Old Calenderist

[PFC Nektarios]

As for as the Ecumenical Issue mentioned here, I looked on the WWC website and even the Russian Orthodox Church is involved, so is every
Major and non Schismatic Orthodox Jurisidiction listed there besides I Believe the Serbian Orthodox Church, so I see it as, No matter where
I go or what jurisdicition there going to be involved in the Heresy to a certain extent. The only thing I can do I feel is a soon to be Individual Orthodox is keep my Life in Orthodoxy Traditional.

I dont quite understand what you meant in your statement about the
Antiochian Orthodox Church. I asked my Spiritual Father who is ROCOR
and he gave me the + to go to there vespers, so I wouldnt think there is any thing wrong with them.

Also every church that is in "Main Stream Orthodoxy" and that are not Schismatic or Un-Canonical all use the new Calender. Not the Julian.
Except for the Antiochian Church where I attend vespers that invidual Parish uses the Julian Calender. Suprisingly.

I was advised not to worry about choosing a Orthodox Jurisidiction as of yet.

In Christ

[Julianna]

The Antiochians commune Monophysites and most World Orthodox churches outside America use the Julian, not the Gregorian calendar. Serbia's invloved with ecumenism and the WCC. True Orthodox Churches woul n't join such a heretical society.

[PFC Nektarios]

Slava Isusu Christu!

All of the Orthodox Churches are in the WCC all the Non-Schismatic and Canonical Churches are. Thouse Orthodox Jurisidictions are True Orthodox, just some were along the line the Clergy messed up. Thinking that just because a Jurisdiction is in the WCC means there not truley orthodox Orthodox, is Crazy, even the ROCOR will be in the WCC in the sense that they will be Reunited with the Mosocow Patriarchate which is apart of it.

BUT, in my own opinion NO Orthodox Church should be part of the WCC. Ecumenism is the biggest heresy of our time. I will be Entering Holy Orthodoxy though the Greek Orthodox Church more then likely, there is no point in going to ROCOR any more because they will be part of the Russian Patriarchate and im not about to go join some break off Heretical or Schismatic group who think they are the true remenace of Orthodoxy, i.e. HOCNA, ROCIE, ROAC (No Offense to any that belong to these).

I say this as my own Personel Opinion and with Care.

Truley In Christ

[Seraphim Reeves]

OrthodoxLearner,

All of the Orthodox Churches are in the WCC all the Non-Schismatic and Canonical Churches are. Thouse Orthodox Jurisidictions are True Orthodox, just some were along the line the Clergy messed up. Thinking that just because a Jurisdiction is in the WCC means there not truley orthodox Orthodox, is Crazy, even the ROCOR will be in the WCC in the sense that they will be Reunited with the Mosocow Patriarchate which is apart of it.

Though you are probably right in your assessment of where the ROCOR is heading, this is very sad, since the old ROCOR (which many like myself would say is "continuing" in the ROAC) was the Church which articulated the monumental anathema against ecumenism, which all of the "Old Calendarist" Churches have since, as far as I can tell, accepted formally or informally.

If you've never heard of this anathema, I am not surprised - since right now the ROCOR is on a path which is condemned by said anathema. The anathema has been something of an "embarassment" for some people in the ROCOR, since it stands as an insurmountable barrier (so long as it's existance is acknowledged) between Orthodoxy and the new-heterodoxy (ecumenism.)

To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects, or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy, commonly called ecumenism, under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema! (Anathema Against Ecumenism, 1983)

This anathema, btw., was ordered to be added to Rite of Orthodoxy used in all ROCOR Churches on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (in other words, it is listed along with other conciliar anathemas, such as those against old Christological heresies, etc.)

Read the above very carefully. Does this not sound a lot like so called "canonical", "official Orthodoxy"?

Unfortunately, this anathema (or at least it's application) has undergone all sorts of revisionism in the ROCOR. This began in the late 80's, when then Metroplitan Vitaly began trying to portray this anathema as primarily having relevence only to those within the ROCOR itself (which makes little sense, since at the very least this anathema would judge precisely who the ROCOR could and could not be in communion with), and even contradicted statements he himself had made previously that the "time was over" for polemics or debates on the subject, and that "world Orthodoxy" as such had already had sufficient time to discuss this topic amongst themselves.

