"Canonical",
Pullleeeeze. How can the calendasr possibly make one a heretic. Julius Ceasar's pagan calendar is hardly theological or dogmatic.
Much is made by the schismatics (read - new calendarists) of the "pagan heritage" of the Church calendar. Of course, this demonstrates no more than it would to show the "pagan heritage" of the nations that have come to be Baptized by the Church - are such people, with their renewed lives, also irredeemably "pagan"?
Your war, is not with a "pagan calendar" but with the Church's calendar. Big difference - the Church calendar which was a product of the (genuinely) oecumenical Church, forged and setteled upon by Oecumenical Synods.
To attack this unity, at the very least is schismatic. To do it with the motives outlined by the 1920 Patriarchal Encyclical of the EP, would be by consequence, without a doubt, heretical. Do you have some other explanations for the following zingers...
Unto the Churches of Christ everywhere
Our own church holds that rapprochement between the various Christian Churches and fellowship between them is not excluded by the doctrinal differences which exist between them.
So many troubles and sufferings are caused by other Christians and great hatred and enemity are aroused, with such insignificant results, by this tendency of some to proselytize and entice the followers of other Christian confessions.
Secondly, that above all love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and "fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ" (Eph. 3. 6).
And of course, not forgetting that said document viewed the implimentation of the new calendar as the first step in pursuing this revised ecclessiology...
a. By the acceptance of a uniform calendar for the celebration of the great Christian feasts at the same time by all the churches.
I wasn't arguing protestant theology, nor comparing it to Orthodox theology and dogma. My reference was to the protestant-like schisms that seems to be infecting Orthodoxy these days.
What does that mean "Protestant like"? Such vague language betrays to me a dishonest agenda - use terms which do not at all describe what is going on (which you admit here, since you know full well there is no doctrinal parallel between the Old Calendar/Genuine Orthodox resistance and Protestantism) simply because of an extremely superficial (seeming) similiarity between these two phenomena. And why use such terms/comparisons? Because they are loaded with a perjorative content...because goodness knows, no one wants to be compared to a (gasp) Protestant.
Perhaps if there is a superficial "Protestant likeness" to the genuine Orthodox resistance to the neo-heresies, it is because the new-heretics themselves behave and think so much like Papists - hence, I suppose anyone opposing them would bear a least a little similarity to the Protestants of old, if only on this level. Of course, the basis for this resistance is fundamentally different than than entertained by the Protestants (who were not protesting so much to preserve and protect, as they were to avoid what they'd come to find problematic with Papism, and "re-invent the wheel" so to speak...an excercise the Orthodox are obviously not involved in, though I cannot say the same for the Schemmanites and similar innovators.)
I do know what canonical means, and there's a unity factor there that schismatics seem to forget about.
"Unity" with what though, to what end? Just for the sake of it? So that we can enjoy each other's polite company? United so as to avoid/ignore the ulgy family secret, much like how "civilized" snobs give the appearance of gentily, when in reality their hearts are filled with dissension and contempt?
I simply fail to see what unity you are advocating here. Unity for what? In what?
Modern man (I really mean "western man" when I say this) is obssessed with this kind of "unity". A godless peace, for the sake of appearances.
22 And it was not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but whereas they lived in a great war of ignorance, they call so many and so great evils peace. (Wisdom 14:22)
22 "There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked." (Isaiah 48:22)
3 Take me not off with the wicked, with those who are workers of evil, who speak peace with their neighbors, while mischief is in their hearts. (Psalm 28:3)
This is the type of "peace" and "unity" which the world offers - it is the very same "peace" which the anti-Christ will also offer the world, when he is manifest, par excellance. It is not an overstatement then, to say that the ecumenical movement is a preparation of the anti-Christ for we are told in the Apocalypse, that he will unite all religion under his supervision, giving all they desire, so long as they ultimatly burn incense before his image (much like the "peace" the first Christians were offered by pagan Rome.)
The unity of the Church (God's "ekklessia" or in Hebrew, "qahal" - both meaning those God has called and gathered to Himself from the world) is something which can never be taken from Her. It is of the essence - and it flows from truth, for God is Himself "truth"...which is precisely why Christ stands silent before modern man; because "modern man" has taken the side of Pilate, satisfied with a self imposed/sophistical agnosticism towards the very possibility of truth.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (St.John 18:37-38)
But it seems to me that those who break away over issues like calendars redefine the word to suit their situation.
If the new calendar is anti-canonical (in fact, it is more than this, as the Gregorian calendar which it mimicks is in fact anathema according to several local and pan-Orthodox declarations), and manifestly intended to facilitate ecclessiological heresy, what "redefinition" is necessary?
By definition, ecumenism is 1) A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations and 2) A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.
The work of conversion from the world to the glory of God, has always been the Church's apostolate - and the only legitimate basis for Her relationship to peoples currently outside of Her. This can never be something new, as it is the mandate of Christ Himself, Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8) - thus by extension, it is the mandate of His members ("the Church").
You are right though, in indicating something new and phenomenal about the "ecumenical movement" as such. It is this "movement" which we speak of when we talk about "ecumenism". The only true "ecumenism" of course, fits under the banner of what I just described (the assimilation of all men into Christ Jesus.) Of course, this is not what the ecumenical movement stands for.
Rather, the ecumenical movement takes for granted, that all of the various "Christianities", "truths", schisms, etc., already have this genuine ecclessial standing. This is manifested at all levels of the ecumenical movement in which many nominal Orthodox have involved themselves.
it is the position of the 1920 Patriarchal Encyclical of the EP, which was addressed to the "Churches of Christ everywhere" (a document not addressed to Orthodox Churches, but to Protestants, Roman Catholics, etc.) which allegedly share in a common hope and salvation.
it is the position of the World Council of Churches, whose foundational premise is that all of it's participants represent parts of the "Church of Christ" and are working towards an at present unfulfilled unity.
it is the position taken for granted in many popular "Orthodox" publications and seminaries (and various "agreed statements"), that the genuine, mysteriological life ("grace of the mysteries") exists outside of the Orthodox Church, sacramental economy then not manifesting any condescension on the Church's part, but rather a recognition of already present "grace."
etc., etc.
You seem to bandy about the word as if ALL contact with the nonOrthodox is forbidden, but fail to define what it means.
Hardly. Forums like this manifest quite clearly that this is not what I mean, "seemingly" or otherwise.
You do not indicate what kind of ecumenism it is that prompts you to call people who shake hands with a Baptist, socially or otherwise, are "heretics."
I'd appreciate you providing some evidence that I, or any regular participant on this forum for that matter, has put forward that the mere exchange of niceties or the extension of simple civility to all men (irregardless of creed or affiliation) is tantamount to heresy.
OTOH, what I have described here (the reality of "world Orthodoxy", or for those more "traditional" adherants of said schism, the reality of those tradionalesque "world Orthodoxers" are in communion with and submission to) is very much heresy. It is the heresy condemned in 1983 under the supervision of St.Philaret, in the famous "Anathema against 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!"
Seraphim
