instead of the finger-pointing which so many have done. For example the rigorous lining everybody up on either side of a yawning divide between pejoratively named "Super=correct" - what does that mean anyway? It has such a hostile and forbidding ring to it, implying a so-called 'super-correct' person or jurisdiction has their nose in the air and is inevitably consigned to Hell - and so-called 'royal path'.

Let me tell you, the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion of their country had the same exact problem. Notably the 'Moderate parties' did zero fighting but a lot of talking. They generated much good P.R. for themselves with the West by their relatively liberal stance.
Some were actually monarchists, which literally makes them correspond to a 'Royal Path' - joking here.
It was the so-called Fundamentalist resistance parties who DID the actual FIGHTING which - note - did finally succeed in what seemed impossible to almost everyone in the world: removing the Red Army from their soil. Most of the Soviet advisers left with the military. Those had been trying by every means to force a religious Afghanistan into a model communist Soviet satellite with extensive propaganda measures. Maybe today they would use the internet for propaganda, which is what I assume the two sites referred to are.

But both groups constantly tore down each other to anyone who would listen. Each side of that chasm spent so much time verbally attacking the other side. Think how much energy went down the drain with 10 or more years of that! Energy which could be used always for positive results instead of fratricidal infighting. After all, at least all these people stuck around and put up some resistance. Many other Afghans fled the region, went to Canada and America and looked to build personal wealth instead of standing up and fighting for their cause.
I remember seeing one vanity license plate "Afghaan Millionaire" - something like that which typifies that mentality.

I see the situation as much the same with the TOCs. At least people have stuck around and fought back in some form, whether by internet blogs or intense prayer or sacrifice, perhaps monetary donations to TOC causes like the Convent in Chile for example [I hope!].

So why not take those claws back in, try to see GOOD in groups other than one's own, accentuate the similarities, and figure out a way to pull together with other anti-MP groups?

I offer the Afghan example as a model, because despite the internecine fighting, they actually won against the Soviet system, remarkably.
If unarmed fighters could muster a resistance to the biggest military machine in the world at that era, we should take it as symbolic that there must be a way to also push back the MP aggressiveness and wish to wipe out all resistance to it from True Orthodox and anyone else!

Miguel, I could not read a word of those sites listed, but I assume by anti-raskol, they mean anti-TOC's?
Or anti-groups which left ROCOR when it joined with its former adversary, the MP?
Have people started the two websites to try to demolish all resistance to the MP, I assume?
I would be interested to understand what the sites are about.
I sense that you are ringing the alarm bell. However, I did not understand the title line - I never saw that movie, tho I probably read the Hemingway book. Could you explain the part about for whom the bell tolls? Are you warning about the sands of time running out?

Afterthought: about groups that discredit real TOC groups, do you mean plants?
It reminds me of the Soviet tactic used during that war of having special forces infiltrate centers of religion, impersonate religious authorities, in order to CONFUSE the faithful by implanting wrong ideas that would cause disruption and sow disunity among the population and especially those fighting back against the Soviet occupation. It's a classic ploy, and if it's being used here, I'm not surprised.

[Kybihetz21]

My position, over the years, has been of a conciliatory and unifying character. Having among my friends and acquaintances members of different jurisdictions (from EP or MP clergymen – yes, those too – to ultra conservative old calendarists, and everyone in the middle), I have found myself in the position to observe and draw conclusions of my own, while trying (especially in the last 10 years or so) to remain somehow impartial and avoid any kind of confrontation with all the parties involved.

My views are very simple: most of the traditionalist/old calendar/true Orthodox jurisdictions/groups out there do not have any stumbling block dividing them. They all seem to try to follow the Royal Path, and protect “those things that ye have received”, i.e. the True Faith. The main issues at hand are the useless nationalism and great antagonistic personal dislikes/mistrust among hierarchs, clergy and laity, which permeates ALL traditionalist groups at this moment.

The same way that the modernistic, “world Orthodoxy” groups/jurisdictions plan to convene a general council (and still cannot agree to the agenda, for the same reason the traditionalists cannot agree to meet and discuss the current situation), I believe that ALL traditional and old calendar groups should meet, and even invite others (breakaway groups, certain vagante bishops, and even the old believers), and in a conciliatory and loving way, try to work out differences and resolve all the personal and theological issues that keep originating new groups every day.

As for this site, a link of which I posted earlier today, it is a MP site, that shows all the divisions that exist nowadays in the true Orthodox/old calendar groups . Albeit prejudicial to most of us, it gives quite a good historical background to most, if not all, of the current (and defunct) jurisdictions that originated in the 20th and 21st century within Orthodoxy. It has some groups that I wouldn’t consider necessarily “schisms” (hence “the good”), then has others that are quite a shame (“the bad”) and among all of those come the “ugly” groups, or those in which you will find the child molesters, the embezzlers, the priestesses, the worshipers of God knows which "divine" entity, the neo Nazis, and the list goes on and on.

