Clovis wrote:Metropolitan Anthony of sorrowful memory indeed was a heretic, and indeed his heresies had already been condemned by Church and if you read the report of Archbishop Theophan of joyous memory you will see that he states this clearly and lists where he falls under anathema; the canons of the Council of Carthage against Pelagianism is somewhere to start. ROCOR in its typical confusing fashion didnt settle the issue. Met Anthony might have been in the Church but he was not of Church. You are right he wasnt a heresiarch because he only vomited up again the heresy of the Roman Catholic Abelard; which was condemned by Roman Catholicism itself!
Dear Clovis,
Forgive me, but I am shocked by your words. The Holy Fathers and Saints of the Orthodox Church, though they were in a position to speak with authority and in judgement because, unlike us spiritually blind and destitute ones, they were illumined and had progressed to great hights spiritually in compunction and holiness and yet they were very cautious about such matters. Rather, they constantly displayed trembling, fear, humility, and self-condemnation; but above all, a great reluctance to speak a single word against another member of the Church--especially hierarchs, even when such judgements were called for or justified. In such cases, they did not have the tone of superiority and self-assurance that you seem to have. In the case of Metr. Anthony, it seems to me by what you have said that you are entirely assured in yourself of your opinions being God-illumined and inerrant and beyond questioning. Be that as it may, try to practice at least a tone of self-reproach before you barbecue one of the hierarchs of the Church, whom you admit was in the Church (even if you insist on your clairvoyant knowledge and discernment in the Spirit that "he was not of the Church"). Show some fear of God rather than relishing to run to anathematising someone that neither St John of Shanghai condemned, nor St Philaret of Jordanville, nor Bishop of Averky, nor did Archbishop Andrei of Novo-Diveyevo. I do not know you, but I would be very surprised indeed if you proved to be above them in spiritual stature and worthiness and discernment to level such judgements out against Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky. Mark well, these aforementioned holy men, (two of whom are formally recognised as saints, and one widely held to be clairvoyant - Abp Andrei) who were, I wager far more well-acquainted with the man in question and his writings than are you or whoever's tutelage you are under. Finally, I would like to know under whose influence you came to such conclusions and who taught you that as an Orthodox Christian that it was acceptable to speak your mind with such a harsh, proud attitude. My advice, whoever it is, get away from them because they are blinding you to the weightier things of the law, and because your opinion about Metr. Anthony adds nothing to aiding you in your salvation. If anything, it will be a hinderance and a besetting weight. The whole of our faith tells us to pay attention to our own sins first and to develop as much compunction as we possibly can, and to this alone requires all one's time and energy if one is serious about pefecting this virtue. We are to fear the hour of OUR death, not what might have happened to someone else. Focus on that and your heart and mind will enjoy a good deal more peace. Until we have perfected ourselves and are truly walking in the Age to Come, it is not wise to preoccupy ourselves with things that do not concern us, since by the very fact that we are still spiritually "children" and not even "young men" much less "old men", it is presumptuous to imagine we see clearly enough to judge where Saints contemporary with both Metr. Anthony and ourselves did not venture to judge.
Sincerely,
Symeon
