Why Traditionalist Orthodox MUST split from World Orthodoxy!

[CGW]

A Patriarch is nothing except a bishop, nothing more.

Whether that is true, I leave to bishops. I do not, however, see the point of such a remark.

But no matter, a layman is not exempt from knowing and confessing the faith-

That I have to disagree with. The assertion at least must be qualified, because of the many who are not able to comprehend matters at the level you feel it is necessary for you (and by implication, myself) to understand them. But be that as it may....

- and unlike most people with other beliefs, I have the exact same faith as my Bishop.

But that begs the question. Is this congruity the result of your submission, or your judgement, or the happy coincidence of having been raised in a diocese where you've never had to confront the question? I say this because you do seem to be asserting that the second is illegitimate, and in the next breath you do seem to say that I should be exerting exactly that judgement against my own bishop.

Well, let's talk about my bishop a minute. Certainly it would be better if my bishop and I shared opinions on all matters religious. The fact is that we do not (not untypical in Anglicanism) and that officially this is perfectly OK, within limits. But suppose we are obligated to share opinions on some certain matter. Who is to change? It seems, by your standards, that it is my bishop who must change, because after all I have found him wanting. But it seems that in episcopal polity that I must change, because it is not my position to teach him that he is wrong-- and therefore he must excommunicate me if I refuse.

Surely you can see the result of this: a fragmentation of Christendom into dozens if not hundreds of contentious sects, their boundaries delineated by every dispute that arises. This kind of "traditionalism" eschews deviation from the "true faith", which scripture condemns, in favor of contentiousness-- which scripture also condemns. And I cannot see how it can be called humble.

[Natasha]

whoa, see what happens when a person gets caught up in school/work and doesn't get to visit here so often

OL-you have taken my words and twisted them. How interesting it is that you suggest that I think I am high and mighty. What I merely meant to suggest was that you should approach these things humbly, with an open mind and with respect. Guess not.

[Justin Kissel]

OrthodoxLearner,

This thread deals with your salvation. I say this not condescendingly, but as someone who is about your age and has gone through a similar situation: you need to take the time to read through the thread (even if you have to print it and read it 2000 words at a time).

[CGW]

OrthodoxLearner,

This thread deals with your salvation. I say this not condescendingly, but as someone who is about your age and has gone through a similar situation: you need to take the time to read through the thread (even if you have to print it and read it 2000 words at a time).

Well, is it? This really only works while groups are small and communication is good. Otherwise no person can be sure that everything is in order.

[Justin Kissel]

I'm not quite sure I understand your response, CGW?

[CGW]

Well, the thing is that in, say, 19th century Russia, a big place with not all that great communication, who could be sure that all their bishops are behaving canonically? Stories about who is commemorating whom and who prayed together and so forth are at best only mitigated by modern communications; truth spreads more quickly, but so does falsehood and misunderstanding.

In some respects, we are back to an ante-Nicene church, because the last emperor, as it were, died long, long ago. We are back to competing bishops and sects and the like, only it isn't so easy to sort them out without the benefit of hindsight.And indeed the situation looks perilous-- it probably is perilous. But the peril cuts both ways. Against the peril of the large bodies going adrift, there is the opposite peril of dissidents fomenting schism over issues that aren't really genuine. And by "genuine" I don't mean that they are contrived, but that rather they are the intellectual slave of a suspicion or even a paranoia that is itself surely in service to human frailty and even sin as much as it serves the Spirit.

Even so small a body as ROCOR-- even ROAC-- is subject to the limits of time and misinformation and malice. It is all well enough to talk about this on a forum where information (and misinformation) cross time zones with ease. Most people do not have the time, never mind the wherewithall, to do what we are doing. And of those who do, it is not given to all that they should be able to follow what they are seeing, or distinguish good from bad. We flatter ourselves to think that we can so distinguish. Surely a requirement to do so dooms the humble. Are we who post here humble? I would have to say, Mostly not, nor meek. At least not in qhat we post here. No, I see this more along the more general academic entertainment of learned disputation. But it is crucial that this mostly doesn't figure in effective action, because mostly it would result in overly grand actions on the basis of overly small points.

Which is to say, excessive. Now, someone is bound to say something like, "Excess in the defense of the Faith is no sin." I do not agree. The problem is that excess means a loss of control, and a loss of control means handing the intellectual tiller over to sin. Excess is the enemy of temperance, of moderation, of wholeness, of consideration.

So for some, salvation may come in not considering these issues, and simply doing as their priest tells them.

[Justin Kissel]

CGW

Well, the thing is that in, say, 19th century Russia, a big place with not all that great communication, who could be sure that all their bishops are behaving canonically? Stories about who is commemorating whom and who prayed together and so forth are at best only mitigated by modern communications; truth spreads more quickly, but so does falsehood and misunderstanding.

In some respects, we are back to an ante-Nicene church, because the last emperor, as it were, died long, long ago. We are back to competing bishops and sects and the like, only it isn't so easy to sort them out without the benefit of hindsight.And indeed the situation looks perilous-- it probably is perilous. But the peril cuts both ways. Against the peril of the large bodies going adrift, there is the opposite peril of dissidents fomenting schism over issues that aren't really genuine. And by "genuine" I don't mean that they are contrived, but that rather they are the intellectual slave of a suspicion or even a paranoia that is itself surely in service to human frailty and even sin as much as it serves the Spirit.