I also believe that some of those groups are nothing but machinations of the evil one, thru and by the influence of the MP, EP and other new calendar jurisdictions, created to discredit and embarrass the other groups who honestly and sincerely want to keep and protect the Faith.

The bell is tolling, for us to understand the eminent coming of our Savior, and to lay aside “all earthly cares” and like the wise virgins, be alert and awake at the arrival of the Bridegroom. All these people, both the ones listed as “schismatics” by the MP, and the ones members of “world/official Orthodoxy” must realize that the “bell ringing” is not being done properly, and that all of these sounds have become quite the gibberish which tries to drown the sounds of the rest, thus drowning the voice of the conscience of those “ringing”, as well as the one of those listening to it.

[Cyprian]

I notice a disturbing trend emerging in recent times, where many who regard themselves to be genuine Orthodox Christians are in danger of succumbing to the temptation of Old-calendarist Ecumenism. There are certain pseudo-shepherds (wolves in sheep's clothing) who are steering their unsuspecting followers toward this heresy.

There are very real and perfectly legitimate reasons why various "Old-calendarist" groups are not and should not be in communion with one another. Many of these groups are simply not Orthodox, no matter what they call themselves. Simply being anti-MP does not automatically make one Orthodox. Simply following the ancient calendar does not make one Orthodox either. The Papists made use of the old calendar for well over 500 years after their schism, before adopting a different one. This did not make them Orthodox one whit. To be Orthodox, one must accept the WHOLE faith, in its entirety, without alteration or innovation.

What is the largest of these supposed TOC groups in America? The HOCNA? They are not Orthodox; they have been preaching multiple heresies with bared-head for years, and show no signs of repentance. So no True Orthodox should unite commune, or concelebrate with them. And yet, there is another supposed Greek TOC group, with parishes sprinkled mostly in the eastern half of the U.S., which in official documents is now calling the HOCNA "true Orthodox Christians" and a "true Orthodox jurisdiction". They have also prayed and held services together with HOCNA clergy. Each passing day the vicar bishop who presides over this jurisdiction sounds more and more just like the heretical crew in Boston. Orthodox Christians with discernment should flee this group as well, until they modify their false views and clarify their hypocritical positions.

The Kyprianites, aka "Synod in Resistance," are crypto-ecumenists, and not Orthodox. That would extend to the Agafangelites as well, who of course, are in communion with them and consecrated bishops together with them.

There is at least one so-called "Matthewite" group, who do not hold to the traditional Orthodox confession historically held by the GOC synod of Greece, but have gone aside, teaching a number of strange doctrines, including rejection of various types of Orthodox holy icons. (e.g. the icon of the Holy Trinity, wherein the Father is depicted as "the Ancient of days"). They use heretical reasoning to defend their rejection of the holy icons, in similar fashion to those arguments used by the H.O.M.B. in Boston and the schism formed from their schism by Gregory of Colorado.

The ROAC seems to put forth a good confession of the Faith in official documents, but I have little confidence in the bishops they have chosen to administer the flock in North America, both past and present. I do not know if it is any better over in Europe. They have officially in Sobor rejected Cyprianism, which is necessary for all Orthodox Christians to likewise reject.

Information about the remnants of the faith communities which used to be unified under Met. Vitaly is hard for me to come by.

Information from the "RTOC" is rather limited as well. Vladimir Moss claims they have rejected Cyprianism in some sort of official capacity, but my requests for any kind of documentation demonstrating such, have gone unanswered.

All genuine Orthodox must reject the crypto-ecumenism of the Cyprianites, and ought to shun those groups who maintain communion with them, such as the Agafangelites.

All genuine Orthodox Christians must reject the heretical arguments made by the iconomachs, regardless of which group they reside in, who seek to lead astray the unsuspecting flock, with their vain and trifling attempts at justifying their rejection of icons of the Holy Trinity, wherein the Father is depicted as "the Ancient of days".

Of course, no one can subscribe to the diabolical evolution heresy and be a Christian either. If any clergy preaches evolution nonsense he should be rebuked and shunned as being a priest of Satan, and not of Christ.

[jgress]

I think the charge of "Old Calendarist ecumenism" needs to be addressed head on. It is common to hear it from some extreme Old Calendarists (for instance, some Matthewites), who reject any sort of dialogue with other True Orthodox groups, and also from New Calendarists, who like to accuse us of hypocrisy vis-à-vis our rejection of actual ecumenism. The purpose of this post is not so much to respond to your points, Cyprian, but to inform others who may be reading this of why True Orthodox dialog is not a species of ecumenism. I think your points are good ones and should be addressed, but in another post or thread.