The culmination of this "back tracking" would come in the mid 90's, when the ROCOR officially entered into communion with the Cyprianites (the "resistor" Old Calendarists), who were founded by a "bishop" Cyprian, who was himself a break away from the actual Greek Old Calendarist Church (GOC). The primary doctrinal motivation for Cyprian's schism, was his belief that heretical "world Orthodox" (the people you are being taught are "canonical") can be in heresy, or be in communion with heretics, yet still be legitimately considered parts of the "Church of Christ". Materially, this is no different than the branch-theorism condemned by the 1983 anathema, save that it is branch-theorism selectively applied (Ecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate, etc... they're "ok"...Monophysites, Roman Catholics, "not ok"). Upon entering into communion with the Cyprianites, Metroplitan Vitaly claimed that their "ecclessiology" was "the same as that of ROCOR". While privately this may have been true of many within the ROCOR (subsequent events make this clear, actually), in reality this was the official adoption of that which the ROCOR had previously condemned. It was at this time that the better part of ROCOR's presence in Russia separated from the ROCOR, and came to be known as the ROAC (Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church), whose presiding heirarch is Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal.

Sadly, this monument of Orthodoxy in our times is a dead letter in the modern ROCOR. Indeed, the official adoption of the Cyprianite "ecclessiology of resistance" was the first step towards the current union attempts with the Moscow Patriarchate, which in former times would have only been possible with an unambiguous declaration of repentence by the MP of it's two ecclessiological errors (previously condemned, with great clarity, by the ROCOR) - Sergianism, and for several decades now, Ecumenism (and it's communion with other Ecumenist "churches").

BUT, in my own opinion NO Orthodox Church should be part of the WCC. Ecumenism is the biggest heresy of our time.

You're right to say it is the greatest heresy of our age - if anything, it is the summation of all heresy, since it admits to varying degrees the "legitimacy" of those who hold to practically every heresy imaginable. It is an indispensible "tool" in the formation of the creedless (and Godless) "religion of the anti-Christ" which the Fathers in fact foresaw coming about in the last days.

Yet, what value are your protests (as right as they are) of a heresy (and a whopper of one), if you admit the legitimacy of those who not only actively promote it, but even work to suppress and persecute those who refuse to have any part with it?

It is a basic teaching in Orthodox ecclessiology (teachings pertaining to the Church, what She is, etc.) that it is not possible for someone to knowlingly remain in communion with someone who adheres to heresy. The people you refer to as "schismatics" (because they break away from heretical heirarchs) are in fact commendable, not worthy of condmenation.

"… But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions." (Canon XV of the First-Second Council of Constantinople)

As for all those who pretend to confess the sound Orthodox Faith, but are in communion with people who hold a different opinion, if they are forewarned and still remain stubborn, you must not only not be in communion with them, but you must not even call them brothers. (St. Basil the Great, Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. 17, p. 303)

Chrysostomos loudly declares not only heretics, but also those who have communion with them, to be enemies of God. (St. Theodore the Studite, Epistle of Abbot Theophilus)

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 (St. Theodore the Studite, PG 99:1205)

He that saith not ‘Anathema’ to those in heresy, let him be anathema (Seventh Ecumenical Council)

St. Maximus the Confessor said: "Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [heretical] patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching. (The Life of St. Maximus the Confessor)

Entering Holy Orthodoxy though the Greek Orthodox Church more then likely, there is no point in going to ROCOR any more because they will be part of the Russian Patriarchate and im not about to go join some break off Heretical or Schismatic group who think they are the true remenace of Orthodoxy, i.e. HOCNA, ROCIE, ROAC

I find this confusing. On one hand, you seem to defend the involvment of others in ecumenism (which you say is a heresy, but doesn't render such persons "non-Orthodox"), yet say you won't go to a ROCOR parish if they become part of the MP? This is very confusing - particularly when you then say you're going to go to a "Greek Church", which I'm guessing means GOA (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), which is in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate, Antiochians, etc.

Am I missing somethig?

Seraphim

[LatinTrad]

What is a heretic, Seraphim?

Is it someone who commits certain sins? Someone who espouses false dogma publicly? Someone who is condemned by a synod as such? I ask because I am confused by your application of the term heretic.

You seem to be under the impression that any layman has the authority to declare a bishop or Church "heretical". When the canons talk about separating oneself from heretics, are they saying that laymen must evaluate the bishops and see if they can remain in communion with them? Or are they saying that a bishop who has been condemned as such by a council must be treated as anathema?

It is at times like these that I thank God for the Catholic Church. No matter how many scandals you point to, no matter how many Korans the Pope kisses, the One Church is still the One Church. Sin is sin. Granted. But the Church remains.

