Old Calenderist

[Seraphim Reeves]

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.

So you propose we wait for a Council, headed in large part by the ecumenists themselves, to judge and hear their own case? I don't think this position appreciates at all the profound sweep this heresy has made of so called "world Orthodoxy".

btw., it is interesting that you mention the Papists here - could you please point me to the Ecumenical Council which by name, condemns the Papists?

Of course, we do not need such - for the specific errors of the Papists have been at various time condemned in canons which have received (with time) pan-Orthodox acceptance - not to mention the real estrangement their schism created, between them (the Papists) and the Church of Christ.

All of this is beside the fact that even since 1983, much has changed in "world Orthodoxy" - for the worst. Perhaps most conspicuously, the unia of the Antiochian Patriarchate with the Monophysites...the last I checked, the "world Orthodox" are still firmly wedded to the Patriarch of Antioch; not to mention (last I checked) by your own criteria, said Monophysites have been condemend by an Ecumenical Council.

The Church is like a Living Tree, whose root is Christ. When branches are cut off (schism, heresy) they will for some time maintain not only the appearance of living branches, but even for a while the "sap" of the Tree. But in time this will be gone, and the branch will begin to decompose.

The position taken by the likes of Metropolitan Cyprian may have been acceptable several decades ago; indeed prior to '65, there was a general unwillingness to make comments about the grace of the New Calendarists one way or another. But to pretend the "lifting of anathemas" did not occur, that this was looked at with relative indifference by those "under" and outside of the "authority" of the EP, or subsequent travesities, is what would be required for the Cyprian position to hold water.

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.

I'd like to see evidence that the ROCOR actually maintained formal communion with Serbia and the JP after '83; in particular, regarding the case of St.Philaret - I know this is the current line of the "new ROCOR" and it has been for much of the last decade, but this hasn't been born out by anything I've seen. This is why concelebrations with the Serbs, for example, were such a scandal even up until relatively recently. Though materially a fact of life now, to my knowledge up until quote recently Patriarch Pavle has in fact stated quite clearly that there is no official relationship between the Serbs and the ROCOR - and the JP's cordial relation with the ROCOR also seems to be a dirty little secret on it's part as well.

Suffice it to say, this position is on it's face, ecclessiologically meaningless - not in communion with "these heretics", but in communion with those who maintain precisely that form of communion with them?

Seraphim

[user_218]

I would like to suggest that you check the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, they do have a Diocese here in United States.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is a Traditiionlist Church, and is the Mother Church of all Orthodoxy.
Here is a Link
http://www.jerusalempatriarchate.com/

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

The "Mother" church. Exactly what does that mean?

[Bogatyr]

The anathemas and excommunication of +Patriarch Michael Cerularios affirm a Council held c. 869 in Constantinople HOLDING ECUMENICAL CHARACTER which condemned the filioque and "rebaptism" conspicuously. It was presided over by St. Photios the Great. St. John Kukuzelis alluded to it in his defence of Orthodoxy against Lyons and likewise St. Mark Evgenikos against Florence. This is illustrative here. For all these Saints did break Communion with those teaching heresy, but DID NOT, at all, break Communion with the Church to refound it. And they did so at times when it appeared the heretical party was very much in the ascendancy. I have more Faith in Orthodoxy and in the Confession of the Saints than to presume that the Fathers, the Canons and the Phronema cannot be heard in a Council. Such thinking is NOT characteristic of ANY Father. bl. +Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) makes precisely this point in his replies to the zealots on Valaam and those on MT ATHOS. He, furthermore, recognizes the path of St. Maximos the Confessor but WARNS these party that a balance must be maintained in resistance which does not sunder the UNITY THE CHURCH. Furthermore, "evidence" of Communion which Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret maintained DURING THE '70s and '80s is the FACT THE JERUSALEM MISSION and PALESTINE SOCIETY NEVER CEASED FUNCTIONING. All ROCOR clerics functioning in the Holy Land during this period did so with the BLESSING of the Patriarch of Jerusalem and DID concelebrate with him, DID commemorate him. Mind you, this was a period where the JP WAS A MEMBER of the wcc, as it seems it is now. We ask that you show us WHERE THE FATHERS AND THE CANONS AND THE PHRONEMA ever allowed one Synodeia to unilaterally anathemize large tracts of the Church, where they empowered an "alternate church to ever be established". That is ecclesiologically untenable and a montanist position, WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED as heresy. I'm sorry, but extremist goc ecclesiology is just as heretical as ecumenism.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovksy
PS The "lifting of anathemas" is analogous to the florentine union or the union of lyons and has to do with ONE local church; moreover, that ONE LOCAL Church historically did have people who espoused Orthodoxy even in the face of error UNTIL THE ERROR WAS CONDEMNED BY A COUNCIL AND ORTHODOXY RESTORED.

[user_218]

By Using the words Mother Church, I only meant that the Jerusalem was the first land to be sanctified by the teachings of Christ.
St. James was the first of many Holy Bishops of Jerusalem who shepherded the Mother Church.

Orthodoxy started in Jerusalem, the First Divine Liturgy was in Jerusalem, The First Bishop was Ordained in Jerusalem, It was Jerusalem where Disciples were chosen to preach in other lands.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Epifanios,

All of that nostalgia should bring back very fond memories for any Orthodox Christian.

But today, an Ecumenist church can only be a "Mother" of other ecumenist churches.

[user_218]

Orthodoxy

I agree with you, I am against Ecumenisim. My use of "Mother Church" does not reflect any special title or Authority over other Orthodox Churches.