I agree so far (perhaps not in the application, but at least in the principles and ideas you are giving)

Even so small a body as ROCOR-- even ROAC-- is subject to the limits of time and misinformation and malice. It is all well enough to talk about this on a forum where information (and misinformation) cross time zones with ease. Most people do not have the time, never mind the wherewithall, to do what we are doing. And of those who do, it is not given to all that they should be able to follow what they are seeing, or distinguish good from bad. We flatter ourselves to think that we can so distinguish. Surely a requirement to do so dooms the humble. Are we who post here humble? I would have to say, Mostly not, nor meek. At least not in qhat we post here.

I think I still mostly agree, though some doubts are raised in my head and I'm tempted to interject where I think I might disagree. But you put it so eloquently, and it convicts me so personally, that perhaps I better not object. But... I do have a few disagreements I feel that I must voice:

No, I see this more along the more general academic entertainment of learned disputation. But it is crucial that this mostly doesn't figure in effective action, because mostly it would result in overly grand actions on the basis of overly small points.

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps it is hard for someone my age (whether actual age, or number of years as a Christian) to have a mature perspective on many of these things. Perhaps people can deal the words and ideas out like a deck of cards, but don't really understand the power behind the cards we or others hold. You are persuasive in what you say-- but persuasiveness isn't my touchstone any longer. I agree with you that much that goes on at online fora is academic entertainment. At most, it's normally just a hobby; some might collect coins, other stamps: we collect theological and historical information and store it in our heads. Stamp and coin collectors sometimes spend outrageous amounts of money to buy that which they collect: perhaps that which we collect on fora also makes us to outrageous things at times.

Yet, I do not think that this is always the case. I left Protestantism partly because of discussions on fora. I don't think that I left over small points. I also ended up leaving the Antiochians, partly because of discussions on online fora. Things that happened in "real life" (whatever that is) probably had greater impact on my decision(s) than online information--yet fora such as this one did play a part. When I was a Bible student at a Protestant College, and didn't even want to be a Protestant, I wouldn't have viewed online fora as nothing but intellectual entertainment. The same goes for what happened a couple years later with the Antiochians, and a couple years after that, with ROCOR.

Perhaps these are things you consider "overly grand actions," and perhaps you consider my reasoning to be based on "small points". I won't disagree--if only because, coming from different perspectives, I don't expect that voicing my disagreement would change your mind. I know that people sometimes have a low view of fora: it is thought that a lot of talk goes on, and nothing really productive. Personally, I've found the opposite in those who are sincere. I don't claim to be a very sincere person--but at the moments in my life when I was sincere enough to be humble, I think the internet was a good thing. Why do I make such a big issue of this? Well, you said:

So for some, salvation may come in not considering these issues, and simply doing as their priest tells them.

The reason I've said all that I said above is because I disagree with this last statement, and the reasons for my disagreement are outlined above. That is to say, I believe one can find the truth on such discussion fora, and that one cannot always trust one's priest. Even in Constantinople they often talked theology in the market-place: discussion or "learned disputation" outside the actual church building is certainly nothing new. The Church you attend is not always the one that has the truth, either. It might be easy to sit back and think that a thing like icons is not really a big thing--that at least it's too small a thing to break communion over or leave a bishop over. But what is easy is not always what is right.

I do not want to tell people to disobey their priests. I have great respect for priests, and cringe when I think of the weight they must carry. I try to address each priest with respect, even if he be Antiochian or in some other such "jurisdiction". Having said that, his being a priest doesn't make him infallible. If anything, his being a priest probably means that he has less time than the average person to investigate issues, and simply relies on others for information. This is the case with the priests I know who commune non-chalcedonians: they are good men, kind, honest, pastorally hearted, though not especially theologically inclined; when it comes to theology, they simply accept what they are told. They have 2nd jobs; they have a parish to watch over. When they get an hour of rest, they'd rather spend it watching a football game than reading some interent forum (and I'm in no position to judge!)

In a way I understand this: it's only natural to trust your Patriarch, Metropolitan, and the theologian's they appoint to study and give reports on issues. But what happens if even the hierarchs and theologians are in error? Obedience does not clear off the ugly mark of heresy (or being under an openly heretical bishop) from one's soul. The Fathers teach that not even martyrdom can erase such a mark. Not even martyrdom! That's scary.

Heresy is a cancer, and obedience and trust in someone who is telling you that you don't really have cancer (when you really do) is not going to produce good results. Salvation always comes through guarding the soul, both in terms of simple piety, and on a theological level as well. Salvation indeed may not come through spending hours a day dwelling on all the small details involved in these issues; nonetheless, if we are talking about heresy, the issues cannot be ignored either, even if many of the small details are.

This is especially relevant to OrthodoxLearner. He's not some young person who came to this forum and got shocked and scandalized by the posters of this forum, because he just had never seen anything like it. He's given a few people "what for" on his own. And he decided to stick his nose into the issue (being a bookworm, I can relate). Now, however, he is at mid-stream. If he tries to change horses or turn around, he might very well drown. Therefore, I urged him to continue. I've been in the same type of situation that he is. I'm trying to save him some pain. And some humiliation. I hope he doesn't have to do as much flip-flopping and jurisdiction-hopping as I did before he comes to the truth. It's a spiritually exhausting and difficult road. It's better to get on the narrow path, but with a light yoke, as quickly as possible.

I can understand that you will most likely disagree with what I've said. If I haven't been persuasive, I hope that I've at least explained why I said what I said.