LatinTrad

[Bogatyr]

Again, the disinformation against the Synod In Resistance is utter nonsense. +Metropolitan Kiprianos was part of the Synod of +Metropolitan Kallinikos who decided not to enter on the path of ecclesiological extremism espoused by some. +Metropolitan Kallinikos broke with a Synod he entered and +Metropolitan Kiprianos followed. No one Synodeia has the right to declare large tracts of the Church graceless. These new calendarists are still Orthodox Christians UNTIL A GENERAL DECIDES OTHERWISE. NO COUNCIL HAS ARISEN TO CONDEMN ecumenism, renocationism, sergianism, the calendar schism, etc. WHEN ONE DOES, WE TOO SHALL BE READY TO CALL THE FOLLOWERS OF THESE heresies, GRACELESS HERETICS. But, we cannot speak for the Church as an Ecumenical Council. We are not papists or montanists. That is the position of my Synod which is consistent with the Fathers. Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret HIMSELF maintained Communion with both the JP and the Serbs after the anathemas were laid, showing that, indeed in the Spirit of bl. +Met. Antony (Khrapovitsky) WHO WOULD NOT BREAK COMMUNION WITH THE new calendarists UNTIL THEY WERE CONDEMNED BY A GENERAL COUNCIL, he would not unilaterally espouse a new, montanist ecclesiology. ROCOR has historically either been to the left or right with us in its ecclesiology.
That your "rocor" pastor would tell you to go to an antiochian assembly is fascinating. What is his name? I think this a "seminar response". "Seminar people" are those in quasi-Orthodox jurisdictions who claim ties to something like rocor to make a point: they are engaging in disinformation. Indeed, from the defense of the antiochians, it is clear this person's pastor is probably, uh, AN antiochian?! Secondly, let's go into who is still on the Patristic Calendar: The moscow patriarchate with the churches of the ukraine, belorussia, the baltics, etc. c. 150 million, The Patriarchate of Serbia, c. 10 million, The Patriarchate of Georgia c. 10 million, The Churches of poland, czech republic, slovakia, c. 1.5 million, The Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Church of Sinai and MT ATHOS c. 250,000, the "oca diocese of alaska", c. 50,000. Add another 7.5 million "schismatic old calendarists" as you term them. About 180 million and that's a conservative estimate. Now who is on the new calendar? the church of romania, c. 20 million, the church of greece, c. 10 milion, the ep and its dependencies about 10 million, the church of cyprus about 10 million, the church of antioch about 1 million, the church of alexandria c. 5 million, the church of bulgaria c. 15 million, other "new calendar bodies" c. 10 million. That's a liberal estimate of those in the calendar schism. Let's tally it: about 80 milion vs 180 million. How much of 260 is 80? About a THIRD it would seem. And the historical Church followed which calendar? Who maintains Eucharistic Communion with the Historical Church? Who adheres to THREE COUNCILS OF JERUSALEM who anathemized the calendar schism? WHO? THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE PATRISTIC CALENDAR. Who is in schism then?
Now, what is heresy? Heresy is erroneous teaching which darkens the nous and plunges it into pride so that the Holy Spirit cannot abide in the sufferer. It is anti-Christian dogmatic teaching which separates the sinner from God and a personal relationship with the Saviour. Those who believe in created grace, for example, heretically deny that that personal relationship can ever exist. Christ to them is detached and not one of us. As far as the papal heresy is concerned, the major barometer to gauge their error and their ecclesiological mess is the fact that only the pope of rome can be a vessel of the Holy Spirit. Only he can possess the phronema; hence, he has a "divine right to rule and spout doctrine for his 'church'". To easily indict their pretensions, one simply need ask: WHERE ARE THERE AUTOCEPHALIES IN the latin heresy? Where is the principle of collegiality espoused by them? Where do they concur with the Church in seeing all local churches as equal? All the successors of the Apostles equal? They are a heretical quagmire which is an affront to piety.
Emancipate yourself from the errors of "world orthodoxy". Spiritual slavery cannot form you in Orthodoxy. Come and see the Uncreated Light in the Church of the Fathers, the Canons, the Phronema.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS The Patristic quotes specifically indicate that one should separate from those teaching heresy, which we have done, but they do not empower one man to declare large tracts of the Church graceless. The Sixth Ecumenical which upheld the Orthdoxy of St. Maximos the Confessor against the monthelites came AFTER his death. Are we to presume then the Orthodox Church ceased existing after the death of St. Maximos, or those who were under the pastorship of heresy teaching clerics now graceless and damned? The fact of the matter is, after the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Church was reconstitued with most of THOSE SAME CLERICS who repented along with their congregations. One step further, in our day, our Synod has broken Communion with the ecumenists and new calendarists and sergianists in resistance to their churches being taken over by those teaching cacodoxy. We do this in emulation of St. Basil the Great et al, who broke communion with the arians in the same way. The entire time, we read in St. Basil, a call for a Council and for resistance on the part of those who had pastors who taught. He opposed pastors but did not condemn local churches and he received those who left error from these local churches NOT AS RETURNED heretics but brothers in the Faith UNTIL a GENERAL COUNCIL CONDEMNED THE heresy. BUT IN THIS HISTORY, HE CALLED FOR RESTORATION OF ORTHODOXY IN LARGE TRACTS OF THE IMPERIAL CHURCH NOT REJECTION OF IT, NOT REESTABLISHING IT IN OTHER SYNODEIAS. Indeed, one could argue that what rocor was was more liberal than we are, for it did concelebrate with Serbs engaging in ecumenism as well as the JP. Yes, our Synodeia has had a warm relationship with the JP, but that is in the hope of unity and bringing the resistance to the forefront to call that General Council and condemn error.
PPS The calendar schism was instituted in opposition to the anathemas of THREE COUNCILS OF JERUSALEM BEARING ANATHEMAS AGAINST IT. It was introduced with the papal paschalion BEARING THE ANATHEMA OF NICEA. Indeed, it violated the Spirit of Nicea by introducing a breach in Eucharistic Communion--this would be grounds for a further anathema. The "pan-orthodox congress" which initiated the schism was presided over by a masonic "heirarch" WHO HAD BEEN DEPOSED BY THE STATE CHURCH OF GREECE, who barred Bishops of the EP who disagreed with participating and called only those affable to a masonic agenda into its discussions, in all a quorum of perhaps twelve bishops FOR THE ENTIRE ORTHODOX WORLD!!!, most of whom were nothing more than vagantes. They not only introduced the calendar schism, but also proceeded to abolish some fasts and feasts, the ryasso, beards for priests, sought to discourage monasticism, sought to set a timetable for "recognition of anglican orders and 'reunion' with the 'church of england'", and approved marriages for bishops and second and third marriages for presbyters. This was condemned in the Russian church, at home and in the diaspora as RENOVATIONISM and an anathema was laid against it. Again, this is further evidence of who the REAL schismatics are.