St Basil, in his 188th letter (to Amphilochius), explains that the Fathers held differing opinions as to the presence of Grace in schismatic churches. Since their separation is not a matter of faith, the baptism they administer does not differ in any outward regard from that of the Catholic Church. The only reason their baptism might be ineffectual is if we accept that the simple act of schism deprived their ministers of the grace of their ministry, i.e. they became laymen upon their separation. The consequence of the separation, then, is that their ministers have no power to ordain or even baptize.

It is worth noting that St Basil, who was not decided on the matter of the presence of grace in schismatic bodies, nevertheless did not object to dialog with them:

"The old authorities decided to accept that baptism which in nowise errs from the faith. Thus they used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful congregations. By heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed laymen."

The fact that we have dialog with other True Orthodox churches does not constitute ecumenism in any form. Ecumenism refers to the belief that differences in doctrine do not constitute separation from the Church and deprivation of Grace and the Holy Spirit. Ecumenism is manifested in a very particular kind of dialog, one in which both sides accept that other side is joined to the Church in some degree. Dialog in the sense of talking to one another and presenting one another's doctrines in an irenic manner is not ecumenism; ecumenism is the acceptance of 'commonly held positions', with the implication that the acceptance of these positions has some kind of consequence for the unity of the Church. The Orthodox teaching, however, is that only complete and unreserved acceptance of all of Orthodox dogma can result in union of the churches.

Thus we have the ecumenist teaching that the baptism of heretics is true, saving baptism. The Orthodox teaching, on the other hand, is that not only must the form of the baptism be correct, but the entire confession of faith of the one who is baptizing must be correct. The ecumenists do away with the confession of faith, and even on the question of form they accept Western definitions of correctness, i.e. sprinkling, because it is done 'in the name of the Trinity', while they reject the Orthodox requirement of complete, triple immersion.

The other TO churches all share the same faith; the divisions have other origins. Therefore we can't say for certainty whether they have the Grace of sacraments or not. I would counsel against making any claims about that. But to say that another TO church is still part of the Church is not a kind of ecumenism; it is only making the claim that the division does not constitute separation from the Church and loss of Grace, a possibility which has been allowed by St Basil and other authorities. As long as the other TO church confesses the true faith, there is no ecumenism.

[Cyprian]

The fact that we have dialog with other True Orthodox churches does not constitute ecumenism in any form.

Of course, dialogue is not necessarily ecumenism. Concelebrations, common prayer, and calling heretical groups "True Orthodox" is the issue. The HOCNA is not a true Orthodox church, and neither is the Synod in Resistance/Agafangelites. Dialogue with them is one thing--calling either of them a True Orthodox Jurisdiction and holding joint prayer/concelebrations with them is entirely different.

The other TO churches all share the same faith; the divisions have other origins.

I suppose that would all depend on which groups you are specifically calling "TO" (i.e. true Orthodox). Until you specify which churches you are referring to, how can we offer our assent or dissent to your opinion? If you consider the HOCNA or the Kyprianites/Agafangelites to be TO churches, then you are mistaken, for they are not, and they do not share the same faith as the genuine Orthodox.

Therefore we can't say for certainty whether they have the Grace of sacraments or not.

Who are "they"? As long as it is left nebulous as to just which groups consist these TO churches which you refer to, we cannot move forward with the conversation.

I would counsel against making any claims about that. But to say that another TO church is still part of the Church is not a kind of ecumenism; it is only making the claim that the division does not constitute separation from the Church and loss of Grace, a possibility which has been allowed by St Basil and other authorities. As long as the other TO church confesses the true faith, there is no ecumenism.

Fair enough. But in case I haven't been clear enough already, let me say it again: the HOCNA and the Synod in Resistance DO NOT confess the true Faith. It is not just a question of schisms or divisions within the Church. Furthermore, the ROAC and the synod of Met. Vitaly have officially condemned the erroneous ecclesiology of the Synod in Resistance (Kyprianites). I believe the HOTCA has also stated that the ecclesiology of the Kyprianites is not the same as theirs. So how can these all be TOC's if they do not all hold the same confession of faith?

So which synod confesses the proper ecclesiology--the ROAC, the remnants that remained with Met. Vitaly, the GOC of Greece, or on the other hand the Cyprianites/Agafangelites? They are clearly opposed. So according to your own admission, they cannot all be True Orthodox Churches if they do not share the same faith.

Your own HOTCA has icons all over their churches depicting the Father as the Ancient of days, and yet everyone knows that HOCNA officially rejects these icons and uses heretical arguments contrary to sound Orthodox doctrine in an attempt to justify their rejection of these holy icons. So how can your bishops claim that the HOCNA is a true Orthodox jurisdiction, and how can you claim that they holds the same confession of faith?

Please help us understand the reasoning of your clergy.

[mmcxristidis]

Mr Cyprian,
Please advise me as to what synod I should follow. I'm sure you must be in the true genuinely correct Orthodox one. Which one(s) is or are the real deal? Who is your bishop ? Thanks in advance for your kind rely.