[Seraphim Reeves]

LatinTrad,

What is a heretic, Seraphim?

Heretic (Greek Hairetikos) - strictly speaking means "able to choose", though used in the Christian context to denote someone who has chosen falsehood, more specifically, in the realm of Christian doctrine.

Is it someone who commits certain sins?

Yes, since heresy is a sin - though not all sins are heresies.

Someone who espouses false dogma publicly?

Of course, particularly after being adominished.

Someone who is condemned by a synod as such? I ask because I am confused by your application of the term heretic.

I don't see what is so confusing - it seems to me like you're being obscurant.

You seem to be under the impression that any layman has the authority to declare a bishop or Church "heretical".

The key mistake you're making here, is that it is the "layman's" judgement that is involved here. The heresy of ecumenism for example has already been condemned synodically in modern times, and in it's parts is a conglomeration of already condemned propositions. The only "private judgement" then, that the layman is making, is as to whether or not he will heed the voice of the Church on this matter - but then again, are not all decisions for or against obedience to the Faith, ultimatly, "private" in this sense?

When the canons talk about separating oneself from heretics, are they saying that laymen must evaluate the bishops and see if they can remain in communion with them? Or are they saying that a bishop who has been condemned as such by a council must be treated as anathema?

Though provided in the previous post, I will offer this again, with emphasis...

"… But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodical verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions." (Canon XV of the First-Second Council of Constantinople)

The idea that falsehood only becomes such when individuals are finally punished for espousing it, is legal-positivism at it's worst, and has nothing in common with the thought of the Church on this subject. Rather, the actual deposition/defrocking/exommunication of guilty parties serves only one end - the beginning of their healing, and the protection of the faitfhul in general from their poison.

Of course, the situation is made all the worse when an entire local Church falls - then you may be waiting for some time for anyone within that geographical area to re-group and condemn the false teachers by name in a concilliar manner. In the mean time, this does not mean one is to wait and allow their own souls to be poisoned, as well as those of their loved ones.

It is at times like these that I thank God for the Catholic Church. No matter how many scandals you point to, no matter how many Korans the Pope kisses, the One Church is still the One Church. Sin is sin. Granted. But the Church remains.

The tragedy in your situation is, of course, what happens when the "head" of your church is himself, a heretic? He can be judged by no one, and as RC ecclessiology has developed, no one can legitimately separate from him. Hence, you're at the mercy of his whims, good or bad.

Of course, this is a non-issue if one believes in his "infalibility" (whether in a minimalistic way, or a maximalistic way - it seems to depend on which Roman Catholic you talk to...from the EWTN style "maximalists", to the Lefebvrist "minimalists"), since from the get go you have decided he personally, unfailing, represents the consciousness of the Church in all ages - and if not (I admit I'm reading between the lines here of various Papal "dogmas"), then why the total impossibility of severing relations with the Pope, or the possibility that he could be concilliarly condemend (as has happened before, at least prior to Rome's schism from the Church of Christ.)

The Pope kissing the Koran was a terrible spectacle - yet who can call him on this in your church? Can he be defrocked? Within the RC paradigm, could he be in any way disciplined? I seem to remember a time when even offering a pinch of incence to Jupiter under the threat of dismemberment and death was still considered an excommunicable sin in the Latin Church...

Seraphim